Flying for company on a PPL

C

C172

Guest
Hi,

I work for a small engineering company that owns a Cessna 172.

In the past, they have employed a pilot with only a PPL to fly the plane to carry passengers and/or cargo to the other office locations. The pilot was employed by the company as an engineer, was not paid anything extra to fly, flew on company time, and was not charged for any of the aircraft expenses (the employer paid for fuel, maintenance, etc.)

I have my PPL and they would like me to fly under the same arrangements.

Is this legal?

And, this is in Australia, so it's CASA, not the FAA...

Thanks.
 
In the USA, absolutely unlawful.

In CASA-land, I’ve no idea, but from my observation in other general aviation issues, CASA have become much stricter than the FAA, so I’d be surprised if the arrangement you’ve described is allowed.
 
SCCutler said:
In the USA, absolutely unlawful.

In CASA-land, I’ve no idea, but from my observation in other general aviation issues, CASA have become much stricter than the FAA, so I’d be surprised if the arrangement you’ve described is allowed.
Click to expand...
I think that it's perfectly OK in the USA, as described.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I thought that if it was incidental to the job, it is ok. He is being paid to be an engineer not a pilot.
Click to expand...
The original post says the engineer is "transporting passengers and/or cargo" for the company, and doing it "on company time". Which to me implies that the purpose of the flights are to get those other people and stuff to a destination, which makes it *not* incidental to the job. If he or she were using a plane to *just* get him/herself somewhere (like, to meet with clients in their home city), that would be a different story. This sure quacks like "flying for hire" to me.

Even if the engineer took time off during those hours and drew no salary, the fact that the company pays for all the flight expenses means that he or she accrues flight hours for free, which the FAA considers a form of compensation. Which seems a little illogical on some level, but that's my understanding.
 
Last edited:
C172 said:
Hi,

...Is this legal?

And, this is in Australia, so it's CASA, not the FAA...

Thanks.
Click to expand...

No idea. Maybe check with an aviation attorney in your home country.

Who issued your certificate? Might be a can of worms on a US certificate operating under CASA rules.
 
C172 said:
Hi,

I work for a small engineering company that owns a Cessna 172.

In the past, they have employed a pilot with only a PPL to fly the plane to carry passengers and/or cargo to the other office locations. The pilot was employed by the company as an engineer, was not paid anything extra to fly, flew on company time, and was not charged for any of the aircraft expenses (the employer paid for fuel, maintenance, etc.)

I have my PPL and they would like me to fly under the same arrangements.

Is this legal?

And, this is in Australia, so it's CASA, not the FAA...

Thanks.
Click to expand...

welcome to POA (Pilots of Australia?)!

I can't answer how how CASA defines private operations, but the FAA would consider a situation in which flying an airplane is part of your job responsibilities to be a part 91 operation (i.e. not charter, not air transport) that would require a commercial pilot certificate.

In the US, flying for work with a private is acceptable if doing so is incidental to the job...ie you'd drive by car if you didn't have access to a plane. When the company provides the plane and expects you to fly yourself and other employees in the furtherance of business, it is pretty clearly a situation that requires a commercial pilot certificate.
 
Brad Z said:
In the US, flying for work with a private is acceptable if doing so is incidental to the job...ie you'd drive by car if you didn't have access to a plane. When the company provides the plane and expects you to fly yourself and other employees in the furtherance of business, it is pretty clearly a situation that requires a commercial pilot certificate.
Click to expand...
Here's the relevant words, but I don't see it your way (no "job" in there, nothing about driving by car, no "other employees in furtherance of a business"...):

(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.
​
Just sayin'.. :)
 
Ultimately, in the USA at least, getting a commercial ticket is trivial. I don't know about how it is in other English-speaking countries.
 
If the OP paid for the aircraft's fuel and maintenance it would be perfectly legit. But if the company cares for and feeds the airplane, it's a huge no no. That's in 'Merica. Don't know about the land down under, though I would genuinely be surprised if it was less strict.
 
It only becomes a gray area when passengers are being transported. There is nothing wrong with flying yourself to a meeting or project location and reimbursing yourself the cost of the flight as a travel expense on a PPL. It's done all the time.
 
