Business Travel

[AdamZ]

I have a lot of trips coming up to Louisville and Hilton Head, and I'll be flying myself. I have no desire to take a commercial flight or drive that short distance, so whatever.

If my company prohibits it, I'll just find a reason to be there those weekends personally and fly myself for that reason (and do work while I just happen to be there).

The benefit of being here is that I'm actually close enough to my business trips for this to be an option. From Santa Fe, every trip I would have taken took me all the way out to the east coast.

Nick I assume you found a good place to rent from?

They are. They either recently did or are about to send a protest letter to the Chief Counsel's office on this and a few other bizarre interpretations from the last year or two.

Thats very good to know.

 

[JeffDG]

Hmm, this brings up a salient point for me. My wife and I are in a joint company (consulting) and swap off which one goes long distance on a contract.

When she's the one going to, let's say NY, NY if I flew her, we'd still be able to expense that, I think. The accountant is looking at that.

Would that break any FAR's? The airplane would be owned by the Corp, and figure a minimum of 13 weeks a year of 6 hrs or more for pure business travel 2-3 hours each way, twice that if I'm flying the wife. Flying myself shouldn't be a problem.

Flying the wife, might that fall under some weird interpretation of the compensation rule?

Under current interpretation, you cannot be reimbursed by your employer (even if your employer is you) if there is either a passenger or cargo in the plane with you.

 

[gismo]

Under current interpretation, you cannot be reimbursed by your employer (even if your employer is you) if there is either a passenger or cargo in the plane with you.

I don't know if this has been pointed out already but one can ignore that stupid opinion simply by training for and passing the commercial checkride. It's probably the easiest rating to obtain and second only to ASES in terms of fun.

 

[JeffDG]

I don't know if this has been pointed out already but one can ignore that stupid opinion simply by training for and passing the commercial checkride. It's probably the easiest rating to obtain and second only to ASES in terms of fun.

That doesn't make the opinion any less stupid.

Plus, you would also need to maintain a second class medical, because you would be exercising commercial privleges.

 

[gprellwitz]

If the company knows you're flying on company business and doesn't stop you, I suspect they will be just as liable for any third party injuries or damage whether they reimburse you or not.

That's my belief too, but I'm not going to say it too loudly to the company, lest they outright ban private flying.

Let's be clear -- under this clause, while your passengers can accept reimbursement from the company for their shares of the cost of the flight, you cannot, and will have to be out of pocket for your share (although you should still be able to claim it on your taxes as an "unreimbursed business expense").

Understood. Unfortunately, the taxes issue runs into a floor on the amount of unreimbursed expenses before it can be claimed (and I don't think I'll meet the floor) and, even were I to meet the floor, I think, per some AOPA documents I was looking at, e.g. http://www.aopa.org/members/files/guides/tax_guide.html#1a, that I would need to be able to show the expense as both ordinary and necessary. They pointed out that getting reimbursement for part of it is helpful in proving the necessity! Catch 22!
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2010/february/counsel.html is John Yodice's look at the letter in question.

 

[JesseD]

Under current interpretation, you cannot be reimbursed by your employer (even if your employer is you) if there is either a passenger or cargo in the plane with you.

Hmm, not looking to be paid for this. I'm curious if I can file it all as a business expense, the fuel and maint on the bird, without the FAA declaring me in violation. This would be ideal if it works out. Of course we'll have to see what the accountant says too.

 

[COFlyBoy]

So my company has a whole policy that specifically allows private aircraft use for business trips. Its nice working for an aerospace company!

I will have the opportunity to take advantage of this in the near future. My strategy is twofold: 1) Take some of my co-workers who have PPLs and claim they are required crewmembers; 2) Make sure to fill out my travel reimbursement AFTER the flight.

How the heck is the FAA going to know I was reimbursed for my costs on the trip? Secondly, the amount the company will reimburse won't actually cover the total cost, so the trip will be a net loss. I don't consider a net loss "compensation".

 

[pilot_dude]

The first couple times I inquired to HR about flying myself the answer was no. About 6 months ago I was meeting with my HR person on other topics and she brought up me flying. After short discussion she did state the company would allow it for trips that made financial sense. That's all I needed.

 

[gprellwitz]

The first couple times I inquired to HR about flying myself the answer was no. About 6 months ago I was meeting with my HR person on other topics and she brought up me flying. After short discussion she did state the company would allow it for trips that made financial sense. That's all I needed.

Yeah! Sometimes it's the personal touch that makes the difference. Unfortunately, the controller who had okayed my flying (and with whom I had worked on a couple of projects) has left, and the new interim controller, with whom I've had no personal interaction, is the one who made this decision.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmm, this brings up a salient point for me. My wife and I are in a joint company (consulting) and swap off which one goes long distance on a contract.

