Flying Oneself on Business: Insurance And FARs

killbilly

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
Two part question:

1) The FARs stipulate that I can fly myself on business if the flying is incidental to the business, i.e., I use the airplane as transportation to and from a meeting. (61.113) While I cannot receive compensation for more than a pro-rata share for the flight, how is that pro-rata share determined if I am the sole occupant of the aircraft? Can I be reimbursed legally for a portion of the rental and/or fuel by my employer if I'm traveling on their behalf? Just want to make sure I understand the FAR.

2) Most employers don't have insurance in place to cover employees who fly themselves. While I've placed an inquiry to my CFO to find out if there is a waiver I can obtain, I am guessing that I am not the only person to have faced this issue. How have other pilots dealt with the insurance issue?

Thanks much, in advance.

EDIT - Found some great information on the AOPA website about this, in the Pilot Information Center, if anyone is interested.
 
My understanding is that you can be reimbursed 100% for the rental, fuel, ect.

IF, and only IF it is truely incidental for your job. As long as you can truely demonstrate that you would have driven/airlined anyway then you are not acting as a pilot "for compisation or hire"

If you go straight to a meeting, and fly straight back, you should be OK. You can even recive your normal per deim/travel pay over and above your normal sallary.

If you are flying to the valley for a meeting and spend a few days on south padre, then it's a combination of the two, and you would have to justify why your company paid for you to fly on vacation.


However every different FSDO may have a different interpertaion. Check out "FARs explained" for some better references.
 
Negative on the 100% reimbursement being ok. The FAA has ruled that the resulting free flight time amounts to "compensation" in their eyes, and thus is prohibited for a private pilot. You have to share in the expenses for the flight, period. Now, defining "pro rata share" when you're the only person aboard is a little sticky and suggests that you'd have to pay 100%. To be safe, rather than have your company reimburse 100% of the rental (if they even would in the first place), have them simply pay you as if you'd driven your own car. I don't think the FAA can find fault with that.
 
aloft said:
Negative on the 100% reimbursement being ok. The FAA has ruled that the resulting free flight time amounts to "compensation" in their eyes, and thus is prohibited for a private pilot. You have to share in the expenses for the flight, period. Now, defining "pro rata share" when you're the only person aboard is a little sticky and suggests that you'd have to pay 100%. To be safe, rather than have your company reimburse 100% of the rental (if they even would in the first place), have them simply pay you as if you'd driven your own car. I don't think the FAA can find fault with that.
Click to expand...

Aloft - you make a good point. At least two references that I found indicated that just being paid my salary while flying could be considered compensation, but the hinging point seemed to be on the definition of "incidental."

The articles I found on AOPA seem to indicate that flying it is legal, but I couldn't find a definition of pro-rata share when I was the only one in the plane. I'll either call AOPA or the FSDO for more information. I'm thinking that if I could at least expense the gas I purchase on that flight that would be helpful. But I dunno yet.

It also appears that if I purchase a renter's policy, there is a way to add my company to the named insured list. Apparently, some companies are okay with it as long as the policy limits meet or exceed the master employee insurance policy at the company. Might not be worth it at that point, depending on what the premiums are. I'll just have to see.
 
killbilly said:
Aloft - you make a good point. At least two references that I found indicated that just being paid my salary while flying could be considered compensation, but the hinging point seemed to be on the definition of "incidental."
Click to expand...

You're ==allowed== to be compensated when the flying is incidental to your business...that's the whole point of this regulation.

pro-rata share when I was the only one in the plane
Click to expand...

The pro-rata requirement doesn't apply in this case.
 
tgrayson said:
You're ==allowed== to be compensated when the flying is incidental to your business...that's the whole point of this regulation.



The pro-rata requirement doesn't apply in this case.
Click to expand...


Ahhh! It doesn't apply because I'm not carrying passengers, correct? Okay, I get it now.

Thanks. That makes a whole lot more sense, and frankly makes life easier.

Awesome. Thanks.
 
aloft said:
To be safe, rather than have your company reimburse 100% of the rental (if they even would in the first place), have them simply pay you as if you'd driven your own car. I don't think the FAA can find fault with that.
Click to expand...

Had a student who billed this way - if it was more than X miles, he billed up to last minute air fare, otherwise, he billed as if it were a car rental. Might help that he owned the company and the company owned the airplane. :D
 
killbilly said:
Ahhh! It doesn't apply because I'm not carrying passengers
Click to expand...

That alone makes the pro rata paragraph inapplicable, for your case, but even if you were carrying passengers, as long as their carriage was "incidental" to the business, it'd still be ok, as in the following interp:



Mr. Harry M. Mays

Dear Mr. Mays:

This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1976, requesting an opinion as to the legal permissibility, under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), of allowing private pilots to transport juvenile wards of San Bernardino County.
By way of background, you have stated that the County Probation Department currently employs a number of persons who possess private pilot certificates. The department places a number of juveniles in foster homes which are many hours during time from your central San Bernardino facility. You wish to allow persons possessing private pilot certificates to transport those juveniles by air. As we understand the facts, the aircraft used would be rented on a per trip basis. Aircraft operation is not part of the pilot's job description, nor a condition of employment or advancement. The pilot would not be compensated over and above his usual salary. The county would pay for the aircraft rental charges.
We will answer your questions in the order which they have been presented:
1. "Is it legal for the department to use personnel with pilot's licenses to transport juvenile wards?" The privileges and limitations of a private pilot certificate are found in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 61.118. The basic rules announced therein states that "a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." Subsection (a) of the regulations, however, does allow a private pilot, for compensation or hire, to act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that employment or business and the aircraft does not carry passengers for compensation or hire.

So long as there is no compensation paid by or for the passengers, or received by the pilot, for the flight, a private pilot may carry passengers provided that the flight is only incident to employment. Whether a flight is merely incident to employment or a necessary or major part of his job requires a qualitative judgment based upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Is the piloting of an aircraft a condition of employment or advancement; or a part of his job description? If so, flights would not be "incident" to employment.
b. Is the pilot compensated, over and above his normal income, for operating an aircraft? If so, the operation of the aircraft is not merely "incidental" to his work.
c. How much of the pilot's work time is spent operating an aircraft? The greater the amount of time, the less the operations are "incident" to employment.
2. Is there any restriction as to the distance persons can be transported? There is no distance restriction.
3. Could a person possessing a commercial license perform these duties? If so, would there be any restrictions? A commercial pilot may carry persons or property for compensation or hire, and may act as pilot in command of an aircraft for compensation or hire, as stated in FAR 61.139 (14 CFR 61.139). If the pilots are not already employees of the Probation Department and are hired as independent contractors for the purpose of providing a transportation service, the requirements of FAR Part (135 Air Taxi/Commercial Operator) apply. These persons would not be considered as executive, or business aviation pilots engaged in Part 91 operation.

Sincerely,

DEWITTE T. LAWSON, JR.
Regional Counsel

cc:
William Sabourin
Deputy County Counsel
 
tgrayson said:
That alone makes the pro rata paragraph inapplicable, for your case, but even if you were carrying passengers, as long as their carriage was "incidental" to the business, it'd still be ok, as in the following interp:

So long as there is no compensation paid by or for the passengers, or received by the pilot, for the flight, a private pilot may carry passengers provided that the flight is only incident to employment.
Click to expand...

So my take is that they couldn't transport the kids because they would be getting compensation for transporting them, that was the whole point. Correct?

Basically, you could only receive compensation with pax on board if they were just along for the ride. In my opinion that would be pretty hard to explain to the feds if they ask.
 
Sidious said:
So my take is that they couldn't transport the kids because they would be getting compensation for transporting them, that was the whole point. Correct?
Click to expand...

The letter is allowing the transport of the kids as long as it is incidental to business - as long as the kids don't pay for it and as long as the employee doesn't get extra for it and as long as the employee doesn't spend a good portion of their time flying and as long as the flying portion is not a job requirement.
 
Sidious said:
So my take is that they couldn't transport the kids because they would be getting compensation for transporting them, that was the whole point. Correct?
Click to expand...


180 degrees off course.

Consider the following scenerio

You are my hula hoop salesman at Whamo Inc. I ask you and Billy Bob to travel from Dallas to Houston for a sales meeting. I need to either reimburse you, or pay for transportation costs. I tell you that I will either rent a car or pay you milage to drive.

You can offer to fly yourself and Billy Bob to HOU if I will pay for the aircraft rental and fuel.

Since you would be driving anyway, this flight is "incidendal to your buisness" which is selling hulla hoops. You are not carrying "passengers or cargo for hire", only a coworker and supplies

As long as I pay for/reimburse the direct costs of the flight, and not a penny more you have not recived any profit. The hours in your logbook are a nice bonus, but do not count as compensation in this case.

This is how aircrat salesmen (many of whom only have PPLs) do not have to be CPLs. Their job is to sell machines, and demonstrating those machines is simply a part of the sales process.



Suppose, I ask Killbilly (not a CSEL pilot) to take my plane to BMT and pick up my kids and bring them back up to DAL, saying that I'll pay for the plane and fuel.

Since Killbilly has no buisnees in BMT or any relationship with my kids, this flight would not be incidental to any buisness. In this case the hours in his logbook WOULD be compensation for carrying passengers.
 
USMCmech said:
Since Killbilly has no buisnees in BMT or any relationship with my kids, this flight would not be incidental to any buisness. In this case the hours in his logbook WOULD be compensation for carrying passengers.
Click to expand...


Ill take 150 degrees of course, 180 is a bit much :)

Anyway lets pursue it a little more because I think your example is flawed.

What "business" or "relationship" do those personel have with the kids? None except to transport them, that was the sole purpose. Its incidental sure but they are still carrying those pesky pax. Seems to me they are being compensated directly for this service, not that they were going anyway to get to work.

Your examples are sound but do not apply to the above example. It does not say that the personel were going somewhere and they would just take these kids along, it was asking if they could transport the kids and get compensated for it.
 
tgrayson said:
The old date merely emphasizes this is a long-standing position of the FAA.
Click to expand...

Every time somebody/somewhere needs interpretation of a regulation IS A GRAY AREA. It was a gray area in 1976, and still is in our days....
Why isn't that "long standing position" put into a well defined/ well written regulation?. Clear for everybody
Maybe that will eliminate so many questions that are asked over and over again everyday, every month or EVEN EVERY 30 years....
 
Sidious said:
So my take is that they couldn't transport the kids because they would be getting compensation for transporting them, that was the whole point. Correct?
Click to expand...

I think the main idea is that transporting the kids is not the primary means of employment of the pilots in question. The transportation is "incidental" to their main job. If they decided never to fly an airplane again, it wouldn't affect their employment.

This was probably a privilege that AOPA argued for, since the ability to fly on business is a big motivator for lots of private pilots.
 
Sidious said:
Ill take 150 degrees of course, 180 is a bit much :)

Anyway lets pursue it a little more because I think your example is flawed.

What "business" or "relationship" do those personel have with the kids? None except to transport them, that was the sole purpose. Its incidental sure but they are still carrying those pesky pax. Seems to me they are being compensated directly for this service, not that they were going anyway to get to work.

Your examples are sound but do not apply to the above example. It does not say that the personel were going somewhere and they would just take these kids along, it was asking if they could transport the kids and get compensated for it.
Click to expand...

They would be transporting the kids regardless in a vehicle of some sort - for example renting a van or car. The pilot is not being compensated directly for their service, thus it is incidental. In this case, they are just renting an airplane for transportation, just like renting a car or van for transportation.

As stated, extra salary = no go, px pay for it = no go, and required for the job = no go. None of these apply!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top