Flying for company on a PPL

Nate9191 said:
I feel like some are muddying this. The "incidental part" is there to distinguish between how the business operates and makes money versus your intended use of the airplane.

It's like if you own a delivery service business you can't buy a plane and sometimes take deliveries by plane when your customer is near an airport. Delivering things is what your business does. If you do it by plane, the use of the plane is NOT incidental.

If your business is hand-made leather bags and you have a customer that is convenient to fly to of course you can bring them their product by air - you aren't making money because you have an airplane, it's incidental. You could obviously not charge extra for air delivery, though.

If you are an engineering consulting firm in Santa Barbara and you have a job pop up in Orange County and one of your engineers has a PPL there is absolutely nothing wrong having them fly there to see the job site or consult with the client. Engineering consulting is how you make money, thus it is incidental.
Click to expand...
That's the best description yet of how the FAA views incidental.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
That's the best description yet of how the FAA views incidental.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and yeah to the other main point in this thread re: transporting other members of the business there is another interpretation which makes it pretty clear. Search the "Lamb-2" interpretation from 2010 (I am too new to post links).

Basically that if you transport yourself for something incidental to the business, but for a business reason, it's fine and you can be reimbursed by employer. If you bring pax, however, you cannot be compensated at all and must pay a pro-rata share. Pretty much black and white. It's hard to argue against, too, since the business is literally giving you money to bring their employees somewhere. Even if you would go on your own anyway, things change once people get in the plane. I think that makes a lot of sense since without that rule it would be very easy for a business to put pressure on the pilot to transport its employees places and at some point you are some percentage an employee of the business and some percentage being paid as a pilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Be careful when reading Mangiamele....

But the passenger costs can't be reimbursed by the business.
It is important to note that section § 61.113(c) allows a private pilot to seek reimbursement only from his or her fellow passengers, not a third party, such as your employer.
***
you may only seek reimbursement for the operating expenses of the flight from your passengers, provided you pay your own pro rata share of the operating expenses, and you all share a common purpose, such as attending the business meeting.​

So we two completely different scenarios and two completely different rules.
Click to expand...

Small addition on this - the pilot can only be reimbursed by the passengers. However, the passengers can be reimbursed by the company because they're not pilots and aren't bound by this. So it's a weird sort of route, the money does come from the company, but it cannot go straight to the pilot.

And the pilot cannot be reimbursed for their share at all. So as the pilot, you're paying for your share of the fuel, tie down, etc.
 
Nate9191 said:
Thanks, and yeah to the other main point in this thread re: transporting other members of the business there is another interpretation which makes it pretty clear. Search the "Lamb-2" interpretation from 2010 (I am too new to post links).

Basically that if you transport yourself for something incidental to the business, but for a business reason, it's fine and you can be reimbursed by employer. If you bring pax, however, you cannot be compensated at all and must pay a pro-rata share. Pretty much black and white. It's hard to argue against, too, since the business is literally giving you money to bring their employees somewhere. Even if you would go on your own anyway, things change once people get in the plane. I think that makes a lot of sense since without that rule it would be very easy for a business to put pressure on the pilot to transport its employees places and at some point you are some percentage an employee of the business and some percentage being paid as a pilot.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is (as has been mentioned) that one should get their commercial ticket. It's the easiest one they'll get (compared to initial private, instrument, ATP, or any type rating; multi may be easier!)
 
bflynn said:
Small addition on this - the pilot can only be reimbursed by the passengers. However, the passengers can be reimbursed by the company because they're not pilots and aren't bound by this.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the FBO I used to work for. It was standard practice for the 135 pilots to greet the pax, physically take away any alcohol they showed up with while explaining that Federal regulations prohibit them from allowing passengers to bring alcohol on the airplane but that those same regulations do allow the crew to serve passengers alcohol. They would then hand the alcohol back to the pax and say I am now serving your beverages to you.
 
bflynn said:
Small addition on this - the pilot can only be reimbursed by the passengers. However, the passengers can be reimbursed by the company because they're not pilots and aren't bound by this. So it's a weird sort of route, the money does come from the company, but it cannot go straight to the pilot.

And the pilot cannot be reimbursed for their share at all. So as the pilot, you're paying for your share of the fuel, tie down, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. "Weird sorts of routes" sometimes get compressed into what they actually are. Sometimes they don't. I would not want to ask the Chief Counsel this one.
 
I feel like I’ve already read that somewhere in a CC letter, but I cannot find it again.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
The bottom line is (as has been mentioned) that one should get their commercial ticket. It's the easiest one they'll get (compared to initial private, instrument, ATP, or any type rating; multi may be easier!)
Click to expand...
Which won’t help much for many of the scenarios presented, as they would also require a commercial operator certificate, with all of the additional training and testing that goes with it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Which won’t help much for many of the scenarios presented, as they would also require a commercial operator certificate, with all of the additional training and testing that goes with it.
Click to expand...

