Part 91, flying for hire?

[N6758N]

Hi guys,

One of my first topics here. I own a 1968 M20C based out of KOQN in the Philadelphia area. I have a legality question for you guys. This is all theoretical of course.

Let's just say a company I work for wants me to use my airplane to fly them somewhere for business purposes. Obviously, I know I cannot charge them directly for the airplane... But if they are paying me my normal salary while I'm flying them somewhere, is there anything wrong with that? I would have to think of another way for them legally to pay me for aircraft operating costs, but that's another topic. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Terry

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rob]

Do you have a commercial license?

[N6758N]

Not at this time. It's on my list of things to do in the future.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rob]

I agree. Consult the AOPA. I've read some opinions on this subject and there is some grey matter. Termss like "normal course of business" and the like apply. There is an IRS reimbursement rate for private air travel, but if there's no reason for you to be going, it's unlikely you can be compensated to fly there, even a pro-Rata share. That said, if you have a specific business purpose for the trip and a passenger rides along, that's a different situation.

The folks at the AOPA can help you navigate the unique situations and figure out what's appropriate.

[mike_elliott]

You have a number of potential issues here. While not an attorney, I can say you have significant legal exposure if something goes pear shaped. So does the company you work for.

If it is coincidental to a flight you were making anyway, and this is can be established beyond any doubt, then you are qualified to act as PIC on this flight with another person(s) from your company aboard. If this flight is originated because of business reasons, you will be busted. If you take money, including salary while flying, you will be busted. If you receive deferred compensation in the form of time off in the future, you will be busted.

Suggest you

1) Get your commercial license

2) add your company as named insured, increase your liability to at least 2 M, 25K medical, and 500K per person.

3) work for free in all possible senses of that word, and have a paper trail to such effect.

 

Good luck, the ability of GA to quickly service customers is extraordinary, the rules to do so are less than optimal.

[aaronk25]

I agree with rob!

That's a first.....

[Marauder]

That's a first.....

Wonder what Timmy has to say about this development.

[N601RX]

I fly myself for business travel when it makes sense and looked into this quite a bit before I started doing so.  In addition to the reading the regs, there are several legal opinions that mentions some things you might not pick up on from just reading the regs. Basically I can fly myself only on company business and be reimbursed by my employer for it.  However, if a coworker  goes along, then I could not accept any money from my employer. However I could half the cost of the flight with the coworker provided I did not receive any compensation from my employer. Additionally  if there is a coworker involved then I have to have a business reason to go other than just to fly the coworker along. Basically if a coworker is involved, it doesn't make financial sense unless you and the coworker are up for an adventure on your own dime.

 

I would not volunteer to add my employer or anyone else as an additional insured unless that was the only way they would let me fly. If you do add them, then your insurance coverage is essentially cut half.  If you have 1M smooth and there was a judgement of $750K against you and $750K against your employer then the insurance is going to pay 500K for each and leave you hanging for the other $250K. 

[midlifeflyer]

Hi guys,

One of my first topics here. I own a 1968 M20C based out of KOQN in the Philadelphia area. I have a legality question for you guys. This is all theoretical of course.

Let's just say a company I work for wants me to use my airplane to fly them somewhere for business purposes. Obviously, I know I cannot charge them directly for the airplane... But if they are paying me my normal salary while I'm flying them somewhere, is there anything wrong with that? I would have to think of another way for them legally to pay me for aircraft operating costs, but that's another topic. What do you guys think?

Thanks,

Terry

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If a question is raised, the FAA is not hoping to worry about your official job description. If you are transporting company persons or property (other than yourself) and receiving compensation for it, it requires a commercial pilot certificate if it is in the company's airplane. A Part 135 certificate if it is in your airplane. "Compensation" is very broadly interpreted to include your receipt of anything of value in exchange for providing the service.

Not even a slight tinge of grey in this one. See the Mangiamele interpretation as an example. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/mangiamele%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

[midlifeflyer]

I would not volunteer to add my employer or anyone else as an additional insured unless that was the only way they would let me fly. If you do add them, then your insurance coverage is essentially cut half. If you have 1M smooth and there was a judgement of $750K against you and $750K against your employer then the insurance is going to pay 500K for each and leave you hanging for the other $250K.

More or less accurate. But (1) it's probably going to be one judgement against both for a single amount, not a proportional award against each, so you'd be stuck with the excess $250,000 on a $1.25 million judgment either way, and (2) they'd try to collect the excess $250,000 from whichever of you is easier to collect from. Assuming the company has substantial assets, that's more likely to be them than you, so the "dilution" of the insurance coverage cuts both ways.

That's of course assuming the insurance company doesn't settle the case for the policy limits (statistically the most likely result) , ending it.

