Flying passengers and a commercial Pilot with my own mooney

[TWinter]

I've read all the scenarios...Maybe someone can give a quick interpretation. I own a business in state A, I also have a business in state B. On occasion I might  take one or two of the key employees that work with me primarily in state A to state B to (just to look-over the books) we have a GM that actually runs the business at "B".

We stay overnight and leave before regular paid hours and come home after hours. The trip is part work-time, part vacation free time. This is done maybe once a month?? I know this is vague, but wondering the MS thoughts. I'm not requiring them to do this and it is not a regularly scheduled event. Like a short vacation with a stop by the business and a walk through. Driving it is possible (just 8 hrs vs 2 hrs).

I will be flying it regularly myself and deducting the plane and expenses on my taxes as allowed, the plane is also used for pleasure so the deductions will be made with proper percentages. Thoughts on the "occasional" flights?. Or am I better off just taking them down as friends (and they are..we are a small business) and just (stop by business B) take the books with me and we take a look at them at the hotel or restaurant that evening?. I return the books back to business B myself before we go home. I know it's on the edge, but close to the verge of legal per regs?. 

I have not opened business B yet, however, it is in the works. Just seeing how much I might be able to use the plane. Can others be flown down with me if they are not on the clock.  I know I can use it for my personal transportation to and from and the tax write-offs etc. Hours needed for Commercial are probably very close. Just need to get with a CFI and see what's left.

Sorry about the thread drift, but close to topic.

 

-Tom

[Yetti]

While we are at it:

Scenario A

Rich friend buys a two door Moony puts it in a Hangar.   Rich friend does not have a pilots license.   Rich friend says you and I should go and meet with this guy, can you grab the Mooney and we go meet with him.   SEL Medical and flight review current.

Scenario B

Rich friend buys a two door Mooney puts it in a hangar.   Rich friend does not have a pilots license.   Rich friend says hey can you grab the Mooney and fly me to another town this evening.

 

[PaulM]

2 hours ago, TWinter said:

've read all the scenarios...Maybe someone can give a quick interpretation. I own a business in state A, I also have a business in state B. On occasion I might  take one or two of the key employees that work with me primarily in state A to state B to (just to look-over the books) we have a GM that actually runs the business at "B".

As long as you are the owner/partner there will be no issues..     You cannot do this as an employee, but as the owner it isn't compensation.   Also as the owner, nobody can say that your travel wasn't incidental to the trip.    I would still get a commercial, to forestall any questions of trips where your presence could be argued as non essential.  You  can't fly clients or client's stuff, since they pay you (compensation) even with a commercial because it is considered part 135.

What you can't do is let anyone else fly other employees or goods without them having a commercial...   An employee can fly themselves with just a private, but can't move people or goods.    

 I have not seen an interpretation if "incidental" carriage of goods is allowed.   Can a technician bring his testing gear, can a manger bring a contract memo or laptop?. these are "goods" of the company.      

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, Yetti said:

While we are at it:

Scenario A

Rich friend buys a two door Moony puts it in a Hangar.   Rich friend does not have a pilots license.   Rich friend says you and I should go and meet with this guy, can you grab the Mooney and we go meet with him.   SEL Medical and flight review current.

Scenario B

Rich friend buys a two door Mooney puts it in a hangar.   Rich friend does not have a pilots license.   Rich friend says hey can you grab the Mooney and fly me to another town this evening.

 

Both scenarios ok as long as the Mooney remains in the hangar. 

[Hank]

10 hours ago, Yetti said:

While we are at it:

Scenario A

Rich friend buys a two door Moony puts it in a Hangar.   Rich friend does not have a pilots license.   Rich friend says you and I should go and meet with this guy, can you grab the Mooney and we go meet with him.   SEL Medical and flight review current.

Scenario B

Rich friend buys a two door Mooney puts it in a hangar.   Rich friend does not have a pilots license.   Rich friend says hey can you grab the Mooney and fly me to another town this evening.

 

These are the classic cases for the PIC to have a commercial license. Using your own plane would be psuedo-135 . . . . 

[jetdriven]

They call that 134 and a half. 

[bradp]

But scenario a and b could both be done under part 91 with a commercial certificate, correct ?

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, bradp said:

But scenario a and b could both be done under part 91 with a commercial certificate, correct ?

In both of those, the only people on board are the owner of the airplane and the pilot he selected/hired to fly him in it. That's Part 91  - commercial pilot certificate, but no Part 135 operating certificate requirement.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, bradp said:

But scenario a and b could both be done under part 91 with a commercial certificate, correct ?

If the pilot doesn't own the plane, yes. If you provide both pilot and plane, my understanding is that you are now Part 135. Provide the pilot and rent an airplane, should be good to go with a Commercial certificate.

But don't quote me, I moved before starting on the Commercial, and down here they both want too much money, and for me to rent their glass-panel Skyhawks, which don't apply much to my steam gauge Mooney. Why learn maneuvers twice, once in the Cessna and again in my Mooney [which they won't teach in]? Similarities in flight between the two approach zero, other than the basics that airspeed keeps them off the ground, and they obtain airspeed from a piston-engine-driven propeller.

[midlifeflyer]

16 minutes ago, Hank said:

Provide the pilot and rent an airplane, should be good to go with a Commercial certificate.

I'm not sure what you mean there.  So it depends on who rents the airplane. You may mean this, so to clarify:

If the passenger rents the airplane and has free choice of qualified pilots meeting objective standards, probably OK. (Reality check - do you know FBOs which rent to non-pilots?) But if the airplane is being rented to the pilot, the pilot is providing the airplane (or the lessor is providing both pilot and airplane) and it's Part 135.

