Understanding 61.113, Commercial Privs and 91.501

[killbilly]

I'm gonna go ahead and tag @MidlifeFlyer on this one because I'm sure he's got valuable information.

I already read this thread, but it doesn't totally address my question - at least, I'm not understanding that it does. I have a Commercial check ride coming up and I have a sneaking suspicion that this will be a topic of discussion and I want to make sure I understand it fully. I suspect I'm overthinking this and there isn't Commercial Pilot applicability...but I know people get tripped up on this all the time...

Here's the question - if I am an equity-stake owner in a club aircraft, and I use the airplane for my day (non-aviation) job to transport myself and a co-worker to a meeting, can I be compensated for my expenses incurred on the flight?

61.113 states:

Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in Sec. 91.146, if the
sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of Sec. 91.146.

There isn't similar language relative to 61.133 for Commercial Privileges. I'm not sure it even applies at all.

Now, the kind of flight I'm asking about is private carriage, and it's incidental to the (non-aviation) business. So - since I'm not holding out, but I am a part-owner of the airplane, I look to 91.501....and it says something interesting in paragraph (c)(3) regarding "joint ownership", where that ownership allows compensation:

(3) A "joint ownership agreement" means an arrangement whereby one of the registered joint owners of an airplane employs and furnishes the flight crew for that airplane and each of the registered joint owners pays a share of the charge specified in the agreement.
(d) The following may be charged, as expenses of a specific flight, for transportation as authorized by paragraphs (b) (3) and (7) and (c)(1) of this section:
(1) Fuel, oil, lubricants, and other additives.
(2) Travel expenses of the crew, including food, lodging, and ground transportation.
(3) Hangar and tie-down costs away from the aircraft's base of operation.
(4) Insurance obtained for the specific flight.
(5) Landing fees, airport taxes, and similar assessments.
(6) Customs, foreign permit, and similar fees directly related to the flight.
(7) In flight food and beverages.
(8) Passenger ground transportation.
(9) Flight planning and weather contract services.
(10) An additional charge equal to 100 percent of the expenses listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

If equity-stake ownership in the club applies, then I'm a joint owner. And the club members contribute to the expenses per the club charter. And if I'm providing the crew (me) then I can be reimbursed legally for the full expenses of the flight?

And is the flight considered "for hire?"

What say you good people?



...

 

[greg1016]

Code of Federal Regulations


Sec. 91.501

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart F--Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft

Sec. 91.501

Applicability.

[(a) This subpart prescribes operating rules, in addition to those prescribed in other subparts of this part, governing the operation of large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbojet-powered multiengine civil airplanes of U.S. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft of U.S. registry that are operating under subpart K of this part in operations not involving common carriage...


Sounds to me this section of Part 91 is not applicable to your situation. I am no lawyer, but I'd say this regards operating an aircraft under Part 91 as opposed to 135. It assumes a commercial flight crew. It exempts the owner/operator from part 135 operating regulations.

 

[MaRiO FDZ]

IIRC if YOU rent the aircraft, its expenses may be covered, but not your compensation or hire. If he rents it, you can ask for compensation. I'm sticking around see what we find out here. Great topic.

 

[killbilly]

Code of Federal Regulations


Sec. 91.501

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart F--Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft

Sec. 91.501

Applicability.

[(a) This subpart prescribes operating rules, in addition to those prescribed in other subparts of this part, governing the operation of large airplanes of U.S. registry, turbojet-powered multiengine civil airplanes of U.S. registry, and fractional ownership program aircraft of U.S. registry that are operating under subpart K of this part in operations not involving common carriage...


Sounds to me this section of Part 91 is not applicable to your situation. I am no lawyer, but I'd say this regards operating an aircraft under Part 91 as opposed to 135. It assumes a commercial flight crew. It exempts the owner/operator from part 135 operating regulations.

That is what I started to think, but the flying club structure is similar to the way a joint ownership is described. That's why I'm wondering if this is applicable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

That is what I started to think, but the flying club structure is similar to the way a joint ownership is described. That's why I'm wondering if this is applicable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

91.501 and the other sections in Part 91 Subpart F apply exclusively to the types of aircraft and operations its applicability and definitions deal with. The joint ownership it deals with is fractional ownership which, while it sounds like a plain vanilla co-ownership of say, a Bonanza in a private club, is not. Look at 91.1001 for what a "fractional ownership" is.

On your main question, 91.113 allows a private pilot to be compensated for flights incidental to a non-aviation business. My take is that it doesn't matter whether the pilot owns the airplane, rents the airplane, or uses a jointly owned airplane. The remaining question is what costs can be compensated. I'm comfortable saying that if there is a use (rental type) fee associated with its use, that can be compensated. Beyond that I haven't really looked at the question.

Also, unless you are also carrying someone else's person or property, it is not "carriage" of any type. Not public nor private.

The conceptual thing to keep in mind is there is a difference between the privileges of a commercial "pilot" certificate and the requirements for engaging in a commercial "operation."

I wouldn't worry too much about more than the basics - knowing what your privileges are as a commercial pilot and that they don't automatically allow you to engage in a commercial operation. There needs to be some regulatory authority for that, whether it be one of the activities permitted by 119.1(e), under a Part 135 operating certificate, or being paid as an employee or pilot contractor for a Part 91 corporate operation.

Yeah, I know. It's complicated.thats why it's mostly about understanding the basics such as, "does your commercial certificate allow you to take your neighbor and his family to their vacation destination in an airplane you own or rent and be paid for it? The answer is no since that would be a commercial operation and require a Part 135 operating certificate.