For those curious about the legality of this in the US, read the FAA Chief Counsel opinion to Guy Mangiamiele. Makes quite clear that the FAA views this as illegal if you're hauling passengers (co-workers). If it's just you, using the plane to get to and from job sites, that's where the "incidental to business" comes into play and can be legal. Put co-workers on the plane, and it's not.
 
Even without the Mangiamiele interpretation, this seems to fit squarely into the "not incidental to the business" category, at least from how I read the OP.

The OP is hired as an engineer, and is also used to transport people around. My reading of the OP implies that he does not have any real reason to go to these other places, other than to fly other people to them. That is not incidental to his employment as an engineer. Now, if he also needed to be at the meetings, then there is a valid argument for it being "incidental" - in other words, they could have all driven instead. In the U.S., Mangiamiele seems to have eliminated this argument, but in Australia, even if they exactly copied the FAA regulations, they wouldn't be subject to the FAA's interpretations, so it may very well be different.
 
RussR said:
Even without the Mangiamiele interpretation, this seems to fit squarely into the "not incidental to the business" category, at least from how I read the OP.

The OP is hired as an engineer, and is also used to transport people around. My reading of the OP implies that he does not have any real reason to go to these other places, other than to fly other people to them. That is not incidental to his employment as an engineer. Now, if he also needed to be at the meetings, then there is a valid argument for it being "incidental" - in other words, they could have all driven instead. In the U.S., Mangiamiele seems to have eliminated this argument, but in Australia, even if they exactly copied the FAA regulations, they wouldn't be subject to the FAA's interpretations, so it may very well be different.
Click to expand...

That was my take as well. It doesn't seem incidental when the firm "have employed a pilot with only a PPL to fly the plane to carry passengers and/or cargo to the other office locations". That's pretty much the definition of what a corporate pilot does.
 
kath said:
...Even if the engineer took time off during those hours and drew no salary, the fact that the company pays for all the flight expenses means that he or she accrues flight hours for free, which the FAA considers a form of compensation. Which seems a little illogical on some level, but that's my understanding.
Click to expand...
The FAA interpretation letter that introduced the concept of flight time as compensation pointed out that the compensation could be avoided by not logging the flight time.

Excerpt:
Harrington excerpt.png


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1997/harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf

Of course, that does not solve the other problems with the flights described above. (And of course, those flights were not under FAA jurisdiction.)
 
Palmpilot said:
The FAA interpretation letter that introduced the concept of flight time as compensation pointed out that the compensation could be avoided by not logging the flight time.

Excerpt:
View attachment 82572

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1997/harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf

Of course, that does not solve the other problems with the flights described above. (And of course, those flights were not under FAA jurisdiction.)
Click to expand...
Not logging the time helps in some circumstances, but what I hate about that FAA ruling is that it makes it illegal for a parent to pay for their child’s solo time as a student, as the child would be getting “compensated” for flying. Which is about as ridiculous as it gets.
 
SToL said:
It's not even a grey area with passengers. Either they pay (or compensate you) for the flight or they don't. If they don't, it's all good. If they do, you've violated the reg.

This is very common for business to use an airplane to get around. It's fine as long as it's incidental to the business and no one get's compensated for the flight.
Click to expand...
Pretty hard to argue that you aren’t getting paid for the flight if you are a salaried employee.
 
Salty said:
Pretty hard to argue that you aren’t getting paid for the flight if you are a salaried employee.
Click to expand...
But "getting paid" is allowed if the flight is only incidental. If a salaried engineer designs a part for a machine and then is accompanied by a mechanic to the job site to install the part and to operationally check the repair — it should be legal. But according to the Chief Counsel, it isn't.
 
Salty said:
Pretty hard to argue that you aren’t getting paid for the flight if you are a salaried employee.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Salty said:
Not logging the time helps in some circumstances, but what I hate about that FAA ruling is that it makes it illegal for a parent to pay for their child’s solo time as a student, as the child would be getting “compensated” for flying. Which is about as ridiculous as it gets.
Click to expand...
I think that's a misinterpretation of the interpretation.
 
kath said:
The original post says the engineer is "transporting passengers and/or cargo" for the company, and doing it "on company time". Which to me implies that the purpose of the flights are to get those other people and stuff to a destination, which makes it *not* incidental to the job. If he or she were using a plane to *just* get him/herself somewhere (like, to meet with clients in their home city), that would be a different story. This sure quacks like "flying for hire" to me.

