Private Pilot Reimbursement

[koehn]

Ron,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I'm glad you put up with us. Let me know the next time you're in the MSP area (or at AirVenture) and the drinks are on me.

 

[tmyers]

Yes Ron, you are a patient man.

 

[poadeleted20]

"FAR §91.501 (d)(1) through (10). These items are essen- tially are twice the cost of fuel, travel expenses of the crew, hangar and tie-down expenses, insurance for the specific flight, landing fees, airport taxes, custom and foreign permit fees, in-flight food and beverages, passenger ground transporta- tion and weather briefing contract services. In essence, this is a “wet lease,” since the air- craft is provided with the flight crew. This is a “time-sharing agreement” that is defined in
FAR §91.501(c)(1)"

This is what the NBAA exception says....You can not do "common carriage" . That is pretty clear... But apparently allows you to at least recover some cost via private carriage.

Lets see if a member of NBAA reads the post and share some info...

You are correct that 91.501(d)(10) allows the collection of "An additional charge equal to 100 percent of the expenses listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section." However, subparagraph (d)(1) includes only "Fuel, oil, lubricants, and other additives" and the other eight items in subparagraphs (2) through (9) are not included. Thus, despite what Mr. Armstrong wrote in that article, the regulation does not allow collection of double those other expenses.

And for Brad and Tim, just happy to help.

 

[Cmercado]

NBAA exception...and on the other hand is Mangiamele...... Dont you think the FAA should get together and start making sense and get consistent on their decisions???

 

[poadeleted20]

NBAA exception...and on the other hand is Mangiamele...... Dont you think the FAA should get together and start making sense and get consistent on their decisions???

That's what exemptions are about -- to allow some folks to operate outside the normal rules when the FAA is convinced that an equivalent level of safety is achieved. But regardless of that, the NBAA exemption has nothing to do with what the Mangiamele letter says is not allowed -- totally different issues. The NBAA exemption only involves professionally flown corporate owned/operated aircraft, while the Manginamele letter talks about personally owned/operated aircraft neither owned nor operated by the company involved. Big difference in the FAA's eyes, especially if you read what the Nall report has to say about corporate versus private/personal aircraft accident rates.

 

[Cmercado]

To make things a little bit more clear...NBAA exception allows you to do private carriage if you are a NBAA active member and charge for the following:

- Fuel, oil, lubricants, ect... X 2
- Travel expenses for crew including food, lodging and transportation
- Hangar & tiedown costs for the trip
- Insurance, taxes, landing fees, customs fees, weather subscriptions, food, beverages and passenger transportation...

So basically it allows a "semi 135" for private carriage. Does the maintenance requirements are the same??

 

[denverpilot]

Read all my posts above, and you'll see why I do not think they can be closed -- the entire concept runs contrary to the multi-layered "levels of safety" concept that Congress has mandated and the FAA wants. I'd put your plan in the same box as the EAA/AOPA proposal to allow DL's to sub for the Third Class medical that -- it's DOA. But if you want to press on, be my guest -- it's only your time you are wasting, not mine, as I'll have no further comment on your idea.

Which specific level of "safety" goes down when I load you in my aircraft, again?

Multiple levels of safety vs multiple levels of bureaucratic BS?

And your attitude is exactly why we don't get much done as a Country anymore.

Anyone with a brain can see that me loading you in my airplane with no reimbursement check from my employer for a $100 hamburger run, is the exact same flight (done to PPL PTS standards) as us going to the County Fair three Counties over to give out free trinkets from the company Marketing closet stash and getting reimbursed for gas.

If I'm safe to get you and me there from money in my account, I'm safe to get you there from money I get back a month or two later. Zero difference. That or they shouldn't have inked my PPL.

 

[Cmercado]

That's what exemptions are about -- to allow some folks to operate outside the normal rules when the FAA is convinced that an equivalent level of safety is achieved. But regardless of that, the NBAA exemption has nothing to do with what the Mangiamele letter says is not allowed -- totally different issues. The NBAA exemption only involves professionally flown corporate owned/operated aircraft, while the Manginamele letter talks about personally owned/operated aircraft neither owned nor operated by the company involved. Big difference in the FAA's eyes, especially if you read what the Nall report has to say about corporate versus private/personal aircraft accident rates.

Which specific level of "safety" goes down when I load you in my aircraft, again?

Multiple levels of safety vs multiple levels of bureaucratic BS?

And your attitude is exactly why we don't get much done as a Country anymore.

Anyone with a brain can see that me loading you in my airplane with no reimbursement check from my employer for a $100 hamburger run, is the exact same flight (done to PPL PTS standards) as us going to the County Fair three Counties over to give out free trinkets from the company Marketing closet stash and getting reimbursed for gas.

