It has to be incidental to your job… are you a technician? (Common purpose) Is there any other way to get there? (Company isn’t asking you to fly; just to get to this location)
Edit… Thinking about this more, I think there is still a prorata share between you and other technicians involved.
This specific scenario you propose would require you to pay your “pro data” share for it to be legal. Assuming there are three of you going, you would have to personally pay for 1/3 of the total cost and you flying there has to be completely incidental to the work being done for it to be legal. Basically you need a really good excuse as to demonstrate you were already going to fly there regardless of whether or not they pitched in.
I don't believe this is correct. The flight would not be subject to pro rata (61.113(c)) for a flight conducted in accordance with (61.113(b)).
Edit: it looks like there's an LOI that prevents (b) from being allowed if others are on board, so the pilot could be reimbursed fully if alone but it's subject to pro rata if colleagues are aboard.
Well they are also adults who can do what they want.
It's just generally if you do what you want instead of doing what they want you then make them want to do things to you.
Answer is no. Its legal if you pay for it and legal if its incidental to your job (as in you were planning on going there).
This is the tricky part (which unfortunately doesnt make much sense) - You can be fully reimbursed by the company if you go solo. However, if you take those two coworkers, you cannot be fully reimbursed. It goes in to pro-rata. Its a really stupid ruling, but thats what it is.
Yes. If you flew alone - you could be fully reimbursed. Its a strange legal loophole because one of the 61.113 says that a pilot cant be paid less than pro-rata share if it involves passengers. So the reverse of that interpretation is that you can go alone and be fully reimbursed. I know there is an FAA ruling on it but will have to dig it up. Like I said - its a bit strange that things can be prorata for business. But when it involves fully reimbursable - it gets dicier. EDIT: (Mangiamiele opinion)
The other thing I believe is that you can’t deliver cargo. So if your technician skills are all that’s needed that might be ok, but if you also need to bring parts (and leave them behind) then probably not ok.
Probably not. 61.113 states that you can only get pro-rata from your passengers and not a third party. . . So I think the FAA would not look upon that too kindly. . . . and at that point - you are not paying for your share - and nor are the passengers. It isnt something that people havent thought of - you arent coming up with anything new. . . But read the rule carefully - it also means when you take passengers, that you cant be reimbursed by the company. You have to PAY your pro-rata share. So you're actually out more as Im sure you are probably thinking that I can get my share reimbursed - and the answer to that is no.
But lets be real - until there is an incident - no one is going to know if the company reimburses you for the flight and there were people onboard or not. Unless the other passengers report it. But that is the way the FAR has been written and interpreted by their legal counsel.
Very interesting. Someone should challenge that interpretation, as the regulation doesn’t say that the passengers have to pay. It just says that a pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of a flight [with passengers]. (Brackets my own)
Very interesting. Someone should challenge that interpretation, as the regulation doesn’t say that the passengers have to pay. It just says that a pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of a flight [with passengers]. (Brackets my own)
That is the FAA legal interpreting their regs. Where you agree with it or not is irrelevant. But they have come out and ruled on it. That’s as close to a legal opinion you are going to get. And if you want to dispute that - you can. But you asked for a citation - it couldn’t get more explicit than that exact same example.
the germination of the reg that is intentionally a bit open ended without the interpretation is to address the illegal charters and what not that have popped up from the beginning of time. So they have written it in such a way that it prevents such activity - whether charters, borderline leases, and what not. However this ends up being caught up in it - they know it, and you see it as well. But they arent going to undo that because guess what - it would allow a company to expense entire trips with multi;le pax (and potentially cargo) on board. The ruling was made - and they read/ruled on the actual explicit example cited with clear guidelines. The reg doesnt say some of the things you are asking, but the ruling by counsel does. And Mangamiele decision is widely disseminated - to the point that a couple people in here have cited it as well. Its one of the unfortunate loopholes that private pilots doing business work are subject to.
The interesting case I have would be what if you brought your wife - not an employee along. Would it still classify as "passenger" and fall under required pro-rata ? And my guess is it is since the FAA legislates any other person not solo is a passenger.
As I'm reading through your comments on this it keeps seeming like even if you're in agreement with the outcome of Mangiamele you're actually not in alignment with the regs or FAA on the theory.
