Flying for Work, kinda....

[gprellwitz]

David,
I didn't realize you worked for UW-M!

The college I work for allows travel by private plane, but will only reimburse the cost of a coach airfare. I don't like it, but consider it fair, given that we must watch the taxpayer's dollars. I DO have that in an email, and have taken advantage of it.

Let me tell you, coach fares don't go a long way towards paying for rental of a 182 from Chicago to Daytona Beach! !

OTOH, it beats having to do commercial!

 

[KennyFlys]

I compare this to all the couriers I knew who drove on consumer insurance policies. I was one of very few couriers who carried a commercial policy.

I heard so many argue that as long as the company didn't know, it's not an issue. If they have an accident, it was normal "personal use." I countered with, "All you need is one accident that results in a court case against you for damages. Are you going to make a claim on your policy then? As soon as your carrier discovers the accident was during commercial use, they have the right to deny any or all of the claim and your coverage is history."

The funny thing is... the commercial policies were cheaper than consumer policy options. They were biting the bullet under the guise of saving money. Get the coverage or in this case... get the permission necessary... in writing.

 

[jmaynard]

It's more than just permission -- the company will want a rider to the corporate insurance policy for liability coverage.

Good luck with that these days....

My employer requires that the company be added as a named insured to the pilot's aircraft insurance policy. So far, there are only two of us who are pilots (me and one of my bosses, who has a nice turbonormalized A36), and we both own airplanes; I don't know what they'd do for a renter pilot. It's a small company, only 20 or so at the moment, and I suspect they'd figure it out.

 

[gprellwitz]

My employer requires that the company be added as a named insured to the pilot's aircraft insurance policy. So far, there are only two of us who are pilots (me and one of my bosses, who has a nice turbonormalized A36), and we both own airplanes; I don't know what they'd do for a renter pilot. It's a small company, only 20 or so at the moment, and I suspect they'd figure it out.

So 10% of your company's employees are pilots? Cool! So far, mine doesn't require any sort of explicit mention on my insurance policy. If they do, I think that the AOPA Non-owned Policy makes provisions for that.

 

[Ghery]

If this were me, the answer would be simple -

FAA - OK. No question.

Employer - No way, no how. Don't even think about it. Prohibited. Verboten. Nyet.

Bottom line - the folks paying my salary have the final say as they are the most restrictive. I don't like it, but that's the rules.

 

[Henning]

I guess the smaller the company, the less restrictive, because I never had an issue and even took my boss (owner of the photo lab) with me when we were going on a trip from Walnut Creek to Napa and I had my plane at Concord. He was going to drive us up for a meeting and I said "Hell to, we'll take my plane." and he said "You've got a plane? Awesome! Let's go..." and that was that.

 

[GigG601XL]

Since it hasn't been mentioned there is also the issue of Workers Compensation insurance provisions. MANY carriers specifically do not accept businesses that own, lease or operate aircraft and the definition of operate can include employees who fly their own planes for business purposes.

The very first question of the standard Acord Workers' Comp application used by almost all carriers is. "Does applicant own, operate or lease any aircraft/watercraft?" This comes before a question about hazardous materiel.

 

[Ghery]

I guess the smaller the company, the less restrictive,

I believe you are on to something there. My employer is a little larger than that (80,000+ employees). Needless to say, there's a written policy for just about everything.

 

[Henning]

I believe you are on to something there. My employer is a little larger than that (80,000+ employees). Needless to say, there's a written policy for just about everything.

I think the break point is when you have lawyers on staff.

That's why I make it policy I don't deal with big companies. I deal directly with the owners & CEOs of big companies, but not the company. It's just too much bother. Recently turned down a gig because there was a "Panel" involved in managing the boat, pass. Just moving the boat required a board meeting.

 

[rsleeds]

If I travel near a workplace on my own time (Saturday, for example), and stay with family, visit the work site on Monday, take Tuesday off for sightseeing, and then travel back Tuesday afternoon - is that a work trip?

No -- it's multiple purpose and cannot be construed as company time.

