Incidental to Business?

I looked up the name in the FAA airman database. I realize that it might not be completely up to date but it indicates that he is a private pilot.
Yes; he is a private pilot rotorcraft-helicopter with a current third class medical, and is co-owner of the R44 helicopter N367LA. He's also a Sarasota County realtor.
 
Have you ever read a real estate listing? Did you interpret a listing as any kind of guarantee as to how a prospective purchaser would get to the property without being taken there by a salesperson? I honestly never though of a listing as being an advertisement of personal services...because the sales person has access to the property (key box, etc) and the prospective purchaser does not, transportation is a given. That's why you don't see many Mini's or SmartCars in real estate agent's parking lots....more like Lexuses, Caddies, etc.

I've seen plenty of real estate listings... None of them have been advertising helicopter tours like this one.

I've also been to plenty of showings... And I've never been transported there by the realtor, I've met the realtor on site.
 
I've seen plenty of real estate listings... None of them have been advertising helicopter tours like this one.

I've also been to plenty of showings... And I've never been transported there by the realtor, I've met the realtor on site.

I've been driven by the realtor, starting and ending at their office; I've driven myself and met the realtor at the property; I've followed the realtor in my own car. So all I can say is, it depends. (I'm currently living in my sixth home, in five states.)

The only thing that worries me about this is it looks like he's holding out. Although seeing the area from above would quickly give his clients insight into the area and assist in general selection of where to look and where to avoid. You can't always see what's behind the tree line, and if no road is handy you may not realize it's the regional Walmart warehouse that is noisily busy from 0300-0700 every day but fairly quiet when you're walking around the yard . . . .
 
You guys know “incidental” is not an amount, right?
 
I looked up the name in the FAA airman database. I realize that it might not be completely up to date but it indicates that he is a private pilot.
There ya go...a mere forty posts in, and we have the facts. NOW we can start to do our POA speculations properly! ;)
 
If the guy is not charging for the helicopter time how is it any different than driving customers around to see the property? I don’t think it is illegal
 
If the guy is not charging for the helicopter time how is it any different than driving customers around to see the property? I don’t think it is illegal
Did you just ask, How is flying an aircraft any different from driving a car from a regulatory standpoint?

Heck, without even getting to the carrying of passengers for "compensation" question, the Chief Counsel's dozen or so interpretations of "incidental" are very result-oriented and inconsistent. I've never been able to quite understand why examining facilities from the air by a pipeline company is not incidental because it is a "foreseeable and normal part of the business," but a mechanic test flying an aircraft after repairs is incidental, but both are the subject of interpretation letters. (Actually, I have figured out why - the Chief Counsel crafted an exception for mechanics for policy reasons)
 
Last edited:
You made my point. Transportation in a car is incidental to your business. You didn’t even advertise it because it’s assumed. A helicopter is certainly not, and putting it on the ad makes that even more obvious, as you stated you don’t advertise your car.
But every agent HAS a car, no need to let folks know that. He has a chopper, he can show you the property from the air. That's no different than driving it in the agent's SUV...just better.

I'm with Bob.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 68429 He is holding out, the aerial tours are the main point of his ad. No idea if there are any strings attached or if his compensation strictly comes from the sale of the properties.
I looked up the name in the FAA airman database. I realize that it might not be completely up to date but it indicates that he is a private pilot.
Even with that, there is a lot we don't know about this, which is why I don't have an opinion on its legality.
 
But every agent HAS a car, no need to let folks know that. He has a chopper, he can show you the property from the air. That's no different than driving it in the agent's SUV...just better.

I'm with Bob.
So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV and get reimbursed by your employer, you can do the same in an airplane? Mangiamele which put the kibosh in that almost 10 years ago, has been discussed here thread many times.
 
1, that ad is clearly "holding out."
2, if you're offering aerial tours it's most certainly not "incidental to the business." You cannot give an aerial tour without an aircraft.

I would expect that the FAA would put this guy on the ground for at least 90 days if they caught up with him...
He seems to be offering tours of high end luxury properties for sale. I don't think mentioning they are by air "clearly" makes it non-incidental.