If I'm safe to get you and me there from money in my account, I'm safe to get you there from money I get back a month or two later. Zero difference. That or they shouldn't have inked my PPL.

Agreed.... So the level of safetyness is related to who is finally paying the bill......

 

[ronnieh]

Guys, guys, that is exactly the point. You have stated it perfectly. The level of safety is the same if you are being compensated or not. It is for that reason the FAA demands a higher level of safety if passengers are on board for a flight that is receiving compensation.

The FAA has essentially made an exception to allow solo operation for a compensated flight but will not subject passengers on a compensated flight to the same level of safety. You want the same level of safety for either operation and the FAA wants to raise the bar when passengers are on board. There has always been a separation from solo to with passengers and compensated and not compensated. When you add passengers AND compensation they demand the bar be raised.

The FAA position has always been if a private pilot wants to kill himself it is OK with them as long as you don't hurt anyone else. Carrying passengers requires a little more, specifically requires three TO & ldgs in previous 90 days. Next step up, flying passengers for compensation in a plane owned by the passengers, now we want a commercial license. Next step up flying on demand charter furnishing plane and pilot, 135 and so on. Want to haul passengers in transport category aircraft?...

As you so aptly put it the safety stays the same whether the flight is compensated or not, FAA demands that the bar be raised as you go up the ladder not stay the same.

 

[tmyers]

I completely agree with the Commercial requirement. The part that makes no sense is that I can have my company rent an aircraft for me to fly that I am less familiar with and less confident in than my own very capable aircraft. They can pay $150 an hour for a worn out 172 while my Arrow sits in the hangar. I can assure you that the rental is maintained to no higher standard than my own. What is it that the FAA is worried about with commercial pilots using their own airplanes?

 

[JeffDG]

Only difference is NBAA got theirs and AOPA/EAA didn't.

True...I was pointing out that such exemptions often have such restrictions on application to members of the sponsoring organization.

 

[ronnieh]

Tim, do you expect the FAA to carve out an exception for you personally? What you say may be true but what about Billy Bob with his 1963 C172? The C172 with 37 hours since the last annual and due next month. The same Billy Bob that is two months away from a flight review and will have to run out to the airport and do three T & G's just to be legal. Everyone here can say the rules are unfair to them personally and perhaps you are correct. The rules have to apply to everyone. The only way to insure a higher level of safety for a particular operation is to require a higher level of safety for a particular situation.

 

[tmyers]

We have rules for how aircraft are to be maintained, both personal aircraft and rental aircraft. I know I don't understand this fully which is why I am asking, but how is a rental aircraft maintained to a higher safety standard than my aircraft. Other than a 100 hour inspection for the rental vs an annual for mine how is the rental safer. My experience is that unless you rent a higher end aircraft the rental fleet is in no way in better shape than my own. There will always be Billy Bob's with aircraft held together with bubble gum and bailing wire, but I have rented some aircraft over the years that match that description as well.

Not looking for favors or special treatment in any way, just equity.

 

[ronnieh]

I repeat, how does the FAA allow Tim's plane to be used for commercial operations and not Billy Bob's? An airplane on the rental line is maintained to a higher minimum standard. That in no way says your plane is not maintained to a higher standard than rental. 135 aircraft are maintained to a higher minimum standard the rental and so on. The rules have to apply to the lowest common denominator. You can not cherry pick specific examples and not apply the rules across the board. Unless you want a SFAR for Tim and his plane.

 

[tmyers]

but how is a rental aircraft maintained to a higher safety standard than my aircraft. Other than a 100 hour inspection for the rental vs an annual for mine how is the rental safer.

I must not be doing a good job of asking this question because it seems you think I am asking for an exception for me which I am not. The above taken from my post is my question. Also let me remove me from the equation. Other than the requirement for a 100 hr inspection, how is the mx of a rental different from a privately owned aircraft?

Just so you know, Tim is a rule keeper not a rule breaker which is why I am asking and not just doing what ever I want. That is why I have started on the path to my commercial certificate, and is why I am asking questions in an effort to understand.

 

[weilke]

Unless you want a SFAR for Tim and his plane.

Just a new rule, that if you want to take pax with reimbursement on a business flight, you have to be within 6 month of a flight review and the plane has to be within 100hrs of the last inspection

 

[MikeELP]

...If I'm safe to get you and me there from money in my account, I'm safe to get you there from money I get back a month or two later. Zero difference. That or they shouldn't have inked my PPL.

Yes, there is a difference. The regs and the Chief Counsel have stated that one is legal, the other isn't.