That was my thought as well.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Which won’t help much for many of the scenarios presented, as they would also require a commercial operator certificate, with all of the additional training and testing that goes with it.
Click to expand...
But I think it would eliminate any issues with one flying their own plane to a meeting they need to attend, and taking co-workers along. Ultimately, I'd just not charge anyone, I never have, for any flight. Won't even take lunch. Well, maybe lunch.
 
Heck, I'll pay for my own lunch and reimburse that. All $300 of it.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
But I think it would eliminate any issues with one flying their own plane to a meeting they need to attend, and taking co-workers along. Ultimately, I'd just not charge anyone, I never have, for any flight. Won't even take lunch. Well, maybe lunch.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you have your commercial certificate if you carry co-workers. Unless you're flying the company airplane and "pilot" is part of your job description, it's effectively Part 135 under the FAA's current interpretation. :(
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It doesn't matter if you have your commercial certificate if you carry co-workers. Unless you're flying the company airplane and "pilot" is part of your job description, it's effectively Part 135 under the FAA's current interpretation. :(
Click to expand...
That's stupid beyond belief, if you aren't being paid to fly, and your cohorts pay only the fuel fraction.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
That's stupid beyond belief, if you aren't being paid to fly, and your cohorts pay only the fuel fraction.
Click to expand...
Stupid or not, it’s considered “compensation” by the FAA, and in order to be compensated when providing the airplane as well as the pilot, you need a 135 certificate. You can thank all the pilots who thought they could get somebody else to pay for their flying.
 
write-stuff said:
I'd disagree. My understanding is that the private pilot would then have to pay 100% of the expense. Otherwise, his employer would still be "gifting" him the flight which has measurable monetary value. No?
Click to expand...

He did such a great job or something, that come month end the boss gave him a $$$ bonus. There are about 70 ways to solve most problems.
 
Nate9191 said:
I feel like some are muddying this. The "incidental part" is there to distinguish between how the business operates and makes money versus your intended use of the airplane.

It's like if you own a delivery service business you can't buy a plane and sometimes take deliveries by plane when your customer is near an airport. Delivering things is what your business does. If you do it by plane, the use of the plane is NOT incidental.

If your business is hand-made leather bags and you have a customer that is convenient to fly to of course you can bring them their product by air - you aren't making money because you have an airplane, it's incidental. You could obviously not charge extra for air delivery, though.

If you are an engineering consulting firm in Santa Barbara and you have a job pop up in Orange County and one of your engineers has a PPL there is absolutely nothing wrong having them fly there to see the job site or consult with the client. Engineering consulting is how you make money, thus it is incidental.
Click to expand...


We have a winner!

Why do so many people insist on finding a problem, or even creating the problem where no existed before, instead of looking at the solution right in front of them?
 
This question or some variation of it comes up on these forums pretty often. Why not just get the commercial certificate? It really isn’t that difficult or time consuming to do.
 
Well, you do need 250 hours total and the required cross-countries, etc, as well as to take the test. But it would simplify this situation!

But yes, why not have a sticky post about it? (Or if someone wants to write-up a good objective overview, I will add it to my flying information page and have them as the author and we can link. Or just keep picking at it in usual PoA fashion )
 
I flew myself on business when I worked for the Federal and State Governments and when I was in a small company. As soon as Textron bought out my company, all that stopped. It would have been a firing expense to fly GA. Small aircraft are dangerous you know, we make them, their engines, and propellers. Textron had a few Citations that could be used for corporate travel, but they were so mismanaged, that it was never cost-effective to use them (so it was unavailable). I've never understood why a company who made Cessnas, Bells, Lycomings, and Macaulays couldn't be motivated to find a way to make GA work as an EXAMPLE to their potential customers.
 
To be fair, it wasn’t the company, it was the Risk Management program. As soon as all the legal horror stories are told, these things become forbidden forever. At this point even fixing tort won’t fix GA flying for business, at least not quickly.
 
Other companies have risk management systems that have figured it out. If any company had an incentive to get their risk management folk in line, it would be one trying to sell that risk to other companies. Do as I say, not as I do is lousy marketing.