It definitely can be construed as such. You had to be at the worksite on Monday. The fact that you were doing personal things on either side of that trip is ultimately irrelevant in tying your trip back to the company. The company will see it that way, the lawyers on the other side will, the insurance companies, etc. If your company's insurance and/or policies say it's fine, then it's fine - if not, you don't get off becuase of the extra-curricular activities.

 

[dmccormack]

It definitely can be construed as such. You had to be at the worksite on Monday. The fact that you were doing personal things on either side of that trip is ultimately irrelevant in tying your trip back to the company. The company will see it that way, the lawyers on the other side will, the insurance companies, etc. If your company's insurance and/or policies say it's fine, then it's fine - if not, you don't get off becuase of the extra-curricular activities.

The question in court would be -- was the trip to see family the purpose of the trip to the work site?

You might have a case in the scenario I provided, but who knows what the result will be once you go to court?

 

[gprellwitz]

The question in court would be -- was the trip to see family the purpose of the trip to the work site?

You might have a case in the scenario I provided, but who knows what the result will be once you go to court?

The goal, of course, is to never need to GO to court, because once you do, you've lost, even if you win the case. That's why some companies prohibit their people flying. And I agree with Scott, they'd definitely consider this to be a work trip onto which you had added a little pleasure.

Something that would be a lot "grayer" in my mind would be the following:
You're on a two week trip to the vacation destination of your choice and stop in at a business meeting for a couple of hours on one of the days.

 

[dmccormack]

The goal, of course, is to never need to GO to court, because once you do, you've lost, even if you win the case. That's why some companies prohibit their people flying. And I agree with Scott, they'd definitely consider this to be a work trip onto which you had added a little pleasure.

Something that would be a lot "grayer" in my mind would be the following:
You're on a two week trip to the vacation destination of your choice and stop in at a business meeting for a couple of hours on one of the days.

Right -- if you go to court the "Wealthy Fat Cat Airplane Pilot" and the company with the deep pockets will lose.

 

[poadeleted20]

The question in court would be -- was the trip to see family the purpose of the trip to the work site?

I don't think you understand the relevant law, Dan. The question before the judge will be whether that travel was within the scope of the person's employment. May I suggest Chapter 5 "Basic Principles of Liability" in J. Scott Hamilton's "Practical Aviation Law" as a good place to start?

Only if the employee is not doing the employer's work can the employer avoid vicarious liability. Since in your scenario the employee is doing that work, and the travel is incidental to that work, the employer is on the hook to third parties and for workman's comp. The fact that the employee also took a vacation day on the other end only means the employer is not on the hook for anything that happens on that vacation day outside the scope of the employee's employment. Since the travel is within the scope of that employment, the employer is on the hook for what happens during the travel, and that's why a lot of companies limit the use of privately owned aircraft on business travel.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't think you understand the relevant law, Dan. The question before the judge will be whether that travel was within the scope of the person's employment. May I suggest Chapter 5 "Basic Principles of Liability" in J. Scott Hamilton's "Practical Aviation Law" as a good place to start?

Only if the employee is not doing the employer's work can the employer avoid vicarious liability. Since in your scenario the employee is doing that work, and the travel is incidental to that work, the employer is on the hook to third parties and for workman's comp. The fact that the employee also took a vacation day on the other end only means the employer is not on the hook for anything that happens on that vacation day outside the scope of the employee's employment. Since the travel is within the scope of that employment, the employer is on the hook for what happens during the travel, and that's why a lot of companies limit the use of privately owned aircraft on business travel.

I agree it will be a question -- and will be argued on both sides.

I've rethought my earlier statement and agree that the liability is not so easily cast off.

The attorney's seeking damages will try to show that the pilot's company was liable in order to tap into the deeper pockets.

The company's attorney will try to establish that the pilot was acting on his/her own behalf (probably contrary to company policy), and that the company should not be held liable.

The ruling is not a foregone conclusion, though I'll agree it's clearly wrong to put your employer's assets at risk for your own personal benefit.