And the FAA "inked your PPL" with the understanding that you had demonstrated to a DPE that you had the required knowledge of the rules that apply to your privileges and limitations as a private pilot.

FWIW, the "privileges and limitations" is something I spend a good amount of time going over using these very same scenarios with all of the students that I prep for checkride orals. My own students as well as others that have been sent to me by other CFI's.


Mike

 

[ronnieh]

Tim, just to name a few. Service bulletins become required. All TBO's must be observed. No more running props for 10 years and engines to 3000 hours as long as they don't make metal. That is in addition to the 100 hour rule. The problem is that you may keep your plane to higher standards than required but, the next person may not. It is the minimum that I was talking about. The minimum required is raised. You want to use your plane, put it in a program that guarantees these higher standards and takes control of the plane away from you and then you company can do a rental or lease and you are good to go with a commercial.

Does this make it any clearer? I am not as good as Ron at explaining these things. That is partly due to his superior knowledge with the FAR's. Take what I say with a grain of salt concerning specifics of the FAR's

Let me add, this discussion is not about the validity of the rules, just what they are. However, the validity is not off limits of any discussion. I just don't want to get too far from the original post. We can always start a thread on the validity of some of the rules.

 

[weilke]

Tim, just to name a few. Service bulletins become required. All TBO's must be observed. No more running props for 10 years and engines to 3000 hours as long as they don't make metal.

What operation are you talking about ? 135 or rentals ?

The canadians have a system where certain business aircraft have to be on a maintenance program administered by their equivalent of NBAA (which in turn farms out the maintenance audits to independent consultants) . It hasn't been without problems, but an interesting approach to getting more oversight over a type of operation without having to hire scores of goverment inspectors. A bit like the FAA handles DPEs and company check airmen.

 

[ronnieh]

Both, at least I am pretty sure TBO compliance is required for rental. Ron?

 

[weilke]

Both, at least I am pretty sure TBO compliance is required for rental. Ron?

Not to my knowledge.

The only thing required on a rental is a current 100hr inspection (or a FSDO approved progressive scheme).

If you use aircraft for scenic flights under a LOA, there may be additional maintenance requirements imposed by the FSDO. A typical one would be that all maintenance has to be performed by a provider who has an approved drug monitoring program.

 

[tmyers]

That does answer my question, thanks Ronnie. I agree that the validity could be in question but as they say "it is what it is"

 

[DrMack]

The commercial operator certification allows the privilege of "holding out" to the public. Further, a commercial operation may charge for whatever other service they desire (baggage fees, catering fees, whatever) whereas a private compensation is restricted to reimbursement of direct expenses only, i.e., no profit margin because aviation is not the business.

All we are asking for with this legislation is the ability to obtain reimbursement of direct operating expenses for private pilots who VOLUNTEER to use their airplanes in a manner that is incidental to the business at hand. The statute would also dictate that any passengers or property owners whose property is carried on the flight have also VOLUNTEERED to do so. Holding out would remain forbidden as it is today.

Some have argued that it would be too easy to operate without obeying the law. Well if you don't obey the law you are engaging in criminal conduct and you should be punished appropriately for any violations. The vast majority of private pilots will continue to obey the law.

 

[tmyers]

Never have seen a decent definition of "Holding Out", is that simply advertising or making yourself available to the public?

 

[poadeleted20]

To make things a little bit more clear...NBAA exception allows you to do private carriage if you are a NBAA active member and charge for the following:

- Fuel, oil, lubricants, ect... X 2
- Travel expenses for crew including food, lodging and transportation
- Hangar & tiedown costs for the trip
- Insurance, taxes, landing fees, customs fees, weather subscriptions, food, beverages and passenger transportation...

So basically it allows a "semi 135" for private carriage. Does the maintenance requirements are the same??

Did you really read the regulations and the actual exemption? Yes, you must have an FAA-approved maintenance program. Yes, you need to file paperwork with the FSDO. No, you cannot take just anyone. And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the issues we've been discussing (reimbursement of private pilots when they use their planes on business travel).

 

[poadeleted20]

Which specific level of "safety" goes down when I load you in my aircraft, again?

Multiple levels of safety vs multiple levels of bureaucratic BS?

And your attitude is exactly why we don't get much done as a Country anymore.

Anyone with a brain can see that me loading you in my airplane with no reimbursement check from my employer for a $100 hamburger run, is the exact same flight (done to PPL PTS standards) as us going to the County Fair three Counties over to give out free trinkets from the company Marketing closet stash and getting reimbursed for gas.

If I'm safe to get you and me there from money in my account, I'm safe to get you there from money I get back a month or two later. Zero difference. That or they shouldn't have inked my PPL.

