Is this legal?
01-24-2012, 06:02 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
Is this legal?
Say you work for a company in a position that does not require you to fly. You are paid to do something completely unrelated to aviation. Then say a group of company employees need to go to a meeting a few hours away. One of the bosses says "hey you have a pilot license, if we the company rent the plane for you will you fly everyone to the meeting?" You hold a PVT/INST but no commercial is it legal to say yes? You aren't being paid or compensated in any way for flying and the company is paying to rent the plane.
01-24-2012, 06:20 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
Is that because someone else is paying for the plane? What if it was just the pilot in the plane? When I was on active duty I remember a lot of people renting planes to go on government travel and then being reimbursed when the filed thier travel claim for the cost of the plane. Many of they guys I know used that as another way to build time. Was that not legal?
01-24-2012, 04:11 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 650
MODS any chance of moving this back to the original catagory? Not much traffic in this section.
Finally got home and was able to look at the FAR. The way I read this, it is legal. B covers the situation in question, I would not be being paid to fly the flight and the passengers wouldn't be paying either.
Sec. 61.113 — Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
Finally got home and was able to look at the FAR. The way I read this, it is legal. B covers the situation in question, I would not be being paid to fly the flight and the passengers wouldn't be paying either.
Sec. 61.113 — Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
01-24-2012, 04:36 PM
#5
Working Class Dog
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Spares Pusher
Posts: 1,668
PIC issue aside, another factor to consider is the Company's insurance. How much employee liability would they cover if there was an unexpected event? Could you be held liable personally?
This "section" was designed specifically for your type of question.
Not much traffic in this section.
01-24-2012, 04:49 PM
#6
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Originally Posted by Duksrule
You aren't being paid or compensated in any way for flying and the company is paying to rent the plane.
01-24-2012, 04:52 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Duksrule
MODS any chance of moving this back to the original catagory? Not much traffic in this section.
Finally got home and was able to look at the FAR. The way I read this, it is legal. B covers the situation in question, I would not be being paid to fly the flight and the passengers wouldn't be paying either.
Sec. 61.113 — Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
Sec. 61.113 — Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
- The company paying the entire rental is compensation. The way I remember it, you can't even take two friends up to fly and have them pay for the entire rental. You - private pilot - have to pay a share.
I'm no FAR guru, but I'm pretty sure that this scenario isn't going to cut the mustard.
I'm sure though that one of our FAR smart guys will be checking on in no time and help you out with document, page, paragraph, and reference number soon.
USMCFLYR
01-24-2012, 04:59 PM
#8
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
He could rent an airplane (not the company plane) and fly his friends to a business meeting and have them all pay their partial shares, and pay his, but not many employees want to do that for their company and the FAA is not so stupid as to think some money doesn't pass under the table when that happens. It gets turned back into flying for pay, which is illegal without a commercial certificate.
Also, if the company hires the plane the airplane is no longer incidental to the business, it is then for all intents a "company aircraft", not some random rental obtained from a source having nothing to do with the company and its interests.
My take on it of course, not a lawyer.
Also, if the company hires the plane the airplane is no longer incidental to the business, it is then for all intents a "company aircraft", not some random rental obtained from a source having nothing to do with the company and its interests.
My take on it of course, not a lawyer.
01-25-2012, 08:56 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: PT Inbound
Posts: 219
§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
What paragraph (b) says is that a pilot may be compensated for his ability to fly an airplane as long as the fact that flying that airplane is incidental to the business and the company is not receiving any compensation for carrying anything aboard that plane.
What paragraph (c) says is that EVEN THOUGH paragraph (b) allows a pilot to be compensated (if incidental)... he must still pay at least the pro rata share of the flying expenses. So he may continue to get his company salary (that is incidental to flying) while flying but he must still pay his share of the rental and expenses as per paragraph (c).
So, the OP is not legal unless the pilot goes out and pays his pro rata share. If he does do that, the FAA might still suspect that there is money being dealt under the table but the burden of proof is on the FAA, not on the company, to prove that something is askew. From what I read, if the pilot was to rent the plane and pay his share... it is perfectly legal.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
What paragraph (b) says is that a pilot may be compensated for his ability to fly an airplane as long as the fact that flying that airplane is incidental to the business and the company is not receiving any compensation for carrying anything aboard that plane.
What paragraph (c) says is that EVEN THOUGH paragraph (b) allows a pilot to be compensated (if incidental)... he must still pay at least the pro rata share of the flying expenses. So he may continue to get his company salary (that is incidental to flying) while flying but he must still pay his share of the rental and expenses as per paragraph (c).
So, the OP is not legal unless the pilot goes out and pays his pro rata share. If he does do that, the FAA might still suspect that there is money being dealt under the table but the burden of proof is on the FAA, not on the company, to prove that something is askew. From what I read, if the pilot was to rent the plane and pay his share... it is perfectly legal.
01-25-2012, 09:19 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Fly Boy Knight
§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
What paragraph (b) says is that a pilot may be compensated for his ability to fly an airplane as long as the fact that flying that airplane is incidental to the business and the company is not receiving any compensation for carrying anything aboard that plane.
What paragraph (c) says is that EVEN THOUGH paragraph (b) allows a pilot to be compensated (if incidental)... he must still pay at least the pro rata share of the flying expenses. So he may continue to get his company salary (that is incidental to flying) while flying but he must still pay his share of the rental and expenses as per paragraph (c).
So, the OP is not legal unless the pilot goes out and pays his pro rata share. If he does do that, the FAA might still suspect that there is money being dealt under the table but the burden of proof is on the FAA, not on the company, to prove that something is askew. From what I read, if the pilot was to rent the plane and pay his share... it is perfectly legal.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
What paragraph (b) says is that a pilot may be compensated for his ability to fly an airplane as long as the fact that flying that airplane is incidental to the business and the company is not receiving any compensation for carrying anything aboard that plane.
What paragraph (c) says is that EVEN THOUGH paragraph (b) allows a pilot to be compensated (if incidental)... he must still pay at least the pro rata share of the flying expenses. So he may continue to get his company salary (that is incidental to flying) while flying but he must still pay his share of the rental and expenses as per paragraph (c).
So, the OP is not legal unless the pilot goes out and pays his pro rata share. If he does do that, the FAA might still suspect that there is money being dealt under the table but the burden of proof is on the FAA, not on the company, to prove that something is askew. From what I read, if the pilot was to rent the plane and pay his share... it is perfectly legal.
Then maybe I am reading into the 'incidental" wording in the wrong way then.
The trip isn't "incidental" if the ONLY reason for the existence of the trip is conducted to the conducting of business.
I thought "incidenal" meant that if the pilot was flying to XXXX in the first place and some guy asked "hey - could you take me along. I happen to be going that way (e.g. airplane hitchhiking)", and offered to pay half the rental cost then it would be ok.
USMCFLYR
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