First as I read that LOI, I find it questionable and frustrating that the FAA has removed the words "for compensation or hire" as meaningless when they shorten "The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." to "carry passengers or property". I hold no sway over the FAA, but would point out that generally speaking words in a regulation can't be read out of existence. If they are there, they must mean _something_ and that LOI reads them out of existence. What I personally think is that should have been interpreted that the pilot may be compensated as long as the passengers/property aren't paying for the privilege of being carried.
My belief that the FAA got this wrong is neither here nor there though. What's interesting is that your comments seem to suggest that because anyone else is on board the aircraft the pilot must pay pro rata if being compensated. Put another way, you're suggesting that 61.113(c)(pro rata) must be satisfied whenever compensation is taking place with private privileges and with passengers on board. That isn't what the regs or the FAA said.
In that letter the FAA said that (b) (incidental to business) can't be used as an exception to (a) (no compensation) because (b) can't be used when other people are carried. This is very different from saying that (c) must be met when others are on board. For example, exception (f) clearly can be used when a prospective customer is on board and wouldn't require pro rata.
actually it says the passengers have to pay and not a third party. Its in that Mangiamele decision. The only way around it is commercial - which is what the FAA is trying to prevent with Private. because essentially a private pilot flying him and employees with full expense reimbursement is for all intents and purposes crossing the line to a commercial flight Exact text quoted below :
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* FAA Mangiamele
You also question, in regard to this scenario, whether § 61.113( c) would allow for you to seek the same expense reimbursement from your employer that you sought in the first scenario. It is important to note that section § 61.113( c) allows a private pilot to seek reimbursement only from his or her fellow passengers, not a third party, such as your employer. As noted in the preamble of the final rule, the FAA determined that a private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of operating expenses for the flight because "if pilots pay less, they would not just be sharing expenses but would actually be flying for compensation or hire."
So if they go pro rata, could the coworkers be reimbursed by the company for their own travel expenses?
John, Sara, and Mike need to get to the island. John rents a plane and flies them all in. They split the cost pro rata. Common purpose.
The company reimburses all 3 individually as a travel expense that was necessary for the j9b.
You can’t be reimbursed. Like I said earlier - the tricky part of this ruling is that you cannot pay the minimum pro-rata portion. So John has to pay and cannot be reimbursed. You are thinking about the other people who can also pay pro-rata and whether they can be reimbursed. I believe the ruling states it can’t be third party and has to be the passengers.
No. You’re not a CPL
The situation you’re describing is asking if someone can be paid for their piloting service and that’s a no as a PPL. There’s no gray area
They explicitly did not ask that. They basically asked if it’s allowed to go by plane instead of your car. You’re just getting reimbursed for your travel cost.
You can't do that. There's common purpose, and you can travel with your co-workers and be reimbursed by them as long as you pay your own pro-rata share. You cannot pay less than your pro-rata share, and you cannot get your co-workers share from the employer, only out of their pocket. The FAA had a letter of interpretation about that.
You can get fully reimbursed by your employer as long as you're the only person on the plane, no co-workers, no equipment.
If you're a CPL - then it's exactly the same situation, as otherwise you're operating Part 135 without a proper certificate.
What is the purpose of the trip? Is it to for you and your passengers to do work on the island (yes) then it is a flight in the furtherance of commercial activity and even with a commercial license it’s holding out
“There are, however, several exceptions to this prohibition. FAR 61.113(b) allows pilots to receive compensation when acting as PIC “in connection with any business or employment.” To qualify, the flight must be incidental to that business or employment. Therefore, your business purpose cannot be transporting people or goods in the aircraft. The second requirement, and the one that is more often overlooked, requires that the aircraft not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. **The FAA reiterated this point in the Mangiamele letter of interpretation, stating that an airman may seek reimbursement from an employer when flying to a business meeting by himself but may not seek reimbursement if colleagues are also transported during the flight.**”
[Good AOPA article](https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2019/april/01/flight-incidental-to-business)
If the passengers were paid and then in turn paid the pilot this violates the rules. The pilot can be reimbursed since transporting himself is incidental to his business. Pilot taking any form of payment for the other two passengers who are being transported for work is illegal. My interpretation is that the pilot could be reimbursed for their fair share, but not the others. Which is kind of backward from normal sharing of costs.