You don't seem to accept that Congress has decreed and the FAA has required increased levels of safety when money changes hands. Yes, they have graciously allowed certain exceptions to those higher levels of safety in certain situations described in 61.113. However, the statistics very clearly show that airplanes operated privately by individual pilots have a much higher incidence of accidents than aircraft operated by corporations with professional pilots. The underlying rule is that when you get a free ride, you can't expect much, so "passenger beware", but when someone's paying for the flight, you expect to get what you paid for, and that means assurance of a higher level of safety than private flying requires.

Now, you may think you're just as safe in your 172 as a professionally flown corporate jet, and you might even be right, but the statistics prove that is not so across all private flying versus all corporate flying. In fact, corporate jet operations have a safety record close to that of the airlines, while private flying in light singles has a record that is abysmal in comparison, and it's just too much to expect for the FAA to make a special exception for individual pilots who think they and their operation are that good, too.

On second thought, I suppose they could, but the hoops through which you'd need to jump would look a lot like Part 135, and I don't think you'd be willing to go through all that just to take a passenger on the occasional business trip.

 

[poadeleted20]

Both, at least I am pretty sure TBO compliance is required for rental. Ron?

Nope. Only if it's also being used in a 135 or 141 program and the operator has no other FSDO-approved maintenance schedule.

Tim does have a point in this regard, but at the same time, the FAA seems to assume that when the company provides the airplane by renting it from some independent rental operator, there is some corporate oversight to the operation, giving some increased assurance of a safe operation. IOW, they figure when the company is directly in the liability chain, as opposed to the more tenuous case of "we just told Fred to go, we didn't tell him to use his plane to get there," the company will be more careful about what goes on.

OTOH, when the individual pilot provides both airplane and pilot, there is no oversight, and it's back to the least common denominator of pilot and aircraft under Parts 61 and 91, and the accident statistics say that is a lot riskier operation.

 

[poadeleted20]

The only thing required on a rental is a current 100hr inspection (or a FSDO approved progressive scheme).

No 100-hour for a rental, only for flight training or 135 operations. See 91.409 for details. An airplane used only for straight rental need not meet any more stringent maintenance requirements than a privately-owned aircraft, and I gather that's Tim's point. However, when you involve the employee, the employer, and the third party aircraft provider, the increased amount of oversight give a lot more assurance that the aircraft will be fully fit to fly safely, and I think that's the FAA's point.

 

[poadeleted20]

Never have seen a decent definition of "Holding Out", is that simply advertising or making yourself available to the public?

There are numerous interpretations on point, plus this Advisory Circular (in particular, see section 4) which has been quoted in various interpretations and cases.

 

[ronnieh]

Thanks, Weilke, I stand corrected. Is owner maintenance also prohibited on rental?

To add to what Ron has so aptly stated and in response to Dr. Mack, there is no requirement for a profit to be made, just an exchange of money from a third party.

Round and around we go. To those who question what the law says, Ron and others have covered it completely. Are the laws fair and the best they can be, I doubt it.

To Dr. Mack, should the FAA allow passengers on compensated flights made by private pilots in personal planes? I lean towards no, it probably would not. The reason being you have all levels of personal aircraft and levels of private pilots. I think it would be opening a can of worms with almost no benefit to general aviation. The law would be used so little as to have essentially no impact on personal aircraft utilization.

 

[ronnieh]

Ron, does not rental require 100 hour? Perhaps not. Thus my caution on taking my information on the FAR's with a grain of salt. Thanks Ron for setting me straight. First mistake today but, it is still early

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks, Weilke, I stand corrected. Is owner maintenance also prohibited on rental?

No.

(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.

Rentals do not in and of themselves fall under either of the three Parts mentioned (although many rental planes are also on a 135 certificate, and a renter with a screwdriver can spoil that program). However, for lots of reasons (not the least of which may be insurance), most FBO/flight schools prohibit renters from performing preventive maintenance on their airplanes.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, does not rental require 100 hour?

No, it does not, unless the operator is providing a flight instructor along with the airplane. See 14 CFR 91.409:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

The key is that when you're renting, you may be hiring the aircraft, but you are not carrying anyone for hire (unless also want to violate some other rules, too).

 

[weilke]

No, it does not, unless the operator is providing a flight instructor along with the airplane. See 14 CFR 91.409:

Right, explains the condition of some rental aircraft at FBOs that use independent instructors.

 

[denverpilot]

Guys, guys, that is exactly the point. You have stated it perfectly. The level of safety is the same if you are being compensated or not. It is for that reason the FAA demands a higher level of safety if passengers are on board for a flight that is receiving compensation.

