Can I pay a commercial pilot to fly someone else in my plane?

W

Wingsofglass

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
342
Display Name
Display name:
Wingsofglass
I own my plane. I use it mostly for business. Can I pay a commercial pilot to fly some passengers, which may or may not be business related, in my plane if I'm not in it? The plan is flown under Part 91 with no 100 hour inspections. Does the answer change if the passengers pay for the pilot and the fuel? Or if the passengers pay nothing? I'd love an expert opinion on how the FARs have been interpreted on this. Thanks.
 
You've not given enough information to answer that question but I suspect highly the answer is NO. If you're carrying passengers for purposes unrelated to your business and are offering them both the plane and the pilot, then it is almost certainly a 135 operation and requires that certificate and all the maintenance,etc... that involves.

If you've got a business and you are carrying passengers incidental to the business but not charging them, then you may be able to do it under part 91 with a commercial pilot and your aircraft as it stands.
 
If you're paying, and not being reimbursed by the passenger, it's probably OK. Otherwise, I think you're going to need a Part 135 certificate.
 
I believe it could be done pt. 91 if the passengers dry lease the airplane from you and hire the pilot themselves. This only works if it is a regular thing and you have paperwork on the lease.

It can also be done pt. 91 if you pay for the flight and hire the pilot yourself. The passengers pay nothing in this scenario.

Otherwise, if you are hiring the pilot and they are paying you for some or all of the flight expenses, you need a 135 certificate.

Also you need to check with your insurance agent. If the airplane is being dry-leased you might need to get insurance which covers commercial operations. If you are hiring the pilot and paying for the plane to fly some friends or family, maybe even business partners (check on that) then it should fall under your current insurance policy for 'recreational or private business use'
 
Last edited:
I am one of several owners of a business that makes bike wheels. The scenario would be sending people from the company somewhere on bike-related business and paying a commercial pilot to fly them. Is that OK and can I be reimbursed for expenses?
 
You pay everything, they pay nothing, no barter, no exchange of something of value: A-ok

They pay you for the plane and bring their own pilot (you are not at all involved in selection or payment of the pilot)t: A-ok

They pay you for the plane and pay you for the use of your pilot: part 135

They pay you for plane and pilot, you are both members of NBAA amd draft the correct paperwork on a time-share agreement under the NBAA exemption: A-ok

And a couple more permutations of this.

Lots of insurance wrinkles to all three legal scenarios. If this is an occasional thing, you are best off not charging anyone for anything. If this is a regular occurence, find an aviation attorney and insurance broker who has dealt with this before and get the right paperwork and insurance coverage.
 
Wingsofglass said:
I am one of several owners of a business that makes bike wheels. The scenario would be sending people from the company somewhere on bike-related business and paying a commercial pilot to fly them. Is that OK and can I be reimbursed for expenses?
Click to expand...

I think the best way to do this is to work out a dry-lease with the company, and have the company hire the pilot. I would guess that you don't necessarily need to get the lawyers involved with the lease agreement - the FAA is not going to care about a business owner leasing his plane to his business to fly employees around. That's not encroaching on 135.

You should be more concerned about getting the insurance in place so that you and your company are well covered.

Depending on the structure of the business, you might not even need to work through a lease agreement if you are an owner. Don't quote me on that however. The NBAA is probably the best place to go for help on this one.
 
Last edited:
Wingsofglass said:
I own my plane. I use it mostly for business. Can I pay a commercial pilot to fly some passengers, which may or may not be business related, in my plane if I'm not in it?
Click to expand...
From an FAA perspective, yes -- that's exactly what's happening in corporate aircraft. Check with your insurer to make sure this doesn't move you out of the Personal/Business insurance class to Industrial Aid, which usually costs more.

The plan is flown under Part 91 with no 100 hour inspections.
Click to expand...
Not an issue, since you're not carrying passengers for hire.

Does the answer change if the passengers pay for the pilot and the fuel?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. That becomes carriage of passengers for compensation/hire, and requires a Part 135 certificate.