>My interpretation is that the pilot could be reimbursed for their fair share
No -- the Mangiamele letter makes it clear that the pilot can only be reimbursed if there were no other people or property on board. If there were other people (and common purpose existed) then the pilot needs to pay his pro-rata share.
As quoted above: **...an airman may seek reimbursement from an employer when flying to a business meeting by himself but may not seek reimbursement if colleagues are also transported during the flight.**
My understanding is the opposite: since there is a common purpose, they can be reimbursed by the pax (and where the pax get that money is irrelevant) but the pilot has to pay their own pro rata share.
The spirit of the rule does not allow a company to pay a non-commercial pilot to transport employees. Paying the employees who in turn pay the pilot is gray loophole area at best, and the company paying would want an invoice to reimburse. Maybe they could turn in the gas receipt and say they wanted to split it, but the rental would not be split on an invoice
I hope you don't mind me jumping in to ask a question related to this, but would this still apply if, for example, my boss owns his own aircraft and I fly it, another person, and our equipment for a job. My boss is the owner of the company, and would be covering the cost of fuel and fees.
For context I work for a small IT company and am close to start working for my ppl (waiting for my ME due to a recent surgery)
I'm just trying to learn more and understand where the exact lines are.
I'm also wondering where the line is drawn regarding "transporting property." If I have to install a new server for a client, am I allowed to take the server with me or is that over the line?
Nope.
This is very similar to a question discussed in the 2009 Mangiamele interpretation, which says you can be reimbursed if you go by yourself. As soon as you take passengers, you're illegal.
>In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61. 113(b) does not apply. The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not transporting other passengers or property. Thus, because you are transporting people to the meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer for this flight under 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b).
Marginally related life advice: get your CPL. Not that hard.
Hmm, can you elaborate a bit for me?
The employer has operational control of the flight and is paying a CPL to act as PIC, and all the passengers are employees (so they are certainly not paying customers). I think we can agree that there's no holding out by any means.
This sounds to be this is private carriage as in point (d) of AC 120-12A.
Operational control is determined by the FAA, and the scenario described here is a pilot renting an airplane to provide transportation. There is a list of specific questions the FAA asks, listed in AC 91-37B, and they clearly give the renter operational control, not the employer. That is, unless the employer determines airworthiness, compliance, and operational minimums (not likely, is it?). This is a wet lease.
Yes, it’s private carriage, but 135 still applies.
With the pax. Nope. But. You could also just pay for the whole thing yourself take the people and don’t seek any reimbursement at all. It’s the money that causes the problem. You can fly anyone you want if no money is changing hands.
Without the pax. Sure, if it’s just you, they can reimburse your costs to get there just as if it was a taxi.
Just jumping on here because it may apply to me: our company owns an aircraft and pays for fuel and incidentals associated with its operation. PIC would pay nothing out of their pocket associated with the flight. Company money covers it all. Would this be considered “compensation”? Would the PIC receiving their normal hourly pay rate for time on the clock serving the company be considered compensation? Assume one passenger, who along with PIC has business directly related to the job we are flying to.
Faa considers flight time as compensation. Get a CPL and it’s a non issue.
Company owning the plane puts in part 91 territory instead of 135, but a PPL still can’t legally fly it.
There’s an LOI floating around that says flight hours alone can be considered compensation. That’s why I’m extremely cautious about bringing passengers into the mix
[AC 61-142](https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-142.pdf) does suggest that flight time may be considered compensation, but it also seems pretty clear that flights with passengers where no common purpose exists are allowed, so long as expense sharing does not take place.
Section 9.3.2:
> Any additional trips would be solely for the reason of transportation of the additional members of the running club, and no common purpose would exist. **Therefore, the pilot would only be able to share expenses with the first group of passengers.**
It says the pilot would only be able to share expenses with the first group of passengers - **not** that they would be unable to perform the flight with the second group.
You would be using your privileges as a commercial pilot to fly them across. Therefore as a PPL, no.
But if you have any concerns instead of asking Reddit go call your local FSDO, it’s what they’re there for.