Even if the engineer took time off during those hours and drew no salary, the fact that the company pays for all the flight expenses means that he or she accrues flight hours for free, which the FAA considers a form of compensation. Which seems a little illogical on some level, but that's my understanding.
Click to expand...

So if he drove the people and cargo in a company owned car or ban, he would need a chauffeur’s license or if a boat, a captain’s license? Does he get paid more for flying other employees around? I still disagree and the FAA may agree with you but the FAA is not known for their good judgement.
 
kath said:
The original post says the engineer is "transporting passengers and/or cargo" for the company, and doing it "on company time". Which to me implies that the purpose of the flights are to get those other people and stuff to a destination, which makes it *not* incidental to the job.
Click to expand...
The task is moving the people and stuff. If he could just as easily move those people and stuff by driving them in a company van, then use of the plane is incidental to the job.

I once met a local pilot who worked as a fish spotter. He ran out of gas and bent up his plane landing. He was working with a fishing boat flying as a fish spotter at the time. He had a private certificate. He had to take a 709 ride as a result but not because of the commercial flying on a private ticket. He successfully argued that he was paid as a member of the crew of the boat and that while his job on the boat was spotting fish, he could just easily do that by using another boat to go find where the fish were instead of the plane and therefore the plane and his use of it was incidental to his job. I don't necessarily agree with it but he argued it and the FAA agreed.

As for the OP in this thread, I'm amazed the company insurance provider is ok with allowing a private pilot to haul company employees and cargo in a company owned aircraft on a private ticket. I'm also amazed the company lawyers are ok with it. I can't speak for Australia but in the US a fatal accident would likely result in 8 figure lawsuits once the families found out the company had a non-commercial rated pilot flying their loved ones to their deaths.
 
Brad Z said:
When the company provides the plane and expects you to fly yourself and other employees in the furtherance of business, it is pretty clearly a situation that requires a commercial pilot certificate.
Click to expand...
What if the company also provides a van and says we don't care which one you use?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The task is moving the people and stuff. If he could just as easily move those people and stuff by driving them in a company van, then use of the plane is incidental to the job.
Click to expand...
Unless you live on an island or are going to a remote site, it's often "also possible to drive" most places. (An airline once put me on a bus from Madison to Chicago when the weather was too bad to get me there by airplane.) This in no way affects the commercial nature of the operation in the eyes of the FAA if it takes place by air.

The point is to draw a distinction between a PPL flying for recreation (and passengers who know you, and can freely choose to go with you or not), and a professional who has to meet a higher standard for the protection of his or her customers (who may not know you at all, have particular transportation needs, and will assume that you know what you're doing). We can nitpick over the details of the grey areas and where the lines get drawn, but this doesn't seem unreasonable to me as a general philosophy.
 
kath said:
Unless you live on an island or are going to a remote site, it's often "also possible to drive" most places. (An airline once put me on a bus from Madison to Chicago when the weather was too bad to get me there by airplane.) This in no way affects the commercial nature of the operation in the eyes of the FAA if it takes place by air.
Click to expand...
The FAA (or at least some within the FAA) might disagree with you on that. See the previous post where I mentioned the FAA was perfectly fine with a guy flying fish spotting for hire on a private ticket because he said he didn't necessarily need to fly his plane in order to do it. Doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'd recommend anyone else try it themselves. But its tough to say how the FAA will feel about such things in every case.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The FAA (or at least some within the FAA) might disagree with you on that. See the previous post where I mentioned the FAA was perfectly fine with a guy flying fish spotting for hire on a private ticket because he said he didn't necessarily need to fly his plane in order to do it. Doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'd recommend anyone else try it themselves. But its tough to say how the FAA will feel about such things in every case.
Click to expand...
That's why it's a PITA to understand regulations. I buy a new FAR (should be 14 CFR!) / AIM every couple of years, and read through it, especially the regs. (My day job concerns jet engine cert; I'm used to it!) It's full of contradictions, and as everyone knows, what it says is often subject to interpretation.
If I had a pilot (besides me!) flying for my company, I'd pay for him/her to get their commercial ticket. I mentioned above how trivial it is (compared to your private, or instrument. Yeah, I haven't done it, but I'm w/o airplane at the moment). I don't see why there's even a discussion at this point. Learn the maneuvers, and take the practical, and go. Then the questions disappear.
 