Or if the passengers pay nothing?
Click to expand...
Paying nothing is just fine.
 
Wingsofglass said:
I am one of several owners of a business that makes bike wheels. The scenario would be sending people from the company somewhere on bike-related business and paying a commercial pilot to fly them. Is that OK
Click to expand...
So far, yes.
and can I be reimbursed for expenses?
Click to expand...
By whom? Not the passengers, that's for sure, without a 135 certificate. OTOH, if they're going somewhere to make bike wheels on location for a third party, then the party for whom you're making the wheels can be charged all of your company's expenses for the trip, including the cost of the flight and the hired CP/ATP pilot. Your company can pay you for the use of the plane and charge that payment to the third party. Just make sure there are IRS-quality records of the transactions between the third party and your company, and between you and your company, so everyone's taxes are done right at the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
I think you're going to need a 100hr, if its been more then 100hrs since the annual.

You're providing BOTH the plane and pilot and the pax are not paying their share, also as for needing to be a 135, I think you're walking a fine line there

But hey, the gov't is "shutdown" so you'll probably not get ramped
 
ChitDisturber said:
I think you're going to need a 100hr, if its been more then 100hrs since the annual.

You're providing BOTH the plane and pilot and the pax are not paying their share, also as for needing to be a 135, I think you're walking a fine line there

But hey, the gov't is "shutdown" so you'll probably not get ramped
Click to expand...

The shutodwn won't last forever, and an enforcement action can begin at anytime (even for stuff you did during the shutdown).
 
Guys, thanks very much for the help. My takeaway is: "it depends but is possible however it needs to be set up carefully and well-documented. Seek professional help."

Funny how I've been hearing "Seek professional help." on a number of different issues recently:).
 
ChitDisturber said:
I think you're going to need a 100hr, if its been more then 100hrs since the annual.
Click to expand...
Why? He's not transporting passengers for compensation/hire, and not providing the instructor and aircraft for flight training -- the only two conditions in 91.409 which require a 100-hour inspection.

You're providing BOTH the plane and pilot and the pax are not paying their share,
Click to expand...
Exactly -- free transport of the passengers. And he's not providing the pilot, either -- the company is doing that independently.

also as for needing to be a 135, I think you're walking a fine line there
Click to expand...
Not at all -- nobody's paying to have the passengers transported by a third party operator. If this were a 135 operation, every corporate flight department in the country would need a 135 ticket.
 
ChitDisturber said:
I think you're going to need a 100hr, if its been more then 100hrs since the annual.

You're providing BOTH the plane and pilot and the pax are not paying their share, also as for needing to be a 135, I think you're walking a fine line there

But hey, the gov't is "shutdown" so you'll probably not get ramped
Click to expand...

Providing the plane and pilot without the pax paying is pt. 91 and does not require 100 hour inspections. This is like saying if you fly some of your friends around for free in your plane (providing plane and pilot) that you need 100 hour inspections.

135... is he holding out to the public? nope... flying your own employees is not holding out to the public.
 
dell30rb said:
Providing the plane and pilot without the pax paying is pt. 91 and does not require 100 hour inspections. This is like saying if you fly some of your friends around for free in your plane (providing plane and pilot) that you need 100 hour inspections.

135... is he holding out to the public? nope... flying your own employees is not holding out to the public.
Click to expand...

How did they find out about his offer?
 
ChitDisturber said:
How did they find out about his offer?
Click to expand...

Are the employees of your company considered the public? I think not.

Well, I guess I do pay the public's rent and grocery bill and soon I will be paying for their healthcare too.
 
dell30rb said:
Are the employees of your company considered the public? I think not.

Well, I guess I do pay the public's rent and grocery bill and soon I will be paying for their healthcare too.
Click to expand...


I missed that part, so if thats the case probably safe operating 91.

Still voting for the 100hr though, you're making money on this as its for your company, could be said it makes the co. more money by transporting them via plane, owner of the company AND plane is ALSO providing a commercial pilot, thats got 100hr written all over it.
 