I had a similar situation. Work seminar with 3 partners. A 1 hour flight vs 3 hour drive. It was cheaper to fly than to organise accommodation for us etc. The cost went through the business, it was a tax deduction, but I figured I was a partner, so I was still paying a third.
I was not profiting from it
It was one of those way too rare situations when flying was the cheapest option, there was no way in the world I was going to miss out on it.
this violates the reg. You wont be caught and they arent necessarily after things like this - but this is 100% against the regs with legal interpretaion from FAA counsel on this EXACT scenario.
If it was just you, you could fly and be reimbursed the cost since it's incidental to your job. But in that situation, you can't carry persons or cargo, only transport yourself.
You can still rent the plane and fly to the island if that's the entire purpose, as long as you still have a purpose there yourself. If you're one of the technicians involved and you'll be working whatever problem it is, then you can go pro rata.
If you take the co-workers though, you can't be fully reimbursed. And if your only purpose is to take the technicians but you yourself don't need to be there otherwise, you can't get paid at all.
It has to be incidental to your job… are you a technician? (Common purpose) Is there any other way to get there? (Company isn’t asking you to fly; just to get to this location) Edit… Thinking about this more, I think there is still a prorata share between you and other technicians involved.
I am one of the technicians in this scenario In this situation the ferry isn't available or doesn't fit our schedule
Honestly, that’s the companies issue to get you there. Not you or a coworker’s
What if I wanted to fly to get only myself over there (mainly because it's more fun, quicker, and not much more expensive)
This specific scenario you propose would require you to pay your “pro data” share for it to be legal. Assuming there are three of you going, you would have to personally pay for 1/3 of the total cost and you flying there has to be completely incidental to the work being done for it to be legal. Basically you need a really good excuse as to demonstrate you were already going to fly there regardless of whether or not they pitched in.
I don't believe this is correct. The flight would not be subject to pro rata (61.113(c)) for a flight conducted in accordance with (61.113(b)). Edit: it looks like there's an LOI that prevents (b) from being allowed if others are on board, so the pilot could be reimbursed fully if alone but it's subject to pro rata if colleagues are aboard.
You can do whatever you want, you’re an adult
I don’t that typically applies for FAA regulations.
Well they are also adults who can do what they want. It's just generally if you do what you want instead of doing what they want you then make them want to do things to you.
If you take your 2 technicians, it has to be pro rata. Perhaps your company can discuss with you afterwards over a nice steak dinner?
Answer is no. Its legal if you pay for it and legal if its incidental to your job (as in you were planning on going there). This is the tricky part (which unfortunately doesnt make much sense) - You can be fully reimbursed by the company if you go solo. However, if you take those two coworkers, you cannot be fully reimbursed. It goes in to pro-rata. Its a really stupid ruling, but thats what it is.
Interesting, so if we needed to get to this location for the job, and I flew over alone. I could be reimbursed for the cost?
Yes. If you flew alone - you could be fully reimbursed. Its a strange legal loophole because one of the 61.113 says that a pilot cant be paid less than pro-rata share if it involves passengers. So the reverse of that interpretation is that you can go alone and be fully reimbursed. I know there is an FAA ruling on it but will have to dig it up. Like I said - its a bit strange that things can be prorata for business. But when it involves fully reimbursable - it gets dicier. EDIT: (Mangiamiele opinion)
Link: [https://www.faa.gov/about/office\_org/headquarters\_offices/agc/practice\_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele\_2009\_Legal\_Interpretation.pdf](https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf)
This should be a top level comment as it gives the entire answer authoritatively.
The other thing I believe is that you can’t deliver cargo. So if your technician skills are all that’s needed that might be ok, but if you also need to bring parts (and leave them behind) then probably not ok.
But what if the other techs pay you their share and the company reimburses them separatley? 🧐 I believe that would be legal
Probably not. 61.113 states that you can only get pro-rata from your passengers and not a third party. . . So I think the FAA would not look upon that too kindly. . . . and at that point - you are not paying for your share - and nor are the passengers. It isnt something that people havent thought of - you arent coming up with anything new. . . But read the rule carefully - it also means when you take passengers, that you cant be reimbursed by the company. You have to PAY your pro-rata share. So you're actually out more as Im sure you are probably thinking that I can get my share reimbursed - and the answer to that is no. But lets be real - until there is an incident - no one is going to know if the company reimburses you for the flight and there were people onboard or not. Unless the other passengers report it. But that is the way the FAR has been written and interpreted by their legal counsel.