 

[USMCmech]

As usual everyone tries really hard to over-complicate things. However, most flights fit into four basic categories.

91 private carriage = guy or group of guys owns an airplane and hires a commercial pilot to fly said airplane. The only passengers/cargo riding on said airplane have a direct connection to the owner(s) and are not charged directly for the flight. Often the owner of your local car dealership doesn't know much about maintaining an airplane and/or hiring pilots, so they hire this out to an airplane "manager" who takes care of the day to day details.

135 commercial operator "Holding out" = providing plane, pilot, fuel, catering, ect. to anyone who wanders in off the street with enough cash.

134.5 (not a real FAR) = private owner who does not hold a certificate illegally offers his airplane for hire to any of his acquaintances who will pay (usually a small enough group that the FAA never finds out).

91K = fractional ownership company. Technically pt 91 private carriage, but operations like NetJets got big enough that the FAA stepped in and made them act like a 135 commercial operator.



As a general rule, the size of the airplane doesn't really matter. You can have large jets under 91, and a Skyhawk under a 135 cert.

What matters is who makes the decision to fly when and where the airplane is flown. If that person is the owner of the plane then it is pt 91, if anyone can walk in off the street and put their credit card down to be flown to XYZ it is 135.

Where does the line between 91 and 134.5 lie? That depends on the FSDO inspector who finds out about it. But if there is not some sort of preexisting relationship between the ownership and passengers (a car dealership could award their top salesman a flight to Vegas) then it's in the grey area.

 

[tcco94]

The never ending conversation that makes my brain hurt.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The only example I disagree with you on, @USMCmech, is the first. What you are describing is a normal Part 91 noncommercial operation, not any type of "carriage" at all.

"Private carriage" is a commercial operation involving carrying persons or property of another for a charge but under circumstances that do not amount to holding out to the public.

The common confusion over that is because the outdated AC on the subject makes it sound like Part 91 applies to private carriage. It doesn't, There is actually a Part 135 certificate for private carriage.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The never ending conversation that makes my brain hurt.

You should try writing a Part 91 agreement among companies -make it two of @USMCmech'd auto dealerships - wanting to share an airplane and pilots in a way that avoids it being treated under Part 135.

 

[killbilly]

91.501 and the other sections in Part 91 Subpart F apply exclusively to the types of aircraft and operations its applicability and definitions deal with. The joint ownership it deals with is fractional ownership which, while it sounds like a plain vanilla co-ownership of say, a Bonanza in a private club, is not. Look at 91.1001 for what a "fractional ownership" is.

Thank you - I will. Seems like one of the dustier corners of the FARs that most of us trainees don't get into.

On your main question, 91.113 allows a private pilot to be compensated for flights incidental to a non-aviation business. My take is that it doesn't matter whether the pilot owns the airplane, rents the airplane, or uses a jointly owned airplane. The remaining question is what costs can be compensated. I'm comfortable saying that if there is a use (rental type) fee associated with its use, that can be compensated. Beyond that I haven't really looked at the question.

Fair enough. I just didn't know if there was applicability when the pilot of the non-aviation business flight was a) providing the plane from a joint-ownership source and b) how that might or might not affect compensation. Item (a) is addressed in 91.1001 and item b) doesn't have a relationship to (a) in this particular case.

The conceptual thing to keep in mind is there is a difference between the privileges of a commercial "pilot" certificate and the requirements for engaging in a commercial "operation."

I wouldn't worry too much about more than the basics - knowing what your privileges are as a commercial pilot and that they don't automatically allow you to engage in a commercial operation. There needs to be some regulatory authority for that, whether it be one of the activities permitted by 119.1(e), under a Part 135 operating certificate, or being paid as an employee or pilot contractor for a Part 91 corporate operation.

Yeah, I know. It's complicated.thats why it's mostly about understanding the basics such as, "does your commercial certificate allow you to take your neighbor and his family to their vacation destination in an airplane you own or rent and be paid for it? The answer is no since that would be a commercial operation and require a Part 135 operating certificate.

Thanks. I know you have better things to do than clarify this for the umpteenth time. What triggered me asking the question was studying the PTS and then reading 119 and 91.113....then I thought of the compensation angle relative to a club, started googling, and ended up on an NBAA powerpoint deck that had bullet points but no supporting narrative - and that's what led me to 91.501.

EDIT - interestingly enough, I've also researched the tax deductibility angle for using private aircraft for incidental business travel. The IRS is more stringent than the FAA about these things. I'm pretty sure I could wrangle it, but the cost of having the right CPA do it for me combined with the necessary insurance premiums against my company (they're prohibitive) makes the whole concept moot.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

ility when the pilot of the non-aviation business flight was a) providing the plane from a joint-ownership source and b) how that might or might not affect compensation. Item (a) is addressed in 91.1001 and item b) doesn't have a relationship to (a) in this particular case.

One of the overriding concepts In a joint ownership arrangement is who has "operational control" of the aircraft on a particular flight. I've seen arrangements in which one of the companies co-owning the aircraft is Part 91 and the other Part 135. Which set of rules apply depend on which company has operational control of the flight.

Thanks. I know you have better things to do than clarify this for the umpteenth time.
.

No problem. This part of the FAR is pretty complicated.

 

[NJA_Capt]

91K = fractional ownership company. Technically pt 91 private carriage, but operations like NetJets got big enough that the FAA stepped in and made them act like a 135 commercial operator.

Minor correction: NetJets (EJA) has been FAR135 carrier since 1965