Can a Private pilot fly a company plane with passengers?

J

jsparks

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
36
Location
Ohio
Display Name
Display name:
JSparks
hypothetical question for possible future use....

Can I as a private pilot in a business (non avation related business) owned plane or a plane in which the business credit card rents, fly as pic with passengers for business related travel? The purpose for the flight is purely for speed of transportation and not for compensation in any way. My employment is in no way related to flying.

I see information related to reimbursing such flights and it gets a little muddy. This situation in my eyes isn't about reimbursement because no personal funds would be used.
 
If it is company owned or rented, you will need a commercial license. If you rent it personally, you can only be reimbursed the passengers pro rata share of fuel and rental costs.
 
If you own the plane, as a private pilot you can fly it and be reimbursed by your employer.

But if you are reimbursed, the FAA doesn't want you to carry a passenger. That point was not in the FARs but in a letter; unfortunately I don't recall which letter.

I don't recall how all this changes if you don't own the plane.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
If you own the plane, as a private pilot you can fly it and be reimbursed by your employer.

But if you are reimbursed, the FAA doesn't want you to carry a passenger. That point was not in the FARs but in a letter; unfortunately I don't recall which letter.

I don't recall how all this changes if you don't own the plane.
Click to expand...
It is in the FAR. Most folks didn't see it that way, but it was:

61.113(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.​

Most read it as "additional" compensation, or something similar. The Chief Counsel didn't.
 
John221us said:
If it is company owned or rented, you will need a commercial license. If you rent it personally, you can only be reimbursed the passengers pro rata share of fuel and rental costs.
Click to expand...
and a II or better medical.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Hypothetically, the FAA will never know unless something bad happens during the flight.
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, you post it on a public Internet forum or something like that. I iguess he did pose the question as "can I" and not "may I".
 
Well.... I could be way off base here, but I never thought a corporate flight department (that's what it is afterall) owned a fleet of C172's.
You may be talking about type ratings and something the Feds look at a bit more closely???
 
Kritchlow said:
Well.... I could be way off base here, but I never thought a corporate flight department (that's what it is afterall) owned a fleet of C172's.
You may be talking about type ratings and something the Feds look at a bit more closely???
Click to expand...
Not sure about a "fleet" but there are certainly small companies around which use piston aircraft for regional business travel regularly enough to justify the cost and tax afvantages of ownership. I can see the scenario coming up, even if it's just the "owner" of the company who is the pilot.
 
Could you make the flight in the company plane with passengers if you were not paid (even your regular wage as an employee) for the flying time? For example, you recorded the flying time as vacation, or whatever time off mechanism the company uses. Obviously the point of this would be to ensure that you can't be considered to be flying "for hire" at all.
 
tlglenn said:
You also have to consider what the risk management officer and the insurance carrier will say.
Click to expand...

My employer's risk management is good with me as a private pilot flying and being reimbursed. And I am very happy with that.

They require that I have $1 million smooth liabilty coverage, with the employer as a named insured. The smooth part is stupid, however, because it applies a certain level of liability coverage in case I injure/kill passengers occupying my seats, and they seem unaware that the FAA doesn't allow those passengers.
 
deyoung said:
Could you make the flight in the company plane with passengers if you were not paid (even your regular wage as an employee) for the flying time? For example, you recorded the flying time as vacation, or whatever time off mechanism the company uses. Obviously the point of this would be to ensure that you can't be considered to be flying "for hire" at all.
Click to expand...
I believe flight time is considered compensation in the eyes of the FAA. If you pay less than your pro rata share, then you are receiving compensation. You should read the letter. It can be found here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../mangiamele - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
 
NoHeat said:
My employer's risk management is good with me as a private pilot flying and being reimbursed. And I am very happy with that.

They require that I have $1 million smooth liabilty coverage, with the employer as a named insured. The smooth part is stupid, however, because it applies a certain level of liability coverage in case I injure/kill passengers occupying my seats, and they seem unaware that the FAA doesn't allow those passengers.
Click to expand...
They are probably aware of a couple of things like the reality that the FAA prohibition doesn't guarantee pilot compliance
 
Clip4 said:
Or you stumble into a ramp check and the inspector questions a passenger or two.
Click to expand...

