I would probably be getting my commercial and instrument tickets.
But as I have mentioned.... I will write a letter to the FAA, and get a verdict, and report back the official answer.
This is going to get interesting. Just to clarify, a commercial ticket will have no effect on this situation. A commercial ticket allows you to fly for someone else in their plane and get paid. I obviously don't know but, predict if the OP inquires about this it will be shot down by the FAA. Another point the OP might want to look at is flying F 500 employees around in SE aircraft by private pilots is generally discouraged and forbidden by many. They are HUGE liability implications. Not trying to be a crotchety old man as you accused Bob of being but, just trying to pass along some observations acquired through a few thousand hours of corp[orate flying.
I will add, at the risk of being crotchety, that a SE piston aircraft even with de ice is not so you can launch into known icing but, maybe escape an inadvertent encounter, IMO.
Section 61.113(a) states, in pertinet part, that a private pilot may not, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. An exception to that section states that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and if the aircraft does not carry and passengers or property for compensation or hire.Thus, in this scenario, where you are only transporting yourself to the business meeting, you may be compensated for the expense of the flight. See 14 C.F.R. 61,113(b)....
If the company is paying the expenses, how can it not be considered official business?To put the "what plane will you fly business to rest a bit..." I've landed on the fact that the mission will require a multi, and I'm landing on a Navajo with FIKI.
2) I think for whatever reason people are interpretting what I'm saying regarding taking "employees" in an aircraft as "official business" which again... is just simply not the case. By your "...interpretation of F 500 companies frowning on employees going in an SE aircraft by private pilots and is forbidden" that would "allude" to meaning that somewhere in the expense policy, contract, or agreement an employee of said F 500 company would be "legally" unable to fly in a SE plane, or with a private pilot at anytime period.
Fortunately, laws don't work this way, and therefore policy can not be written this way. "Official Business" is another matter entirely..... and as I have stated, under the interpretation of the law, this is NOT official business.
3) For some reason, the general impression seems to be that folks here are thinking I'm "conducting official business" with "customers" and again.... that's not the case.
4) The ruling on Mangiamele (2009) states that
Therefore, the portion of whereby I am transporting myself to a Customer site is covered.
5) What is "not" clarified through Mangiamele is that I am a principal owner of my company, and that regardless of "who else is in the cockpit with me" no one is paying for any portion of the trip except me. As a private pilot, therefore, I am paying for the entire portion of the flight myself, through my entity and at no time am I seeking for pay or hire that of additional occupants who may be on-board at that time.
In addition as previously stated above, "Customers" who HAPPEN to be with me and who happen to be Customers on one hand, but more as a personal relationship in the case of definition (Post meeting, post official business) who would "like to go fly" (regardless of the location) somewhere after hours, off the clock as an "experience" are also not paying me, nor are they reimbursing me. I am still paying solely for the flight and all expenses. <--- this is mainly the point that is not covered as a "business principal" that is murky and needs clarification.
Work isn't going to pony up for me to "purchase" a plane for myself, but they will reimburse (within relative reason) the costs of my flying.
If the company is paying the expenses, how can it not be considered official business?
I also apologize if I'm being a hostile, I'm trying to understand these crazy rules.
LT to your point #2: You are going to find that the real world is different. No doubt that on official business, the SE plane with private pilot will be frowned upon. That I think we agree on. However in the upper echelons of corporate management, many times due to things like life insurance exclusions, dangerous hobbies ( example sky diving) is forbidden even on personal time. Many companies will simply forbid upper level management to participate in risky endeavors.
Let me add, I have no dog in this hunt. I would not have even brought this up except that someone else did. My expectation is this endeavor as you have explained it will be shot down by many companies and my prediction (for what that is worth) is that if you ask the FAA about your particular situation they too will shoot it down. The FAA is VERY adverse to private pilots hauling passengers where there is any chance that the flying can in any way benefit the private pilot. Not saying it is right, just a fact of life.
In fact let me just add with due respect, that most companies would not even let you fly yourself on company business. It is only that you are an owner and can give yourself permission are you able to do it. Chances are (IMO) you are going to get considerable push back from both corporate legal types and the FAA when you want to use your private plane and private ticket to (in your words) wine and dine clients to garner their good will. Most companies that do this have a corporate flight department with professional pilots to do this kind of thing.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
But the company is paying the expenses for your "recreational" flight. That doesn't add up.Ah but you're putting both Scenario's into the same bucket, which may be the cause of confusion.
As I pointed out in the FAA's Mangiamele (2009) ruling - Flying myself out to a business meeting, although official, can be reimbursed pretty much with no question.
Carting a customer around, after hours, after work, as a recreational activity (flying the 100 dollar burger) is not official business. We're not doing anything regarding the conduction of business. We're just going to get a burger. Perhaps it was not made clear before.... but in "no" circumstance do I ever, depart pick up a Customer and conduct a transfer or cart them around from office to office (which would be considered official business). The circumstance in which a customer would ever be in the plane, would always occur on an "off-hours" / "recreational" basis.
But the company is paying the expenses for your "recreational" flight. That doesn't add up.
See, that makes total sense and is completely logical. But it's not how I understand the Faa sees it.Right where the law gets fishy... (But again I'm subletting this to my previous statement above, that it's better to play it safe than not, and will pursue the commercial...) is that I'm a principal owner of my own company. Granted, it's not a "Sole Propietership" entity, regardless, it could (in law speak) mean that because the company is mine... The "private pilot" (me) and the company (also me) are one in the same and paying for the flight.
That was my original argument and where the FAA's official interpretation was/is unclear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't understand what you mean by your first sentence. I didn't understand it in post 83 either. Can you elaborate?LT, the commercial ticket is of no use in this scenario. See my post # 83. As Salty has said it is the "being reimbursed" that is the sticky part. The FAA carved out a special situation for private pilots. To paraphrase "a private pilot may be reimbursed by the company he works for as long as he is the SOLE passenger in the aircraft". In fact you can not carry freight either. Once you add passengers AND you get reimbursement you are running a foul of the FAA.
My point is you MAY (IMO you do) have a two prong problem in your plans. First you plan on being compensated while flying passengers. BTW, the amount is of no concern, ANY compensation is forbidden. Also "good will" can and most likely would be considered compensation. Second, I predict you will get considerable push back from corporate legal types. Most corporations have little appetite for any activity that increases their liability/risk for little if any gain.
Your proposed activity has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. The carve out I described is very narrow in its concept with little if any wiggle room. The FAA is not likely to change its stance on private pilots getting ANY compensation. I point this out so as to assure you, you are not being singled out for persecution. A member here (Dr. Mack, I guess he is still a member) spent hundreds of hours trying to get legislation passed to expand the carve out to allow passengers, so far with no success. We can of course have a philosophical debate to the fairness of the FAA rules but, it will not change anything. Again, good luck.
It is an educational benefit he earned through military service. It is 'free money' in the sense that if he doesn't use it to go to college or add aviation ratings it eventually goes away.
Your post #98 poses a fair question. First let me state for the record, I am not an attorney, nor am I affiliated with the FAA. It MAY depend on who owns the aircraft. If you can demonstrate that even though you own the company and the aircraft you do not get any compensation/benefit or if the company owns the aircraft that it (the company) gets no benefit for flying said passengers you MIGHT be OK but, that might be a high bar to get over when dealing with the FAA. Remember the FAA moto; "we're not happy until you are not happy". They are a fair amount of truth in that.
Then what is the difference between the Private Pilot paying out of his own checkbook for the flight activities, or his own entity paying for the flight activities.... if "joyriding."
In which case it's earned money.
It's still money coming out of all of our paychecks, or being printed by the fed and devaluing what's in our wallets.
So even if it's earned, calling it free is insulting to those who actually produced it IMO
I wouldn't worry about that. The FAA can screw pilots just fine without your help. As far as clarification from the FAA, it is unlikely they will clear up anything LOL. The way you are presenting it I strongly suspect that the FAA will take the position that regardless of who owns the plane the purpose of said flights is to garner "good will" with clients. If so this will be considered compensation. Here is a test; would you provide the same to non clients? In other words why the flights? Would you be interested in picking me up Saturday afternoon and fly me to the coast for a nice sea food dinner? I can promise you that you will receive nothing of value. Get my point? The FAA is vested in and not likely to change their position of not allowing private pilots to benefit from their flying except in very narrowly defined and specific carve outs.
Bottom line, if this is that important to you a good aviation lawyer might be money well spent. Too many times the info you get from an aviation forum is worth about what you pay for it. I don't think you will get the FAA's blessing but, who knows. I have been wrong so many times it is not even worth going into it.
One is tax deductible? Which one?
Actually no sir, you are incorrect. The GI Bill itself, costs you, the taxpayer, of which, I am ALSO a taxypayer and of which every Veteran is a taxpayer.... nothing. The GI Bill is mostly possible through a combined fund which is payed for and vested by the Veteran earning the benefit and who has elected to procure the benefit for him/herself (not all veterans do).
In addition to the "fund" (which acrues interest / losses as does everything else in the world), the GI Bill is also possible through negotiations made with universities themselves (much like health care insurance negotiates with the hospital bills we send them in which they only need to pay a fraction of the cost).
States may also elect to partake in the Veteran's benefit and elect additional negotiation. For example, Illinois has an Illinois Veterans grant, which allows any Illinois State veteran who entered service / commissioning and returned to his home state quite literally "free tuition" to any state schools (excluding I believe room and board, etc.). This is also a negotiated benefit that the state has elected to enforce, in which the state owes nothing, and the taxpayer owes nothing.
That being said.... Unfortunately, there are Vets who use their benefit and drop out or don't make the grade required by the VA, in which case "Drop-out" students / Not making the cut students DO effect the taxpayer, as the VA has worked the agreement to only pay the school back for tuition and services for students who pass their courses. Those "students" end up being a tax write-off to the school which then in turn.... goes back to the taxpayer. However, in that scenario, be advised that that also means I myself, as a veteran, am also paying that bill as well as every other tax paying citizen.
Make no mistake, there is always a cost to freedom
In fact let me just add with due respect, that most companies would not even let you fly yourself on company business. It is only that you are an owner and can give yourself permission are you able to do it. Chances are (IMO) you are going to get considerable push back from both corporate legal types and the FAA when you want to use your private plane and private ticket to (in your words) wine and dine clients to garner their good will. Most companies that do this have a corporate flight department with professional pilots to do this kind of thing.
paid for by the vet, whos paycheck comes from the government, whos money comes from all of our paychecks. So yes it does cost the tax payer, might be a 6 degrees from keven bacon thing, but end of the day the tax payers flip the bill for everything from military normal pay, do the tooth brush the military gives you. Hence why our military spending is INSANE.
Not saying to not use you benefits or anything, that was the deal when you signed up, and its rightfully yours to use, but just also remember to thank the American people for their involuntary support
paid for by the vet, whos paycheck comes from the government, whos money comes from all of our paychecks. So yes it does cost the tax payer, might be a 6 degrees from keven bacon thing, but end of the day the tax payers flip the bill for everything from military normal pay, do the tooth brush the military gives you. Hence why our military spending is INSANE.
Not saying to not use you benefits or anything, that was the deal when you signed up, and its rightfully yours to use, but just also remember to thank the American people for their involuntary support
Well the military never gave me a toothbrush, but I earned and used every penny of my benefits. And I don't feel I have to thank the American people James. If you feel it's involuntary, well, try another country to see about involuntary taxes hitting your wallet.
So no, I don't think it's out of line to thank the private sector.
Well that's' your opinion. Don't hold your breath waiting for it. You do this every few months and get the same response from veterans. Guess it's something you feel you need to do. Whatever, carry on.
And I earn every dollar I make, as do many people in the private sector, only difference is if people don't like what we are doing they don't give us their business and we just disappear from the market.
Do we need a millitary, yeah, do we need this overgrown monster, nope.
Question, do really think it's the soldier that wins the war??
It's not,
Cold War was a perfect example, it's the economy and how much money the country has, and that is all on the private sector.
I also don't think the founding fathers would be too cool with what our millitary has become.
Again, things like the GI bill were part of the deal when he signed up, it's his money, no question, I'm simply stating that he also shouldn't forget the sacrifices the people at home made to feed the industrial millitary complex, many people are living much worse because of the money taken from them to feed the beast, lots of folks can't retire, will never have the "American Dream" due to excessive taxes and inflation with the fed, and what's the Feds main reason for consumption, millitary, between normal military spending and vet benifits, that's 60% of the money the fed takes, about $670,000,000,000 per year.
So no, I don't think it's out of line to thank the private sector.
So by your logic, regardless of the GI Bill. You're basically suggesting that a veteran should thank you for their choice to serve the United States?