I don't see a "clearly" anything in this scenario.
 
So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV and get reimbursed by your employer, you can do the same in an airplane? Mangiamele which put the kibosh in that almost 10 years ago, has been discussed here thread many times.
"Reimburse" is not part of the discussion (unless I missed something). It's more like:

So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV for no compensation, you can do the same in an airplane?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
 
"Reimburse" is not part of the discussion (unless I missed something). It's more like:

So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV for no compensation, you can do the same in an airplane?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
So you can advertise free rides to work in your suv, so you can do the same in an airplane. Not really fair comparison though since this guy is (to me) clearly getting goodwill in the form of a more likely sale.
 
"Reimburse" is not part of the discussion (unless I missed something). It's more like:

So, you are saying, to use a different scenario, that since you can take fellow employees to a meeting in your SUV for no compensation, you can do the same in an airplane?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
The FAA's definition of "compensation" is definitely part of the equation.
 
You guys know “incidental” is not an amount, right?
I would think that determining relative amounts of time, money, etc. involved in various activities could be useful in determining which are central to the business and which are just incidental to it.
 
I would think that determining relative amounts of time, money, etc. involved in various activities could be useful in determining which are central to the business and which are just incidental to it.


You would think wrongly.

Incidental is best understood as not integral or not necessary. It is to the side.
 
You would think wrongly.

Incidental is best understood as not integral or not necessary. It is to the side.
I don't see anything in your explanation that's inconsistent with what I wrote. What is your reason for believing that the relative amounts of time or money involved in various activities couldn't play a role in determining which of them are not integral, not necessary, and to the side?
 
Last edited:
If an examiner asked you this on a checkride what would you say? If you get it wrong you fail the checkride! :)

It is easy to punt that question right back to the DPE. "Mr. Examiner, I know that question hinges on both the interpretation of "Holding out" and on the question of "incidental to the business". In this case I would call the FSDO to get their interpretation of the situation. Who at the FSDO would you suggest I call?".

-Skip
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything in your explanation that's inconsistent with what I wrote. What is your reason for believing that the relative amounts of time or money involved in various activities couldn't play a role in determining which of them are not integral, not necessary, and to the side?

Because you can spend a lot of time doing something that is incidental to a business. Merely spending a lot of time doing something does not make it required for the business. A traveling salesman gets paid to sell whether they travel a lot or a little.
 
It is easy to punt that question right back to the DPE. "Mr. Examiner, I know that question hinges on both the interpretation of "Holding out" and on the question of "incidental to the business". In this case I would call the FSDO to get their interpretation of the situation. Who at the FSDO would you suggest I call?".

-Skip

Perfect
 
There's always the possibility the guy asked for and received an opinion from the FSDO that his actions are not contrary to the relevant regulations.

Not that I want to interrupt a few pages of arguments. Carry on.
 
There's always the possibility the guy asked for and received an opinion from the FSDO that his actions are not contrary to the relevant regulations.

Not that I want to interrupt a few pages of arguments. Carry on.
Yes, there is alway the possibility that a business person would do normal business due diligence.
 
You'd also think an esteemed aviation magazine back in 1963, one in touch with the FAA in Washington, DC, would do normal business due-diligence before publishing an article saying this is perfectly "OK".

A lot of what is in there has been changed in the ensuing 55 years. In fact, the previously-mentioned Mangiamele interpretation invalidates the second half of the very first bullet point on the page. (And, FWIW, I think that interpretation is a load of crap.)
 
A lot of what is in there has been changed in the ensuing 55 years. In fact, the previously-mentioned Mangiamele interpretation invalidates the second half of the very first bullet point on the page. (And, FWIW, I think that interpretation is a load of crap.)
I think the FAA was a whole lot smarter 55 years ago.
 
We are still killing ourselves in the same old ways . . . . Mostly even in the same old planes . . . .

I'm referring mostly to the incidents that have resulted in the tightening of restrictions on private pilots and "compensation". But yeah, sadly, you're right. :(
 
I am not going down this rabbit hole, all this subject does is elevate my blood pressure, Pitts off.
 
Back
Top