[Hank]

Please excuse my poor grammar, I'm just an engineer . . .

midlife expressed the concept with more clarity. If you provide both pilot and airplane, you're in 135 territory. Fly someone else's plane that you didn't arrange / pay for, and a Commercial cert should suffice for moving other people around.

[PaulM]

12 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

If the passenger rents the airplane and has free choice of qualified pilots meeting objective standards, probably OK. (Reality check - do you know FBOs which rent to non-pilots?) But if the airplane is being rented to the pilot, the pilot is providing the airplane (or the lessor is providing both pilot and airplane) and it's Part 135.

the FAA can get complicated and touchy in these sort of areas. this one determined that the arrangement was right on the edge of permissible.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1993/green - (1993) legal interpretation.pdf

And this later one seemed to be tougher.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2007/fabian - (2007) legal interpretation.pdf

They want the owner/Lessor to understand that they are in control of the flight and legally responsible (to some extent) that the plane was flying.  

Search through the legal replies on that site and you will see some subtleties ... and that things that seem to be ok in the 1980's to 90's are being told "no" in later opinions.. 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, PaulM said:

the FAA can get complicated and touchy in these sort of areas. this one determined that the arrangement was right on the edge of permissible.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1993/green - (1993) legal interpretation.pdf

And this later one seemed to be tougher.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2007/fabian - (2007) legal interpretation.pdf

They want the owner/Lessor to understand that they are in control of the flight and legally responsible (to some extent) that the plane was flying.  

Search through the legal replies on that site and you will see some subtleties ... and that things that seem to be ok in the 1980's to 90's are being told "no" in later opinions.

Yeah, I've read most of them, as well as the enforcement actions which were decided by the NTSB appellate panel,  and see the new ones as they come along. There are always subtleties, which is why my comments use terms like "probably"and "generally," with lots of recognition that one small fact can change the answer completely.  

Edited April 23, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[Mooneymite]

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/uber-for-planes-amendment-in-faa-bill/#.WuMNl64pBDs

 

 

Uber for Planes Amendment in FAA Bill

The largely unnoticed provision would flip rules about sharing expenses.

By Robert Goyer

 

Do you want more aviation news and notes from Plane & Pilot? Sign up for ournewsletter! 

Uber for light planes? It might be happening. Contained in the FAA reauthorization bill currently speeding its way through Congress is a little noticed provision that would change the charter game completely. The rider would allow pilots to advertise for cost sharing rides on any media they so desire—a couple of years ago the FAA nixed the idea of advertising such rides online while okaying the practice when done on actual bulletin boards, though the reasoning behind that stand is unclear to anyone but the FAA, who hasn’t offered a justification for the ruling...

.

The new provision would effectively allow private pilots to post ride share notices online, which would in theory open up the market to companies wanting to enlist pilots in a money making endeavor.

The money behind it could be real, again thanks to the proposed amendment, which would allow pilots to take more than their “pro rata” share for flight expenses. In other words, pilots wouldn’t have to pay their share but charge costs to their newfound passengers, presumably with the online rideshare company getting a cut.

If all of this sounds like the way Part 135 Charter, works, well, yeah, it does to us too. On demand charter is heavily regulated, the idea being to protect the public from flying with any off-the-shelf private pilot regardless of experience or IFR abilities or even without any thought to the maintenance status of the plane, save its already mandated annual maintenance checkup.

FAA reauthorization is expected to zip through both chambers as early as next week. If this amendment makes it to the final bill, expect to hear a lot more about it then, and not just from Plane & Pilot.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/uber-for-planes-amendment-in-faa-bill/#.WuMNl64pBDs

 

 

Uber for Planes Amendment in FAA Bill

The largely unnoticed provision would flip rules about sharing expenses.

By Robert Goyer

 

Do you want more aviation news and notes from Plane & Pilot? Sign up for ournewsletter! 

Uber for light planes? It might be happening. Contained in the FAA reauthorization bill currently speeding its way through Congress is a little noticed provision that would change the charter game completely. The rider would allow pilots to advertise for cost sharing rides on any media they so desire—a couple of years ago the FAA nixed the idea of advertising such rides online while okaying the practice when done on actual bulletin boards, though the reasoning behind that stand is unclear to anyone but the FAA, who hasn’t offered a justification for the ruling...

.

The new provision would effectively allow private pilots to post ride share notices online, which would in theory open up the market to companies wanting to enlist pilots in a money making endeavor.

It would be nice if P&P would tell us which amendment supposedly proposed this - there have been over 20 of them. The current version of the Bill does have a provision related to cost-sharing, but it is limited to requiring the FAA to...well, it's short and clear enough, so here it is verbatim, without editorializing:

 

SEC. 516. PILOTS SHARING FLIGHT EXPENSES WITH PASSENGERS.

(a) Guidance.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall make publicly available, in a clear and concise format, advisory guidance that describes how a pilot may share flight expenses with passengers in a manner consistent with Federal law, including regulations.

(2) EXAMPLES INCLUDED.—The guidance shall include examples of—

(A) flights for which pilots and passengers may share expenses;

(B) flights for which pilots and passengers may not share expenses;

(C) the methods of communication that pilots and passengers may use to arrange flights for which expenses are shared; and

(D) the methods of communication that pilots and passengers may not use to arrange flights for which expenses are shared.

(b) Report.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which guidance is made publicly available under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report analyzing Federal policy with respect to pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers.

(2) EVALUATIONS INCLUDED.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include an evaluation of—

(A) the rationale for such Federal policy;

(B) safety and other concerns related to pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers; and

(C) benefits related to pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers.