Corporate Aviation program

[Kalikiano]

Does the following fall under common carriage or is this legal for part 91

I work for company X on the non aviation side.
Company X buys a plane.
I get paid to fly employees from company X (on top of my normal salary )around to different offices for meetings. Only employees would be on the business flights that I get paid for.

Company X is not doing this but this is the future plan.

I believe common carriage means I supply the plane but in this case company X supplies the plane and does not allow non employees on paid flights.

 

[Maurus]

What you described is a corporate flight department and so long as you have a commercial certificate it should be fine.

Here is a nice flow chart for you to help.

This is a beta version of a flowchart for the decision-making process to determine what set of regulations governs a flight. I've based it off the Letters of Interpretation as well as the regulations themselves

The flowchart uses standard flowcharting symbols which may be hard to understand for those without the familiarity. I can improve the drawing once I'm reasonably sure it's correct. There is a limit to how much information I can put on one diagram and keep it comprehensible.

It is accurate, but is still being worked on. From the info you have given, your flight would be part 91.

 

[Xiph]

It looks legal under 91, as long as you have a Commercial certificate. Hell, from where I sit, It'd be okay with just a Private if you took out the "on top of normal salary", though there might be some raised eyebrows if you did it on a regular basis.

 

[Maurus]

Flight time is considered compensation by the FAA and this would require a commercial certificate with or without the pay raise unless he does the pro-rata share route.

 

[Xcaliber]

Flight time is considered compensation by the FAA and this would require a commercial certificate with or without the pay raise unless he does the pro-rata share route.

That's not what Xiph is talking about though. He's talking about the exception for private pilots allowing them to get paid for flying incidental to their employment. Granted, that would require that 1. The pilot is flying to the destination for the same reason as all the other employees (ie. not getting paid to be the pilot, but to travel), and 2. as Xiph said, not doing it often enough that the FAA could view flying as one of the pilot's primary responsibilities for that employment.

To the OP, that sounds like a normal 91 flight department to me. :dunno: If you are a commercial pilot, go for it.

 

[Maurus]

That's not what Xiph is talking about though. He's talking about the exception for private pilots allowing them to get paid for flying incidental to their employment. Granted, that would require that 1. The pilot is flying to the destination for the same reason as all the other employees (ie. not getting paid to be the pilot, but to travel), and 2. as Xiph said, not doing it often enough that the FAA could view flying as one of the pilot's primary responsibilities for that employment.

Here

This flight would require all people to pay pro rata share as the flight would no longer be considered incidental to the job. So he either pays for some of the fuel or he has to be a commercial pilot. That interpretation is what I based my comment on.

Now if he flew alone to get to business meetings he could do it as a private pilot.

 

[jerrywhite7]

part 91 all the way . . . but YOU better have a commerical rating! This is exactly what my company does.

 

[Xcaliber]

Here

This flight would require all people to pay pro rata share as the flight would no longer be considered incidental to the job. So he either pays for some of the fuel or he has to be a commercial pilot. That interpretation is what I based my comment on.

Now if he flew alone to get to business meetings he could do it as a private pilot.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

You are correct; I didn't actually look at the reg again before my last post, so I forgot about the part that says no passengers. I stand corrected.

 

[Kalikiano]

Where in the regs does it show that I as a commercial pilot can be paid to fly for company x if they purchase the plane? 91.501 seems to say that but the issue is we are flying a Cessna 182.


another scenario:
Company X an LLC purchases the plane and gets an insurance policy under its name . company Y employs me and I would be flying for them. I dont think they lease it from company X they just use it since the individual that owns X owns Y. I was reading that if an LLC type company dry leases the plane to the main company and main company becomes operator and supplies pilot that is fine but in my scenario LLC purchases plane and insurance.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

another scenario:
Company X an LLC purchases the plane and gets an insurance policy under its name . company Y employs me and I would be flying for them. I dont think they lease it from company X they just use it since the individual that owns X owns Y. I was reading that if an LLC type company dry leases the plane to the main company and main company becomes operator and supplies pilot that is fine but in my scenario LLC purchases plane and insurance.

Our company is set up in a similar manner.

Company A and B decide they want to own an airplane
Company X, LLC is created and purchases the airplane
Company Y, LLC is created to employ the pilots

Company X "contracts" company Y to supply the pilots and management services

Company A and B lease JUST the airplane from Company X.

In all actuality, company A and B control everything about the airplanes and pilots, but there is transparency on paper so as to not flirt with 134 1/2 operations.