Incidental to Business?

Wheels said:
I looked up the name in the FAA airman database. I realize that it might not be completely up to date but it indicates that he is a private pilot.
Click to expand...
Yes; he is a private pilot rotorcraft-helicopter with a current third class medical, and is co-owner of the R44 helicopter N367LA. He's also a Sarasota County realtor.
 
bobmrg said:
Have you ever read a real estate listing? Did you interpret a listing as any kind of guarantee as to how a prospective purchaser would get to the property without being taken there by a salesperson? I honestly never though of a listing as being an advertisement of personal services...because the sales person has access to the property (key box, etc) and the prospective purchaser does not, transportation is a given. That's why you don't see many Mini's or SmartCars in real estate agent's parking lots....more like Lexuses, Caddies, etc.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of real estate listings... None of them have been advertising helicopter tours like this one.

I've also been to plenty of showings... And I've never been transported there by the realtor, I've met the realtor on site.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I've seen plenty of real estate listings... None of them have been advertising helicopter tours like this one.

I've also been to plenty of showings... And I've never been transported there by the realtor, I've met the realtor on site.
Click to expand...

I've been driven by the realtor, starting and ending at their office; I've driven myself and met the realtor at the property; I've followed the realtor in my own car. So all I can say is, it depends. (I'm currently living in my sixth home, in five states.)

The only thing that worries me about this is it looks like he's holding out. Although seeing the area from above would quickly give his clients insight into the area and assist in general selection of where to look and where to avoid. You can't always see what's behind the tree line, and if no road is handy you may not realize it's the regional Walmart warehouse that is noisily busy from 0300-0700 every day but fairly quiet when you're walking around the yard . . . .
 
You guys know “incidental” is not an amount, right?
 
Wheels said:
I looked up the name in the FAA airman database. I realize that it might not be completely up to date but it indicates that he is a private pilot.
Click to expand...
There ya go...a mere forty posts in, and we have the facts. NOW we can start to do our POA speculations properly! ;)
 
If the guy is not charging for the helicopter time how is it any different than driving customers around to see the property? I don’t think it is illegal
 
Tarheelpilot said:
If the guy is not charging for the helicopter time how is it any different than driving customers around to see the property? I don’t think it is illegal
Click to expand...
Did you just ask, How is flying an aircraft any different from driving a car from a regulatory standpoint?

Heck, without even getting to the carrying of passengers for "compensation" question, the Chief Counsel's dozen or so interpretations of "incidental" are very result-oriented and inconsistent. I've never been able to quite understand why examining facilities from the air by a pipeline company is not incidental because it is a "foreseeable and normal part of the business," but a mechanic test flying an aircraft after repairs is incidental, but both are the subject of interpretation letters. (Actually, I have figured out why - the Chief Counsel crafted an exception for mechanics for policy reasons)
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
You made my point. Transportation in a car is incidental to your business. You didn’t even advertise it because it’s assumed. A helicopter is certainly not, and putting it on the ad makes that even more obvious, as you stated you don’t advertise your car.
Click to expand...
But every agent HAS a car, no need to let folks know that. He has a chopper, he can show you the property from the air. That's no different than driving it in the agent's SUV...just better.

I'm with Bob.
 
Last edited:
Wheels said:
View attachment 68429 He is holding out, the aerial tours are the main point of his ad. No idea if there are any strings attached or if his compensation strictly comes from the sale of the properties.
Click to expand...
Wheels said:
I looked up the name in the FAA airman database. I realize that it might not be completely up to date but it indicates that he is a private pilot.
Click to expand...
Even with that, there is a lot we don't know about this, which is why I don't have an opinion on its legality.
 
timwinters said:
But every agent HAS a car, no need to let folks know that. He has a chopper, he can show you the property from the air. That's no different than driving it in the agent's SUV...just better.

I'm with Bob.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV and get reimbursed by your employer, you can do the same in an airplane? Mangiamele which put the kibosh in that almost 10 years ago, has been discussed here thread many times.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
1, that ad is clearly "holding out."
2, if you're offering aerial tours it's most certainly not "incidental to the business." You cannot give an aerial tour without an aircraft.

I would expect that the FAA would put this guy on the ground for at least 90 days if they caught up with him...
Click to expand...
He seems to be offering tours of high end luxury properties for sale. I don't think mentioning they are by air "clearly" makes it non-incidental.