And parking seven Citations in one place when you've got a company strewn over the entire US and Canada, is not going to be an efficient utilization scheme and that has nothing to do with risk management. In the four or five years that I was associated with them, I saw the Citation used once. They flew the head of Bell Helicopter (our division) down with the finance guys and lawyers to do the due diligence on buying us.
 
flyingron said:
Other companies have risk management systems that have figured it out. If any company had an incentive to get their risk management folk in line, it would be one trying to sell that risk to other companies. Do as I say, not as I do is lousy marketing.
Click to expand...
It might cut into their turbine sales if it was perceived that flying piston airplanes is safe.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It might cut into their turbine sales if it was perceived that flying piston airplanes is safe.
Click to expand...
There's no exception for turbines, either. As I said, even if you had your own citation, you couldn't use it, and there corporate flight department is so poorly planned that the permitted corporate fleet is never allowed either.
 
flyingron said:
There's no exception for turbines, either. As I said, even if you had your own citation, you couldn't use it, and there corporate flight department is so poorly planned that the permitted corporate fleet is never allowed either.
Click to expand...
I suppose it could be a PR disaster if Textron employees died flying in Textron products on Textron business. But I wonder how it would look if Textron employees died flying in competitor products on Textron business?
 
asicer said:
I suppose it could be a PR disaster if Textron employees died flying in Textron products on Textron business. But I wonder how it would look if Textron employees died flying in competitor products on Textron business?
Click to expand...

Alan Klapmeier said that to his board for a long time - When he was CEO of Cirrus, he was still flying a 182 for quite a while before he got an SR22. The board said, "What would it look like if you got killed flying a Cessna?" His response was, "What would it look like if I got killed flying a Cirrus?"

But yeah, Textron's policy is inexcusable.
 
I’m far from an expert on this, so I’m certain others know the ins & outs better than I do, but... if he’s on the pay clock as a pilot isn’t he getting paid to be a pilot??
 
Kritchlow said:
I’m far from an expert on this, so I’m certain others know the ins & outs better than I do, but... if he’s on the pay clock as a pilot isn’t he getting paid to be a pilot??
Click to expand...

C172 said:
The pilot was employed by the company as an engineer, was not paid anything extra to fly...
Click to expand...

To me, an engineer driving another engineer to a meeting in an airplane is "incidental" to their employment. YMMV. Maybe next time, since the "pilot" is only a private pilot, the other engineer absolutely insists on returning the favor—by automobile... just sayin'. ;)
 
SToL said:
Salty, I deleted my post because I realized it just opens a bag of worms and I did not feel like arguing about it. A salaried employee is not being compensated because he's already on salary for the BUSINESS.

He's getting paid whether he's flying or pushing pencils.
Click to expand...
...or doing nuthin'. But if he's flying and getting paid, and carrying passengers - he needs a CPL
 
Eric Brunelle said:
...or doing nuthin'. But if he's flying and getting paid, and carrying passengers - he needs a CPL
Click to expand...


This logic makes no sense. A salaried employee is not being paid by the hour. When I was a salaried engineer, I got paid the same whether working or not. So how do we determine whether this employee's time spent piloting is "on the clock?" He's salaried! So maybe he's flying and NOT getting paid, and then he IS getting paid while at dinner with the client that evening. How the heck can anyone tell?

His job is to attend the meeting and how he gets there is incidental. I don't see how this is different than driving a company van to the meeting, or driving a car rented by the company, with a few fellow employees riding along.

When I traveled on business, it was common for several of us to share a rental car. Was I "driving and getting paid, and carrying passengers," and thus needed a CDL? Baloney.
 
Wouldn't the private pilot have to pay his share of the operating expenses to be legal?
 
Half Fast said:
This logic makes no sense. A salaried employee is not being paid by the hour. When I was a salaried engineer, I got paid the same whether working or not. So how do we determine whether this employee's time spent piloting is "on the clock?" He's salaried! So maybe he's flying and NOT getting paid, and then he IS getting paid while at dinner with the client that evening. How the heck can anyone tell?
Click to expand...
Exactly. There is no clock for salaried people. They are always on the clock and at the same time, always off the clock. You're working when you're working and you're not when you're not and you're getting paid for all of it no matter what.
 
I think there would be insurance and litigation issues as well if something unfortunate happened. I wouldn't put myself in that position as a pilot/employee or as an employer. Get the CPL - alot of fun and makes for a better pilot!
 
It is perfectly legal to fly yourself somewhere incidental to your work and be reimbursed. Flying yourself to attend a meeting rather than driving yourself or flying commercial (or taking a cruise for that matter) is fine. The FAA draws a line at anybody riding along, I think to prevent people from feeling pressured to take the small plane (imagine your boss saying I'm flying us to Podunk for the client meeting. You could feel unsafe and still feel pressure to go.

Tax implications and how much companies reimburse is a whole separate issue. As is the liability and policy related to it.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top