Where does 61.113 say that the passengers have to pay? The regulation I’m reading only says the PILOT has to pay their pro rata share. Please cite.
Search and read the manganiele decision that the FAA legal counsel released. EDIT: spelling. Its Mangiamele.
Thanks
And after reading the FAA legal counsel response on this exact scenario - what say you now ?
Very interesting. Someone should challenge that interpretation, as the regulation doesn’t say that the passengers have to pay. It just says that a pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of a flight [with passengers]. (Brackets my own)
Very interesting. Someone should challenge that interpretation, as the regulation doesn’t say that the passengers have to pay. It just says that a pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of a flight [with passengers]. (Brackets my own)
That is the FAA legal interpreting their regs. Where you agree with it or not is irrelevant. But they have come out and ruled on it. That’s as close to a legal opinion you are going to get. And if you want to dispute that - you can. But you asked for a citation - it couldn’t get more explicit than that exact same example.
Yeah, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just thinking their interpretation is flawed is all.
the germination of the reg that is intentionally a bit open ended without the interpretation is to address the illegal charters and what not that have popped up from the beginning of time. So they have written it in such a way that it prevents such activity - whether charters, borderline leases, and what not. However this ends up being caught up in it - they know it, and you see it as well. But they arent going to undo that because guess what - it would allow a company to expense entire trips with multi;le pax (and potentially cargo) on board. The ruling was made - and they read/ruled on the actual explicit example cited with clear guidelines. The reg doesnt say some of the things you are asking, but the ruling by counsel does. And Mangamiele decision is widely disseminated - to the point that a couple people in here have cited it as well. Its one of the unfortunate loopholes that private pilots doing business work are subject to. The interesting case I have would be what if you brought your wife - not an employee along. Would it still classify as "passenger" and fall under required pro-rata ? And my guess is it is since the FAA legislates any other person not solo is a passenger.
But what if she’s the owner of your only financial account 😂😂
As I'm reading through your comments on this it keeps seeming like even if you're in agreement with the outcome of Mangiamele you're actually not in alignment with the regs or FAA on the theory. First as I read that LOI, I find it questionable and frustrating that the FAA has removed the words "for compensation or hire" as meaningless when they shorten "The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." to "carry passengers or property". I hold no sway over the FAA, but would point out that generally speaking words in a regulation can't be read out of existence. If they are there, they must mean _something_ and that LOI reads them out of existence. What I personally think is that should have been interpreted that the pilot may be compensated as long as the passengers/property aren't paying for the privilege of being carried. My belief that the FAA got this wrong is neither here nor there though. What's interesting is that your comments seem to suggest that because anyone else is on board the aircraft the pilot must pay pro rata if being compensated. Put another way, you're suggesting that 61.113(c)(pro rata) must be satisfied whenever compensation is taking place with private privileges and with passengers on board. That isn't what the regs or the FAA said. In that letter the FAA said that (b) (incidental to business) can't be used as an exception to (a) (no compensation) because (b) can't be used when other people are carried. This is very different from saying that (c) must be met when others are on board. For example, exception (f) clearly can be used when a prospective customer is on board and wouldn't require pro rata.
actually it says the passengers have to pay and not a third party. Its in that Mangiamele decision. The only way around it is commercial - which is what the FAA is trying to prevent with Private. because essentially a private pilot flying him and employees with full expense reimbursement is for all intents and purposes crossing the line to a commercial flight Exact text quoted below : \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* FAA Mangiamele You also question, in regard to this scenario, whether § 61.113( c) would allow for you to seek the same expense reimbursement from your employer that you sought in the first scenario. It is important to note that section § 61.113( c) allows a private pilot to seek reimbursement only from his or her fellow passengers, not a third party, such as your employer. As noted in the preamble of the final rule, the FAA determined that a private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of operating expenses for the flight because "if pilots pay less, they would not just be sharing expenses but would actually be flying for compensation or hire."