The passenger presumably could not say that you have been reimbursed for the flight, as that usually happens after the flight, sometimes many days later.

But you're right, carrying a passenger when you shouldn't offers plenty of ways to get in hot water.
 
Last edited:
John221us said:
I believe flight time is considered compensation in the eyes of the FAA....
Click to expand...
The Harrington letter said that flight time as compensation can be avoided by not logging the time, and I haven't heard of the FAA ever rescinding that interpretation.
 
Palmpilot said:
The Harrington letter said that flight time as compensation can be avoided by not logging the time, and I haven't heard of the FAA ever rescinding that interpretation.
Click to expand...
Ok, there you go then. He can possibly fly a company owned plane with passengers for no compensation as long as he doesn't log PIC and the trip is incidental to his job.
 
John221us said:
Ok, there you go then. He can possibly fly a company owned plane with passengers for no compensation as long as he doesn't log PIC and the trip is incidental to his job.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I don't see anywhere that the Mangiamele letter mentioned flight time as compensation, so not logging the flight time would have no effect on that interpretation.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think so. I don't see anywhere that the Mangiamele letter mentioned flight time as compensation, so not logging the flight time would have no effect on that interpretation.
Click to expand...
The FAA has determined that a pilot cannot pay less than pro rata share of operating expenses of a flight because "if pilots pay less, they would not just be sharing expenses but would actually be flying for compensation or hire
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty clearly stated to me. That is a direct quote from the letter. I am not a lawyer, so maybe it can be interpreted differently?
 
John221us said:
That sounds pretty clearly stated to me. That is a direct quote from the letter. I am not a lawyer, so maybe it can be interpreted differently?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer either, but neither the passage you quoted, nor any other part of the Mangiamele letter that I can find, mentions flight time as being the source of the compensation. In the scenario discussed in the letter, the pilot is also receiving money, and taking the logging of flight time out of the mix would not address that problem.
 
John221us said:
Ok, there you go then. He can possibly fly a company owned plane with passengers for no compensation as long as he doesn't log PIC and the trip is incidental to his job.
Click to expand...
The reg says nothing about LOGGING PIC. It's all about ACTING as PIC.
 
No, you cannot do it. The flight time is compensation. You are providing a transport service. Looks and quacks like you are flying your co workers around. You'll have a very hard time showing otherwise.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The reg says nothing about LOGGING PIC. It's all about ACTING as PIC.
Click to expand...
PIC has nothing to do with it. The issue is receiving compensation while exercising private pilot privileges. If he was acting as SIC, the issue would be the same.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not a lawyer either, but neither the passage you quoted, nor any other part of the Mangiamele letter that I can find, mentions flight time as being the source of the compensation. In the scenario discussed in the letter, the pilot is also receiving money, and taking the logging of flight time out of the mix would not address that problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. It specifically says that if a pilot does not pay for his own share of the flight time (pro rata share), it is considered flying for compensation or hire. That is exactly the same thing as flight time being the source of the compensation.
 
Palmpilot said:
PIC has nothing to do with it. The issue is receiving compensation while exercising private pilot privileges. If he was acting as SIC, the issue would be the same.
Click to expand...
True...acting as PIC or SIC, no difference as far as this goes.

My point was that logging or not is irrelevant to the reg.
 
MauleSkinner said:
True...acting as PIC or SIC, no difference as far as this goes.

My point was that logging or not is irrelevant to the reg.
Click to expand...
It's relevant to the extent that the FAA treats logged flight time as something of value that might be considered compensation in certain circumstances.
 
John221us said:
Yes, it does. It specifically says that if a pilot does not pay for his own share of the flight time (pro rata share), it is considered flying for compensation or hire. That is exactly the same thing as flight time being the source of the compensation.
Click to expand...

Only if you focus exclusively on the flight time, and ignore the payment of money. I see no justification in Mangiamele for doing that. And the Harrington letter, which I cited above, makes it clear that the FAA considers the reimbursement of expenses and the accrual of flight time to be two separate concepts.

There is also the issue that the Mangiamele letter was issued years after the Harrington letter, so even if you were right that eliminating flight time as compensation would solve the Mangiamele problem, it wouldn't matter, because when two interpretations are in conflict, the later one supersedes the earlier one to the extent of the conflict.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
True...acting as PIC or SIC, no difference as far as this goes.