[Piloto]

Terry, there is nothing illegal on flying your coworkers or friends for any purpose. Otherwise you would never get anyone in your plane. The violation occurs when you specifically charge for the flight.

 

José

[M016576]

Terry, there is nothing illegal on flying your coworkers or friends for any purpose. Otherwise you would never get anyone in your plane. The violation occurs when you specifically charge for the flight.

José

Exactly.

[WardHolbrook]

Pretty much what most of the others have said.

 

When it comes to stuff like this, yes it can be done legally, but there are many i's that need to be dotted and t's that need to be crossed to do so. As they say, it's never a problem unless there's a problem and then you've got a problem. The FAA wasn't born yesterday and they will take a very hard look at all of those i's that needed dotting and t's that needed crossing and you wouldn't want to be found lacking. And, since you're dealing with the FAA, logic and common sense do not necessarily apply.

 

Getting that commercial license simplifies things somewhat, but it doesn't make all of the issues go away, especially if you're using your own airplane. Before you get too excited about this, I recommend that you spend some quality time doing your due diligence on the AOPA website (and forum - they seem to discuss this in depth at least once a year) and talk to your insurance guy about your plans. Also, discussing this with an experienced aviation attorney would be time and money well spent.

 

 From a practical matter, not too many companies will allow this anyway, the liabilities that they are assuming are just too great without the appropriate insurance coverages.

[rob]

One suggestion, for what it's worth (Maybe nothing) is to get it in writing from your company that they are ok with your travel by private airplane.

[aviatoreb]

My work does let me fly for work, after much negotiation.... part of their letting me fly for work was they decided they wanted a policy to protect themselves (against me) many many times my own million dollar smooth, and also that I write them in as insured in my own million smooth, and of course that I carry at least one million smooth.

 

And they also only allow me to fly solo on business.  Which I have done almost a dozen and a half times this year so far, and similarly last year.  On two occasions I had people either taking the airlines in a 3 day trek to a destination where I went after breakfast and I was home for dinner from the same one day meeting, or on another occasion I had 3 other people driving leaving at 4am and returning at 10pm.  I left at 9am and was home at 4 in time to ride my bike for an hour before dinner.

 

Speaking theoretically since they will likely never let me go anything but solo: I imagine if they ever let me fly for business with other people as passengers, the only FAA legal way to do that would be to no longer take compensation for the flying part of the activity?  Or maybe I take my fraction (say 1/4 if there were 3 passengers) as reimbursement of my actual expenses (fuel etc - but not airplane), and then I collect equal fraction from each other person?  That is the legal part 91 way as far as I understand it.  Where they get their 1/4 parts is it material to me? For example if they get it from the company is that important?  If I deal with them for 1/4 that is - or maybe the FAA would find that fishy.

[fantom]

To the OP, theoretically speaking of course, I hope you have a close relative who's a lawyer because one way or another you're going to wind up with an expensive and troubling

 

Information-seeking, like you're trolling for, is a highly subjective process where all of us approach the process with little prior knowledge but strongly held opinions and differing levels of cognitive development.

 

Good luck!

[carusoam]

Terry,

Summary, in my usual format... (Terry and I got to meet last week)

1) part 91 allows you to share the expenses...AOPA is a good source (fuel, oil, tiedown

2) part 91 doesn't allow for getting paid as the pilot.

3) the flight itself is incidental, you are all going to the same place to do work when you get there.

4) if you are getting paid, make sure it is not for flying. As a salaried employee, this is more easy. As an hourly employee you may want to document the technical discussions you had while flying

5) insurance requirements. Know them...

6) employer requirements. Big companies have these in their travel expense policies. Know them...

7) FAA requirements. Know them...

8) If it is normal to get paid to have discussions with these people around the office, it isn't a stretch of the truth to have those same discussions while flying. This way you are on the clock while flying.

9) if you are only paid by the hour like an old time machinist, always standing next to the milling machine. It would be more of a stretch to be paid for a discussion. Still possible, talking about the maintenance of the machine you work on would qualify.

10) overall, keep it incidental, split the costs, make sure you are covered in the event of an accident.

11) Costs: if you break even, it is probably to good to be true...

12) pay: if you get paid, it is not for flying...

How does that sound?