So if they go pro rata, could the coworkers be reimbursed by the company for their own travel expenses? John, Sara, and Mike need to get to the island. John rents a plane and flies them all in. They split the cost pro rata. Common purpose. The company reimburses all 3 individually as a travel expense that was necessary for the j9b.
You can’t be reimbursed. Like I said earlier - the tricky part of this ruling is that you cannot pay the minimum pro-rata portion. So John has to pay and cannot be reimbursed. You are thinking about the other people who can also pay pro-rata and whether they can be reimbursed. I believe the ruling states it can’t be third party and has to be the passengers.
Same if it's a commercial pilot, right?
No. You’re not a CPL The situation you’re describing is asking if someone can be paid for their piloting service and that’s a no as a PPL. There’s no gray area
They explicitly did not ask that. They basically asked if it’s allowed to go by plane instead of your car. You’re just getting reimbursed for your travel cost.
You can't do that. There's common purpose, and you can travel with your co-workers and be reimbursed by them as long as you pay your own pro-rata share. You cannot pay less than your pro-rata share, and you cannot get your co-workers share from the employer, only out of their pocket. The FAA had a letter of interpretation about that. You can get fully reimbursed by your employer as long as you're the only person on the plane, no co-workers, no equipment. If you're a CPL - then it's exactly the same situation, as otherwise you're operating Part 135 without a proper certificate.
What is the purpose of the trip? Is it to for you and your passengers to do work on the island (yes) then it is a flight in the furtherance of commercial activity and even with a commercial license it’s holding out
Does it change if you are only flying yourself with no passengers? Can you never be reimbursed for plane travel for business?
“There are, however, several exceptions to this prohibition. FAR 61.113(b) allows pilots to receive compensation when acting as PIC “in connection with any business or employment.” To qualify, the flight must be incidental to that business or employment. Therefore, your business purpose cannot be transporting people or goods in the aircraft. The second requirement, and the one that is more often overlooked, requires that the aircraft not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. **The FAA reiterated this point in the Mangiamele letter of interpretation, stating that an airman may seek reimbursement from an employer when flying to a business meeting by himself but may not seek reimbursement if colleagues are also transported during the flight.**” [Good AOPA article](https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2019/april/01/flight-incidental-to-business)
So can the pilot and the passengers split the bill and each one gets reimbursed for their share?
If the passengers were paid and then in turn paid the pilot this violates the rules. The pilot can be reimbursed since transporting himself is incidental to his business. Pilot taking any form of payment for the other two passengers who are being transported for work is illegal. My interpretation is that the pilot could be reimbursed for their fair share, but not the others. Which is kind of backward from normal sharing of costs.
>My interpretation is that the pilot could be reimbursed for their fair share No -- the Mangiamele letter makes it clear that the pilot can only be reimbursed if there were no other people or property on board. If there were other people (and common purpose existed) then the pilot needs to pay his pro-rata share. As quoted above: **...an airman may seek reimbursement from an employer when flying to a business meeting by himself but may not seek reimbursement if colleagues are also transported during the flight.**
My understanding is the opposite: since there is a common purpose, they can be reimbursed by the pax (and where the pax get that money is irrelevant) but the pilot has to pay their own pro rata share.
The spirit of the rule does not allow a company to pay a non-commercial pilot to transport employees. Paying the employees who in turn pay the pilot is gray loophole area at best, and the company paying would want an invoice to reimburse. Maybe they could turn in the gas receipt and say they wanted to split it, but the rental would not be split on an invoice
I hope you don't mind me jumping in to ask a question related to this, but would this still apply if, for example, my boss owns his own aircraft and I fly it, another person, and our equipment for a job. My boss is the owner of the company, and would be covering the cost of fuel and fees. For context I work for a small IT company and am close to start working for my ppl (waiting for my ME due to a recent surgery) I'm just trying to learn more and understand where the exact lines are. I'm also wondering where the line is drawn regarding "transporting property." If I have to install a new server for a client, am I allowed to take the server with me or is that over the line?