I don't see a "clearly" anything in this scenario.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV and get reimbursed by your employer, you can do the same in an airplane? Mangiamele which put the kibosh in that almost 10 years ago, has been discussed here thread many times.
Click to expand...
"Reimburse" is not part of the discussion (unless I missed something). It's more like:

So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV for no compensation, you can do the same in an airplane?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
 
timwinters said:
"Reimburse" is not part of the discussion (unless I missed something). It's more like:

So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV for no compensation, you can do the same in an airplane?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
So you can advertise free rides to work in your suv, so you can do the same in an airplane. Not really fair comparison though since this guy is (to me) clearly getting goodwill in the form of a more likely sale.
 
timwinters said:
"Reimburse" is not part of the discussion (unless I missed something). It's more like:

So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV for no compensation, you can do the same in an airplane?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
The FAA's definition of "compensation" is definitely part of the equation.
 
aggie06 said:
You guys know “incidental” is not an amount, right?
Click to expand...
I would think that determining relative amounts of time, money, etc. involved in various activities could be useful in determining which are central to the business and which are just incidental to it.
 
Palmpilot said:
I would think that determining relative amounts of time, money, etc. involved in various activities could be useful in determining which are central to the business and which are just incidental to it.
Click to expand...


You would think wrongly.

Incidental is best understood as not integral or not necessary. It is to the side.
 
bflynn said:
You would think wrongly.

Incidental is best understood as not integral or not necessary. It is to the side.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything in your explanation that's inconsistent with what I wrote. What is your reason for believing that the relative amounts of time or money involved in various activities couldn't play a role in determining which of them are not integral, not necessary, and to the side?
 
Last edited:
CC268 said:
If an examiner asked you this on a checkride what would you say? If you get it wrong you fail the checkride! :)
Click to expand...

It is easy to punt that question right back to the DPE. "Mr. Examiner, I know that question hinges on both the interpretation of "Holding out" and on the question of "incidental to the business". In this case I would call the FSDO to get their interpretation of the situation. Who at the FSDO would you suggest I call?".

-Skip
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I don't see anything in your explanation that's inconsistent with what I wrote. What is your reason for believing that the relative amounts of time or money involved in various activities couldn't play a role in determining which of them are not integral, not necessary, and to the side?
Click to expand...

Because you can spend a lot of time doing something that is incidental to a business. Merely spending a lot of time doing something does not make it required for the business. A traveling salesman gets paid to sell whether they travel a lot or a little.
 
Skip Miller said:
It is easy to punt that question right back to the DPE. "Mr. Examiner, I know that question hinges on both the interpretation of "Holding out" and on the question of "incidental to the business". In this case I would call the FSDO to get their interpretation of the situation. Who at the FSDO would you suggest I call?".

-Skip
Click to expand...

Perfect
 
There's always the possibility the guy asked for and received an opinion from the FSDO that his actions are not contrary to the relevant regulations.

Not that I want to interrupt a few pages of arguments. Carry on.
 
3393RP said:
There's always the possibility the guy asked for and received an opinion from the FSDO that his actions are not contrary to the relevant regulations.

Not that I want to interrupt a few pages of arguments. Carry on.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is alway the possibility that a business person would do normal business due diligence.
 
dtuuri said:
You'd also think an esteemed aviation magazine back in 1963, one in touch with the FAA in Washington, DC, would do normal business due-diligence before publishing an article saying this is perfectly "OK".
Click to expand...

A lot of what is in there has been changed in the ensuing 55 years. In fact, the previously-mentioned Mangiamele interpretation invalidates the second half of the very first bullet point on the page. (And, FWIW, I think that interpretation is a load of crap.)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
A lot of what is in there has been changed in the ensuing 55 years. In fact, the previously-mentioned Mangiamele interpretation invalidates the second half of the very first bullet point on the page. (And, FWIW, I think that interpretation is a load of crap.)
Click to expand...
I think the FAA was a whole lot smarter 55 years ago.
 
Hank S said:
We are still killing ourselves in the same old ways . . . . Mostly even in the same old planes . . . .
Click to expand...

I'm referring mostly to the incidents that have resulted in the tightening of restrictions on private pilots and "compensation". But yeah, sadly, you're right. :(
 
I am not going down this rabbit hole, all this subject does is elevate my blood pressure, Pitts off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top