Best regards,

-a-

[N6758N]

Thanks for all the replies guys! Obviously I have some more research to do here... As far as specifics go, I would be getting paid hourly but only as aircraft mechanic, not a pilot. All passengers aboard would be company employees and no one would be charged by me for the flight. We would be flying to destinations in the best interest of furthering the company. It sounds like the best thing is to go finish my commercial and possibly reregister the airplane under an LLC after talking to my insurance company.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[WardHolbrook]

Thanks for all the replies guys! Obviously I have some more research to do here... As far as specifics go, I would be getting paid hourly but only as aircraft mechanic, not a pilot. All passengers aboard would be company employees and no one would be charged by me for the flight. We would be flying to destinations in the best interest of furthering the company. It sounds like the best thing is to go finish my commercial and possibly reregister the airplane under an LLC after talking to my insurance company.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Getting that commercial will allow you to sidestep one of the issues, but definitively not all of them. You're still going to have to jump through a bunch of "it's not a Part 135 operation so I don't need an air taxi certificate" hoops if you're using your own airplane. Those seem to be the ones that trip up most guys. Like I said, it's definitely doable, but it's not as simple as some might lead you to believe. Some here might poopoo the idea, but I would highly recommend that you get a short consultation with an experienced aviation attorney to explain to you the ins and outs of just what constitutes a Part 135 operation and the ramifications of using a personally owned aircraft. It's always better to be safe than sorry.    

[cliffy]

#1 Join AOPA and buy their Violation Insurance package. Talk with their lawyer about this.

#2 There is a BIG difference between you having business for the company in another city and your co-workers also do, so you all fly in the same airplane as you are paid your normal wage-

That verses-

You have no business for the company in another city but your company will pay you your normal wages to fly your co-workers to that city so THEY can do their job. 

In the first you MIGHT be able to do it (get a good aviation legal opinion) in the second you will be visiting the FAA under oath for sure. 

A commercial license has nothing to do with it. It boils down to "offering to the public" charter flights without a 135 certificate. Just look at the recent FAA opinions on "sharing flights" and the companies that have been doing that.  The FAA just hammered them . 

[Hector]

Terry,

Summary, in my usual format... (Terry and I got to meet last week)

1) part 91 allows you to share the expenses...AOPA is a good source (fuel, oil, tiedown

2) part 91 doesn't allow for getting paid as the pilot.

3) the flight itself is incidental, you are all going to the same place to do work when you get there.

4) if you are getting paid, make sure it is not for flying. As a salaried employee, this is more easy. As an hourly employee you may want to document the technical discussions you had while flying

5) insurance requirements. Know them...

6) employer requirements. Big companies have these in their travel expense policies. Know them...

7) FAA requirements. Know them...

8) If it is normal to get paid to have discussions with these people around the office, it isn't a stretch of the truth to have those same discussions while flying. This way you are on the clock while flying.

9) if you are only paid by the hour like an old time machinist, always standing next to the milling machine. It would be more of a stretch to be paid for a discussion. Still possible, talking about the maintenance of the machine you work on would qualify.

10) overall, keep it incidental, split the costs, make sure you are covered in the event of an accident.

11) Costs: if you break even, it is probably to good to be true...

12) pay: if you get paid, it is not for flying...

How does that sound?

Best regards,

-a-

I think this is more or less my interpretation as well (don't know if it's right and this discussion has awaken more doubts as to whether I'm legal or not). I do take my Mooney on some business trips and occasionally a coworker will come along. I get paid, not as a pilot, but as part of my salary and I am also reimbursed for travel expenses (fuel, tie down,etc). The coworker is also getting paid for his time (salary) but does not pay me a cent for any expenses related to the flight. We are both traveling to take care of business and the flight itself is incidental. Since I don't take a cent from the coworker, and I'm only getting reimbursed for MY expenses I thought I was legal. The amount I get reimbursed follows the strict guidelines of the government's joint travel regulations. Reading the posts here sounds like some of you have a narrower interpretation.

[N601RX]

Hector, there are some legal opinions from the FAA legal staff dealing with accepting compensation from your employer while a coworker is on board. It's ok to take the coworker and you and him split the cost, but it's not ok for you to accept any reimbursement from your employer as long as a coworker is on board. If it's just you then the reimbursement is fine. All this is assuming you have a valid business reason to make the flight.

This if from one of the opinions.

"Section 61.113(a) states, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may not, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. An exception to that section states that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and if the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. Thus, in this scenario, where you are only transporting yourself to the business meeting, you may be compensated for the expense of the flight. See 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(.

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( does not apply. The exception in paragraph ( 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(.

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. "

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/mangiamele%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

[MB65E]

Thanks for posting the regs!! Good refresher. Always wondered about reimbursement vs charging for flights...

Most get .56¢/ mile for driving for the Co, it would be great to apply that allowance for flying.

Looks like I need to read the joint travel regulations mentioned in the last few posts...

-Matt

[rob]

The IRS has a mileage rate for flying and its much higher than .56 per mile

[Alan Fox]

You can fly for hire part 91...... Get your CFI and charge for training ...... That's the only way to legally charge , also you can charge for arial photography  .....Part 91 .....