Wingsofglass said:
I am one of several owners of a business that makes bike wheels. The scenario would be sending people from the company somewhere on bike-related business and paying a commercial pilot to fly them. Is that OK and can I be reimbursed for expenses?
Click to expand...

You can rent the plane to the company, the company can hire the pilot and use it to fly their employees around on company business, yes.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
135... is he holding out to the public? nope... flying your own employees is not holding out to the public.
Click to expand...

'Private carriage' or a 'wet lease' may still be covered under part 135.

There are exemptions to that including air-work, photography, operating in a time-share under 91.4something, political candidates etc. But to start out, if you provide 'transportation' to someone, you are under 119/135.
 
ChitDisturber said:
I missed that part, so if thats the case probably safe operating 91.
Click to expand...
Not "probably" - certainly, as described.

Still voting for the 100hr though, you're making money on this as its for your company, could be said it makes the co. more money by transporting them via plane, owner of the company AND plane is ALSO providing a commercial pilot, thats got 100hr written all over it.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Please read 91.409(b) again. He is not carrying anyone for hire. And the company is providing the pilot, not the individual who owns the plane.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not "probably" - certainly, as described.

No, it doesn't. Please read 91.409(b) again. He is not carrying anyone for hire. And the company is providing the pilot, not the individual who owns the plane.
Click to expand...

And yet you're flying other people in the plane for profit of the company (unless this was a staff party or something).

He's skimming by not needed a 135, you really want to push the 100hr game too??

Be sure to tell the poor pilot that he'll be being paid for flying folks around, under part 91, oh yeah, and there won't be any 100hrs on the plane.

Hope it pays well, he should bring a gopro and film the first rampcheck, guessing that ramp check is going to be fun!
 
ChitDisturber said:
And yet you're flying other people in the plane for profit of the company (unless this was a staff party or something).
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant. If it wasn't, every corporate flight department would need a 135 certificate.

He's skimming by not needed a 135, you really want to push the 100hr game too??
Click to expand...
Neither skimming by nor pushing anything. You really should read the regulations carefully. Start with 91.409(b) and 119.1(a), along with the definitions in 1.1 of the terms used in those two rules.

Be sure to tell the poor pilot that he'll be being paid for flying folks around, under part 91,
Click to expand...
Just like every other corporate pilot in the country? So what? That's a fundamental commercial pilot privilege per 61.133(a).

oh yeah, and there won't be any 100hrs on the plane.
Click to expand...
Again, not a regulatory issue. Not saying it wouldn't be a good safety idea to do 100-hour inspections on planes which fly a lot more than 100 hours each year between annuals, but in this situation, the regulations simply do not require it.
 
"Private Carriage for Hire is any business-related flying for hire that does not involve advertising or holding out to the public. It is done under special exceptions to the general operating rules of Part 91. No special certificate is required, although special ratings may be required depending on type of aircraft. Most business pilots have more than a private pilot's certificate.

Business pilots cannot fly an aircraft for compensation or hire unless it is incidental to the business of the company they fly for. Generally, business pilots involved in flying small airplanes are subject to the restrictions of FAR 61.113. In addition, certain pilots are allowed to fly relatively small aircraft, for compensation or hire, if they do so in one of the specialized operations permitted by FAR 119.1(e). These specialized operations do not require compliance with Part 135, but they usually involve some form of compensation or hire. They include: student instruction, certain airport-proximate sightseeing flights, ferry or training flights, crop dusting, bird chasing, banner towing, aerial photography, fire fighting, helicopter-construction operations, pipeline patrol, sightseeing in hot-air balloons, local-airport parachute-jump flights, and certain airport-proximate helicopter operations."
 
ChitDisturber said:
"Private Carriage for Hire is any business-related flying for hire that does not involve advertising or holding out to the public. It is done under special exceptions to the general operating rules of Part 91. No special certificate is required, although special ratings may be required depending on type of aircraft. Most business pilots have more than a private pilot's certificate.