And I ask again... What additional safety was removed when the check didn't arrive?

So the FAA Chief Counsel is saying I'm not safe to fly to the next County for the County Fair to hand out flyers, but I'm safe to take three people out to lunch halfway across the country. Today. Right now. Let's hop in the airplane and go.

Or...

They're saying I'm not safe to fly those folks to lunch but the FAA just has to put up with me doing so.

Got it. LOL. Either way, they're claiming the PPL curriculum, that they created, is broken. If this is really about safety.

(I contend that it's not.)

 

[denverpilot]

You don't seem to accept that Congress has decreed and the FAA has required increased levels of safety when money changes hands. Yes, they have graciously allowed certain exceptions to those higher levels of safety in certain situations described in 61.113. However, the statistics very clearly show that airplanes operated privately by individual pilots have a much higher incidence of accidents than aircraft operated by corporations with professional pilots. The underlying rule is that when you get a free ride, you can't expect much, so "passenger beware", but when someone's paying for the flight, you expect to get what you paid for, and that means assurance of a higher level of safety than private flying requires.

Now, you may think you're just as safe in your 172 as a professionally flown corporate jet, and you might even be right, but the statistics prove that is not so across all private flying versus all corporate flying. In fact, corporate jet operations have a safety record close to that of the airlines, while private flying in light singles has a record that is abysmal in comparison, and it's just too much to expect for the FAA to make a special exception for individual pilots who think they and their operation are that good, too.

On second thought, I suppose they could, but the hoops through which you'd need to jump would look a lot like Part 135, and I don't think you'd be willing to go through all that just to take a passenger on the occasional business trip.

The argument thrown back on this is always whether or not I'm as safe as a Corporate jet. I never claimed to be so.

I simply point out that receiving a check for gas didn't lower the safety of my flight one iota.

They're "fixing the wrong problem".

 

[poadeleted20]

The argument thrown back on this is always whether or not I'm as safe as a Corporate jet. I never claimed to be so.

I simply point out that receiving a check for gas didn't lower the safety of my flight one iota.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact you have not demonstrated to them that your level of safety is sufficient for them to be comfortable with you providing air transportation for hire/compensation, which is why they do not allow you do accept that compensation in return for providing air transportation. This is no different than carrying a passenger the day before your PP practical test versus the day after. You're almost certainly no safer the day after, but you haven't yet proven your competence to the FAA, so it's illegal the day before. First you prove, then they allow. No proof, no allowing.

Sure, they could set up a way of showing that you meet the higher standard they demand for operations involving air transportation for compensation/hire, and you could demonstrate compliance with them. But, oh -- wait -- they already have. It's called Part 135 (and the other regulations involved as applicable, like 91.147, Part 91 Subparts F and K, etc). The standard is there, the bar is set, now all you have to do is comply.

Of course, that's a totally impractical burden for a private aircraft owner in the situation discussed (traveling occasionally with co-workers on business), but it's fair, objective, proven, and accepted by the courts. As for "fixing the wrong problem," they have plenty of proof that the problem is what they say it is going all the way back to "The Day the Music Died," which triggered the creation of Part 135 in the first place.

 

[ronnieh]

Denver you are correct. Receiving a check did not lower your level of safety. Receiving a check did not raise your level of safety either. You must demonstrate you meet that higher standard the FAA says must be met to carry passengers for compensation.
As Ron has tried to explain over and over, the FAA demands a higher level of demonstrated pilot skills to receive compensation.
I and perhaps Ron accepts your skill and the skills of others may indeed exceed what the FAA deems minimum allowable. As Ron says if that is so, then just demonstrate the skills in accordance with the applicable FAR's and everybody should be happy.

Nobody claims the PPL curriculum is broken. It just does not meet the standard the FAA deems needed for a compensated flight with passengers. When you passed your PPL check ride the FAA deemed you legal to carry passengers. You seem to want what Dr. Mack wants which is the PPL deemed sufficient to carry passengers and receive compensation. The amount of compensation has no bearing.

 

[DrMack]

Thought experiment:

Would it be any more palatable to the public choice mechanism if the proposal was amended to require a commercial pilot license? The rest would remain the same: incidental to the business or employment, common purpose with pax, only reimbursement of direct costs (no profit), consent of pilot and pax. Prohibition of holding out remains in place. In essence, the proposal would morph into an exception to Part 119 instead of 61.113.

 

[JeffDG]

Why?

The issue is the misreading 91.113(b). 91.113(b) does not say what Mangimele says it does. That interpretation is contrary to the letter of the regulation.

That said, my company prohibits the use of private aircraft for business travel, so I'll not be a test case for it.