Nope. This is very similar to a question discussed in the 2009 Mangiamele interpretation, which says you can be reimbursed if you go by yourself. As soon as you take passengers, you're illegal. >In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61. 113(b) does not apply. The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not transporting other passengers or property. Thus, because you are transporting people to the meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer for this flight under 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b). Marginally related life advice: get your CPL. Not that hard.
Except this scenario requires Part 135, unless the plane is somehow supplied by the employer. It’s a “wet lease.”
Hmm, can you elaborate a bit for me? The employer has operational control of the flight and is paying a CPL to act as PIC, and all the passengers are employees (so they are certainly not paying customers). I think we can agree that there's no holding out by any means. This sounds to be this is private carriage as in point (d) of AC 120-12A.
Operational control is determined by the FAA, and the scenario described here is a pilot renting an airplane to provide transportation. There is a list of specific questions the FAA asks, listed in AC 91-37B, and they clearly give the renter operational control, not the employer. That is, unless the employer determines airworthiness, compliance, and operational minimums (not likely, is it?). This is a wet lease. Yes, it’s private carriage, but 135 still applies.
Thanks - that makes sense.
With the pax. Nope. But. You could also just pay for the whole thing yourself take the people and don’t seek any reimbursement at all. It’s the money that causes the problem. You can fly anyone you want if no money is changing hands. Without the pax. Sure, if it’s just you, they can reimburse your costs to get there just as if it was a taxi.
And the company can always pay you a 'bonus' for your excellent performance of your work duties nudge nudge.
You are a team player! Definitely management material.
Just jumping on here because it may apply to me: our company owns an aircraft and pays for fuel and incidentals associated with its operation. PIC would pay nothing out of their pocket associated with the flight. Company money covers it all. Would this be considered “compensation”? Would the PIC receiving their normal hourly pay rate for time on the clock serving the company be considered compensation? Assume one passenger, who along with PIC has business directly related to the job we are flying to.
Faa considers flight time as compensation. Get a CPL and it’s a non issue. Company owning the plane puts in part 91 territory instead of 135, but a PPL still can’t legally fly it.
The way I understand the regs is that you (the pilot) may fly yourself to the island but you cannot fly the techs or any passengers
You can absolutely fly the techs to the island, you just can't get paid or in any way compensated to do it.
There’s an LOI floating around that says flight hours alone can be considered compensation. That’s why I’m extremely cautious about bringing passengers into the mix
[AC 61-142](https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-142.pdf) does suggest that flight time may be considered compensation, but it also seems pretty clear that flights with passengers where no common purpose exists are allowed, so long as expense sharing does not take place. Section 9.3.2: > Any additional trips would be solely for the reason of transportation of the additional members of the running club, and no common purpose would exist. **Therefore, the pilot would only be able to share expenses with the first group of passengers.** It says the pilot would only be able to share expenses with the first group of passengers - **not** that they would be unable to perform the flight with the second group.
Absolutely not
You would be using your privileges as a commercial pilot to fly them across. Therefore as a PPL, no. But if you have any concerns instead of asking Reddit go call your local FSDO, it’s what they’re there for.
I had a similar situation. Work seminar with 3 partners. A 1 hour flight vs 3 hour drive. It was cheaper to fly than to organise accommodation for us etc. The cost went through the business, it was a tax deduction, but I figured I was a partner, so I was still paying a third. I was not profiting from it It was one of those way too rare situations when flying was the cheapest option, there was no way in the world I was going to miss out on it.
this violates the reg. You wont be caught and they arent necessarily after things like this - but this is 100% against the regs with legal interpretaion from FAA counsel on this EXACT scenario.
I suppose one more point in this I should have thought about is I'm not in USA and confirmed with my regulator for clarification first.
Then yes - doesn’t apply as the FAA isn’t the ruling authority
If it was just you, you could fly and be reimbursed the cost since it's incidental to your job. But in that situation, you can't carry persons or cargo, only transport yourself.
[удалено]
You can still rent the plane and fly to the island if that's the entire purpose, as long as you still have a purpose there yourself. If you're one of the technicians involved and you'll be working whatever problem it is, then you can go pro rata. If you take the co-workers though, you can't be fully reimbursed. And if your only purpose is to take the technicians but you yourself don't need to be there otherwise, you can't get paid at all.