When she's the one going to, let's say NY, NY if I flew her, we'd still be able to expense that, I think. The accountant is looking at that.

Would that break any FAR's? The airplane would be owned by the Corp, and figure a minimum of 13 weeks a year of 6 hrs or more for pure business travel 2-3 hours each way, twice that if I'm flying the wife. Flying myself shouldn't be a problem.

Flying the wife, might that fall under some weird interpretation of the compensation rule?

Yes, it would. See the Mangiamele interpretation. Essentially, it means that as a Private Pilot, you can either get reimbursed or you carry others, but not both. And that's an FAA issue, not an IRS issue, so unless your accountant is also an aviation attorney, you won't get a good answer on that part there.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...erpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmm, not looking to be paid for this. I'm curious if I can file it all as a business expense, the fuel and maint on the bird, without the FAA declaring me in violation. This would be ideal if it works out. Of course we'll have to see what the accountant says too.

The FAA only said that reimbursement was unacceptable. They said nothing about claiming it as an unreimbursed business expense on your personal taxes, so maybe it's OK. And again, it's an FAA issue, not an IRS issue, so even if your accountant says it's OK with the IRS, it may still be unacceptable to the FAA.

 

[jesse]

So my company has a whole policy that specifically allows private aircraft use for business trips. Its nice working for an aerospace company!

I will have the opportunity to take advantage of this in the near future. My strategy is twofold: 1) Take some of my co-workers who have PPLs and claim they are required crewmembers; 2) Make sure to fill out my travel reimbursement AFTER the flight.

What are you flying that would make them required crew-members? The FAA has a pretty definite definition on what that means.

 

[poadeleted20]

How the heck is the FAA going to know I was reimbursed for my costs on the trip?

I gather your question now is "will I get caught?" rather than "is it legal?" I don't have an answer for that.

Secondly, the amount the company will reimburse won't actually cover the total cost, so the trip will be a net loss. I don't consider a net loss "compensation".

The FAA does. They don't care if it's a penny or a million dollars -- as with another legal issue, payment, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

 

[denverpilot]

If the FAA were actually interested in safety, instead of requiring the Commercial checkride once in one's life to carry passengers for "hire" in these "I'd like to use my own aircraft to carry myself and a few people on a business trip" scenarios, they'd require higher currency requirements and documented advanced training on a regular basis.

There's also the issue of insurance. Most private aircraft insurance prohibits "for hire" use. Talk to your insurance company before you go blasting off with co-workers on board for a business trip. "Luckily" or not, the insurance company may require the level of training the FAA probably should, in order to change the insurance to allow "business" flights.

Private, Commercial, whatever... the ticket doesn't indicate whether or not the person flies to any reasonable safety standard.

Some Commercial-rated pilots who took the checkride 20 years ago probably have the personal morals, ethics, and interest level to fly and maintain his/her own higher standards when carrying business/co-worker passengers, but there are also Commercially-rated (and ATP rated) pilots out there who don't fly enough, and don't train properly, or those who don't even have a CFI along other than for the BFR, for years and years after the rating was earned, and barely fly enough to stay current.

Scariest flight ever for me was in a privately owned Cessna Skymaster/337 that was poorly maintained, flown by an ATP with an ego, and on a business trip.

The guy chose to scud-run over Corona Pass into the Denver area in a heavy snowstorm VFR, as just one of his many "brilliant" moves, and I was a brand new Private Pilot riding along with company executives who far out-ranked me, sitting in the other seats. Talking badly about their "pilot friend" who just like all pilots in the eyes of their friends was "a great pilot" was a touchy situation. I was both in shock that an older pilot would even do such stupid pilot tricks, and also didn't know what I could and couldn't say about the execs "friend".

The pilot/owner/idiot of that 337 couldn't get the gear down for a while over Las Vegas on the trip out, when I was in the right seat and could surreptitiously help keep the aircraft level while he farted with the breaker that popped, multiple times... and never had the aircraft looked at while we were there. That was red-flag number one. I should have booked a bus/train/airline ticket home right then.

And on the trip home, the exec wanted the right front seat, so a fully-rated pilot was in the back seat... where I could do nothing. Something I learned never ever to do ever again. I don't care how high someone "out-ranks" me, rated pilots sit in the pilot seats, period. Emergencies happen, and having a rated pilot sitting in the back seat and a non-rated person in the other pilot's seat, is a safety issue when they do.