Okay.

I need to go to a meeting in Fresno. Two of my coworkers need to go to the same meeting in Fresno. I am flying to the meeting anyway. I'm going to eat the cost of the flight.

What's the problem with taking them with me on the flight?
 
If their primary job is an engineer At a company that for what ever reason has airplanes at its disposal, said engineer and fellow colleges decide to take that airplane on a trip in support of their duties, then it is perfectly legal. If he is only an engineer on a paycheck but really is a company pilot then obviously that’s illegal.
 
Morgan3820 said:
So if he drove the people and cargo in a company owned car or ban, he would need a chauffeur’s license or if a boat, a captain’s license? Does he get paid more for flying other employees around? I still disagree and the FAA may agree with you but the FAA is not known for their good judgement.
Click to expand...
The FAA does not regulate those modes of travel so I wouldn’t know... and how they are regulated by their respective portions of the larger DOT has no bearing on using the airplane.

in fact the FAA has no say in what the OP does within the CASA regulated pieces of earth so I’m not sure just WTF it is you all are arguing about anyway.
 
RussR said:
Even without the Mangiamiele interpretation, this seems to fit squarely into the "not incidental to the business" category, at least from how I read the OP.
Click to expand...
I was one of those who wasn't surprised by Mangiamele. I once flew for a hearing in another part of the state. The client paid for the flight (definitely incidental). The client wanted to come with me but I said I couldn't based on the way I read the regulation. That was the summer of 1991.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The client paid for the flight (definitely incidental). The client wanted to come with me but I said I couldn't based on the way I read the regulation.
Click to expand...
"(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."
​
Your reading of 61.113(b)(2) would seem to apply to your scenario but not to the OP's, IMO. The OP said nothing about the employer charging the passengers, for instance, or the passengers paying anybody else for the use of the aircraft, or anybody paying primarily to have cargo delivered.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
"(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."
​
Your reading of 91.113(b)(2) would seem to apply to your scenario but not to the OP's, IMO. The OP said nothing about the employer charging the passengers, for instance, or the passengers paying anybody else for the use of the aircraft, or anybody paying primarily to have cargo delivered.
Click to expand...
The rule doesn't say the passengers have to be the ones paying the compensation.

BTW, I am not answering the scenario. Too close to legal advice for my taste.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Okay.

I need to go to a meeting in Fresno. Two of my coworkers need to go to the same meeting in Fresno. I am flying to the meeting anyway. I'm going to eat the cost of the flight.

What's the problem with taking them with me on the flight?
Click to expand...

The FAA is involved. That's the problem in this case.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. It would seem there is some room in there around "compensation", but it's the FAA so.....

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire​

It seems logical to me that it should be ok, but I'm sure the rules are done to avoid someone "going to the meeting (wink, wink)", purely so they fly the plane. It just ends up with the pendulum swinging a bit too far to the restrictive side.

My company's travel policy won't let me fly my own plane on my own nickel for work, so it's a moot point for me. I have to drive or fly commercial, or if I were a big-wig fly on the corporate plane (in the back).
 
Sac Arrow said:
Okay.

I need to go to a meeting in Fresno. Two of my coworkers need to go to the same meeting in Fresno. I am flying to the meeting anyway. I'm going to eat the cost of the flight.

What's the problem with taking them with me on the flight?
Click to expand...
None. Not even if you and the passengers share the expense pro rata. That's basic "joint venture for a common purpose" under 61.113(c) even before it was liberalized.

The questions and problems come up when we try to squeeze something which is not that into something which is that. Most of the sillier rules the FAA legal folks have come up with have been in direct response to clever people coming up with clever "well, if we do it this way... we can fit it into the rule and it's OK." It's been said many times before. The real rule is simply "if it quacks like a duck" which requires a commercial pilot or operating certificate... "it's a duck." and the FAA will manufacture an interpretation to make it so.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The rule doesn't say the passengers have to be the ones paying the compensation.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, so how do read (b)(2) in the way the Chief Counsel interpreted it, that no passengers can be aboard? Are you claiming the compensated pilot is a passenger?
 
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