Business pilots cannot fly an aircraft for compensation or hire unless it is incidental to the business of the company they fly for. Generally, business pilots involved in flying small airplanes are subject to the restrictions of FAR 61.113. In addition, certain pilots are allowed to fly relatively small aircraft, for compensation or hire, if they do so in one of the specialized operations permitted by FAR 119.1(e). These specialized operations do not require compliance with Part 135, but they usually involve some form of compensation or hire. They include: student instruction, certain airport-proximate sightseeing flights, ferry or training flights, crop dusting, bird chasing, banner towing, aerial photography, fire fighting, helicopter-construction operations, pipeline patrol, sightseeing in hot-air balloons, local-airport parachute-jump flights, and certain airport-proximate helicopter operations."
Click to expand...
Carrying employees of the bike wheel company on company business when no charge is made to the passengers carried is "incidental to the business" of that company. And 61.113 is only applicable if the business pilot holds only a Private Pilot certificate -- and the OP said they'd be hiring a Commercial Pilot.

Furthermore, the question of whether or not the trip is business-related is only of interest to the IRS, not the FAA, as long as the passengers aren't paying for the ride. There is nothing in any FAA regulation which says that corporate flights must be "incidental to the business" in order to avoid being under Part 135. The issue is whether or not someone other than the company is paying to have those passengers transported, and in this case, the company is paying (even if the company later is reimbursed for the business travel expense by a client/customer being serviced by those passengers).
 
Last edited:
ChitDisturber said:
"Private Carriage for Hire is any business-related flying for hire that does not involve advertising or holding out to the public. It is done under special exceptions to the general operating rules of Part 91. No special certificate is required, although special ratings may be required depending on type of aircraft. Most business pilots have more than a private pilot's certificate.

Business pilots cannot fly an aircraft for compensation or hire unless it is incidental to the business of the company they fly for. Generally, business pilots involved in flying small airplanes are subject to the restrictions of FAR 61.113. In addition, certain pilots are allowed to fly relatively small aircraft, for compensation or hire, if they do so in one of the specialized operations permitted by FAR 119.1(e). These specialized operations do not require compliance with Part 135, but they usually involve some form of compensation or hire. They include: student instruction, certain airport-proximate sightseeing flights, ferry or training flights, crop dusting, bird chasing, banner towing, aerial photography, fire fighting, helicopter-construction operations, pipeline patrol, sightseeing in hot-air balloons, local-airport parachute-jump flights, and certain airport-proximate helicopter operations."
Click to expand...

:confused: I'm taking it that you take your handle literally. What part of the OP's situation makes you believe that the flights would not be regarded as "incidental"? It's a bike wheel manufacturer renting a plane and hiring a commercial pilot to fly employees around on bike wheel manufacturer business. This is straight up PT.91 stuff.
 
If your friend wants to borrow your plane, pay his own gas and pay a commercial pilot to fly him to timbucktu then it is perfectly ok and you are not breaking any laws. If you choose to rent your plane to someone who hires a pilot, also ok.

Do not ask this kind of question on this forum or you will get every manner of misinformation and concoction man can devise.



Wingsofglass said:
I own my plane. I use it mostly for business. Can I pay a commercial pilot to fly some passengers, which may or may not be business related, in my plane if I'm not in it? The plan is flown under Part 91 with no 100 hour inspections. Does the answer change if the passengers pay for the pilot and the fuel? Or if the passengers pay nothing? I'd love an expert opinion on how the FARs have been interpreted on this. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
You are providing your plane, providing and paying your CPL pilot to fly it and you don't think that's for hire, thus requiring a 100hr... OK


I don't gave a horse in this race, you're grown, do what you like.
 
ChitDisturber said:
You are providing your plane, providing and paying your CPL pilot to fly it and you don't think that's for hire, thus requiring a 100hr... OK


I don't gave a horse in this race, you're grown, do what you like.
Click to expand...

Nope, not the situation. You are renting your plane to a company that provides their own pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top