Continuing the story of the return trip, the gear again didn't come down properly arriving at KBJC just after nightfall (yes, the scud running through Corona Pass was basically at sunset), and the ATP-rated moron eventually gave up after making 40+ degree banks while he wasn't watching the aircraft's attitude while he was screwing with the gear breaker and emergency extension checklist... which he had to dig out of the side pocket. Checklists apparently weren't high on this guy's priority list.

Both on the way out and back, he said, "The gear on this airplane always has this problem". After messing around, for almost an hour, he decided to land without a nose-gear down-and-locked indicator.

He shut down the front engine on short-final, bumped the prop horizontal with the starter, and flared... and the light came on. The gear managed to not collapse on the way to the hangar but the light went on and off the whole way there (no shut-down and call for a tug... nothing)...

We'd spent 45 minutes "circling" over Stanley Lake near BJC trying to get it down prior to that. I put "circling" in quotes, because this guy was so distracted by the gear issue, the banking and "circling" was more of an uncontrolled thing than a controlled thing. I would call out over the intercom "Bank Angle!" when he'd get close to 45 degrees, and he'd startle, look out the window at the dark, get his bearings again, and level the aircraft.

Fire trucks and all... sitting on the runway when we touched down. Only time I've ever had that...

The mountain scud running included radios that weren't working properly, and loss of contact on a regular basis with Denver Center starting somewhere around Grand Junction... a stressed out call from them after numerous calls where we couldn't hear them letting us know a B-1B was passing overhead near KGJT with only a 500' altitude difference, and a whole bunch of other things I recognized as having read in accident reports about dead people, in my two years as a pilot and CAP volunteer, even way back then. Since then, every time I tell the story I realize it was even worse than I thought it was.

I was as close as I hope to ever come to being an accident statistic on that trip, and I let the manager know (who was the other passenger in the back seat with me) that the VP should stop flying with this guy (they were friends), and that I'd definitely never get in an aircraft with him ever again. I didn't say anything to the pilot himself, although I doubt he would have listened anyway. My comments were made in private later to both the manager and VP... "No offense meant, but that guy is going to get someone killed. I'm a pretty new pilot, and I'm sure he's seen a lot in his flying career, but he's also taking too many risks and has gotten complacent. I'd prefer not to read about you guys in the newspaper or get sent out on a search mission for you someday."

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...
Why is the liability of someone flying themselves any more than the liability of someone driving themselves?
....

The employer is likely going to be liable either way (respondeat superior is the legalese for the theory), so in terms of "risk of occurrence of lawsuit" the risks are roughly the same (absent a few possibilities that I personally consider to be absurd - but I suppose that means "likely" to a PI lawyer).

My guess, however, is that the answer lies with insurance coverage. I don't know it to be true, but I'd be willing to bet that a whole lot of corporate insurance policies have specific exclusions for GA accidents/incidents.

Meaning that if there were to be some kind of misfortune, the employer, rather than the employer's insurance company, is the one on the hook.

Anyway, that's my speculation.

 

[gprellwitz]

The employer is likely going to be liable either way (respondeat superior is the legalese for the theory), so in terms of "risk of occurrence of lawsuit" the risks are roughly the same (absent a few possibilities that I personally consider to be absurd - but I suppose that means "likely" to a PI lawyer).

Sounds right.

My guess, however, is that the answer lies with insurance coverage. I don't know it to be true, but I'd be willing to bet that a whole lot of corporate insurance policies have specific exclusions for GA accidents/incidents.

Meaning that if there were to be some kind of misfortune, the employer, rather than the employer's insurance company, is the one on the hook.

Anyway, that's my speculation.

And that, of course, would be covered liability, which is a different thing!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Sounds right.

And that, of course, would be covered liability, which is a different thing!

Yup. I'd bet that insurance drives - either directly or indirectly - at least 60% of the injury-related litigation out there.

Anyway, although it sucks from our perspective, from a business perspective, it's the prudent decision - if an insurance policy says "we will not provide coverage to you if your employees are (a) injured in a GA accident or (b) cause injuries in a GA accident," it's the business' neck that's on the line. And, in terms of "good business judgment," it would be foolish to take that risk....

But, I have no doubts whatsoever that Spike is 100% correct - insurers ain't dumb, and they have the odds on everything (insurance really is just a form of gambling )...if someone put the thumbscrews to the insurer, I'm sure it's no problem to get those clauses taken out, because the risk isn't much different from car accidents.

But, until they're removed, they're effective, and insurers will deny coverage without any hesitation.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Well, my company's pretty clear...right in the travel policy:

My company is similar. And we build/improve/design airport infrastructure, travel to many, many airports, and spent millions a year on travel alone. GA travel would cut a lot of hotel nights, a lot of time waiting on connections. But it is verboten.