My point was that logging or not is irrelevant to the reg.
Click to expand...
According to the Chief Counsel's office, logging is relevant to whether the flight time itself is compensation. Unfortunately, that doesn't get around the Mangiamele letter, in which there is also payment of money.
 
Palmpilot said:
Only if you focus exclusively on the flight time, and ignore the payment of money. I see no justification in Mangiamele for doing that. And the Harrington letter, which I cited above, makes it clear that the FAA considers the reimbursement of expenses and the accrual of flight time to be two separate concepts.

There is also the issue that the Mangiamele letter was issued years after the Harrington letter, so even if you were right that eliminating flight time as compensation would solve the Mangiamele problem, it wouldn't matter, because when two interpretations are in conflict, the later one supersedes the earlier one to the extent of the conflict.
Click to expand...
I am not actually arguing that not logging would eliminate the Mangiamele letter. I was just conceding that I don't know the answer. But, on Mangiamele, the FAA clearly considers flight time a form of compensation. I just don't know if that is contigent upon logging it. Personally, I haven't pushed it. If I fly for work, with or without passengers, I just foot the cost of the entire flight. I have never asked a passenger or company to pay even a pro rata share, so I don't really have a dog in this fight.
 
So what I'm gathering out of all of this is:

My company can pay 100% of the expenses pertaining to the flight as long as I do not carry passengers and the flight is incidental to business?

If I were to carry passengers, I would be personally responsible for 100% of the cost of the flight and only able to recoup 50% of the cost from 1 passenger and 66% for 2 passengers from them personally? The remaining equal share of the expense is mine and can not be reimbursed by the company.
 
jsparks said:
So what I'm gathering out of all of this is:

My company can pay 100% of the expenses pertaining to the flight as long as I do not carry passengers and the flight is incidental to business?

If I were to carry passengers, I would be personally responsible for 100% of the cost of the flight and only able to recoup 50% of the cost from 1 passenger and 66% for 2 passengers from them personally? The remaining equal share of the expense is mine and can not be reimbursed by the company.
Click to expand...
Yes, as a private pilot. Alternately, you get can your commercial rating (which isn't too tough) and a 2nd class medical and then your company can pay you.
 
jsparks said:
So what I'm gathering out of all of this is:

My company can pay 100% of the expenses pertaining to the flight as long as I do not carry passengers and the flight is incidental to business?

If I were to carry passengers, I would be personally responsible for 100% of the cost of the flight and only able to recoup 50% of the cost from 1 passenger and 66% for 2 passengers from them personally? The remaining equal share of the expense is mine and can not be reimbursed by the company.
Click to expand...

It's pretty bizarre and makes zero sense, but yes, pretty much. But, that isn't to say you can't pad your expense report in other areas to make up the difference.
 
deyoung said:
Could you make the flight in the company plane with passengers if you were not paid (even your regular wage as an employee) for the flying time? For example, you recorded the flying time as vacation, or whatever time off mechanism the company uses. Obviously the point of this would be to ensure that you can't be considered to be flying "for hire" at all.
Click to expand...

The point would be irrelevant if you were salaried. Most of the pilots in this type of situation are.
 
John221us said:
Yes, as a private pilot. Alternately, you get can your commercial rating (which isn't too tough) and a 2nd class medical and then your company can pay you.
Click to expand...
Just remember, if get your commercial and you're not instrument rated, you're limited to withing 50 nautical miles during the day only.
 
John221us said:
Yes, as a private pilot. Alternately, you get can your commercial rating (which isn't too tough) and a 2nd class medical and then your company can pay you.
Click to expand...

...as long as your flights are not more than 50nm from base of operations.
 
Lachlan said:
...as long as your flights are not more than 50nm from base of operations.
Click to expand...
@lancie00 just indicated an instrument rating allows further. Is that the case? What do you need, rating wise to conduct commercial flights (not scheduled) in a company plane and still stay part 91? I am certainly familiar with many companies that own planes and hire professional pilots and they definitely travel further than 50 miles. I would also say, that all the pro pilots I know have an instrument rating, as well, so maybe it isn't an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top