FAR 61.113

I

Irishwake83

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 15, 2022
Messages
9
Display Name
Display name:
Irishwake83
Hey guys, I’m in the middle of training for my PPL and I’m hoping I can get some clarity on this regulation.

I am part owner of a small business that travels around the south east US. My intention from the beginning is only to get my PPL for personal reasons, but while going through the ground school and regulations I began to wonder.

“(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.”

Specifically the part in question is compensation and hire. Say I have a contract to do a job that is a four hour flight away. Normally we simply drive to our destination, the employees are paid for the travel time, and of course paid for their work. Wouldn’t this qualify as incidental since we don’t need to fly to the destination, we could simply drive.

1) Can I fly my employees to that job to work if I elect not to receive compensation from the company that hired us for the time spent in the aircraft?

2) Would I be able to pay my employees for the time spent in the aircraft, even if the business or I as pilot, am not directly compensated for it?

3) can common purpose be used as an exception to the regulation here?

It seems pretty cut and dry but my situation, I feel, is a little unique. I guess the part that I’m not clear on is whether or not for compensation and hire means once my passengers/employees are at their destination.
 
Your situation isn't unique. What does your CFI say?

Edit: You're going to get a lot of opinions here. It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, it only matters what the FAA thinks AT THE TIME. Don't get anywhere close to violating 61.113 and you will never have anything to worry about. Or don't get caught.

That said, I would be more worried about liability...
 
This is fine under part 91. You can fly to a job site. The flight is incidental. You said yourself that you would drive there anyway. You just can't be paid FOR the flight.

No problem taking employees along either. YOU are not being compensated for the flight. Your employees are being paid for their time, but they have nothing to do with operating the airplane.

I know people who do this all the time. Only issues seem to be some employees are nervous about flying in small planes and reluctant to speak up to the 'boss'. Also, make sure your company insurance (worker's comp, etc.) covers this type of activity.

C.
 
camorton said:
Only issues seem to be some employees are nervous about flying in small planes and reluctant to speak up to the 'boss'.
Click to expand...

To me, this is the big issue. Sure, flying yourself and your employees somewhere works great if they are all into it. But if they aren't, then it can cause at best an uncomfortable situation and at worst job jeopardy (or at least perceived job jeopardy).

I flew myself and a coworker to a conference one time. (Coworker, not employee.) It allowed us to get there and back on the same day, saved the company money, let us sleep in our own beds that night instead of a hotel, etc. I thought it was a great idea, and our boss went for it. But when I asked my coworker, he had a lot of follow-on questions, wasn't real sure about it, and he wanted to go home and discuss it with his wife first. He eventually agreed, but as excited as I was to do it, he was equally as unexcited.

Imagine if that's your employee. You're all excited to get to the job site quickly, get the job done, and get on to the next one. You see it as a great move for your business. Your employee, however, might not care so much about getting more jobs done per week, depending on how they're paid. And now you're asking them to get in a small-single-engine "death trap" that crashes all the time with a brand-new private pilot with 60 hours. Their spouse may not like the idea either. But they feel forced to accept because if they don't, the boss may find someone who will. Then performance review time comes up and the other person finished twice as many jobs, so who is going to get a raise and who might be fired?

Or they agree to go and then it causes friction with their spouse. Etc., etc. The details vary of course, but I think it's easy to see the possibilities.
 
Great points above about how the employees feel about flying in light GA, and company insurance issues.

For the longer term, something to look at is getting your commercial cert and possibly having your company purchase the airplane (or purchase an LLC that owns the airplane...). Under that scenario, the airplane cost can be paid for directly by your company, and you can be paid by the company for flying the company-provided plane. Whether this makes sense depends on how often the plane would be used for company flights. (insert requisite talk to your CPA and lawyer disclaimer).
 
Irishwake83 said:
…1) Can I fly my employees to that job to work..
Click to expand...
As an HR guy, my first reaction would be along the lines of “Is the employee under the perception their job will be dependent on them saying yes?”

Irishwake83 said:
…2) Would I be able to pay my employees for the time spent in the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Assuming they are hourly employees, do you currently pay hourly wages or provide any other compensation to then when commuting by any other conveyance?

For salaried employees, do you provide them any other compensation if they commute to a job site ny any other conveyance?

In both instances, I would advise following your existing compensation practices for a whole lot of reasons, especially if you’re looking to compensate yourself during this commute and it’s not a long established practice.

Irishwake83 said:
……3) can common purpose be used as an exception to the regulation here?
Click to expand...
That’s between you and the FAA. If you were investigated by the FAA, would you want an employee/passenger to be subjected to the regulator’s scrutiny of the arrangement?
 
Irishwake83 said:
It seems pretty cut and dry but my situation, I feel, is a little unique. I guess the part that I’m not clear on is whether or not for compensation and hire means once my passengers/employees are at their destination.
Click to expand...

I used my aircraft to travel to jobsites and was compensated by my employers for many years. I never had occasion to have the FAA involved, so never got their official ruling. Had I not had an airplane, I would still have been hired for the jobs and travelled by car or airline. Therefore, I considered it incidental. I usually carried a certain amount of test equipment, which could be considered property. On rare occasions an employee travelled with me. Again, incidental, as they would have gone with me in a car as well, and the purpose was not to transport them from point A to point B, but for them to assist me. The first boss for whom I did this was a private pilot himself, and both companies ran it by their lawyers and and insurance companies, but of course that was for their protection, not mine. Unfortunately, I believe that every good thing will eventually be ruined by lawyers and government intervention.
 
Last edited:
geneseib said:
Unfortunately, I believe that every good thing will eventually be ruined by lawyers and government intervention.
Click to expand...
Seems like a bit of "government intervention" that put all those runaways there for you to land on.
 
Thanks for all the replies guys.

In reality, this would be a very seldom used practice. Most of our jobs are close enough that flying wouldn't be appreciably faster, and even then you still have to have transportation from the airport, however there are a few locations we work at regularly that we keep tools on site, where it'd be nice to know we could get there quicker in a scenario where that would be beneficial to everyone. I'm sure my customers would appreciate the nice discount on travel, haha.

I was trying to ask specific questions, as if for some reason I couldn't pay my employees for their travel time, which is current practice, then it just wouldn't work. And for those of you mentioning comfort in a GA aircraft, we are a small company of about 10 people that have become pretty close friends in the years we've worked together, so that discussion would absolutely take place and I'd never do anything to jeopardize what we've built. I was mostly wondering if it's legally possible to do this so I can keep the idea on the back-burner for the future.
 
steingar said:
Seems like a bit of "government intervention" that put all those runaways there for you to land on.
Click to expand...

True, there have been times when the government was "for the people". Many of the ranch and mesa top strips I landed on across New Mexico had no government intervention. :)
 
I've always approached flying for work as furtherance of the job as a solo affair. I don't want to expose someone else to the uncertainties of GA travel. When it works, it's great, but when weather isn't cooperating or something breaks, it sucks.

From a logistical point, you're better off having your employees drive, and be responsible for picking you up from the airport and taking you to the job site.
 
What your employees get paid is and what the company bills to the client even for pilot's travel time is irrelevant to the regulation...the reg is as a PPL YOU personally can not receive compensation for transporting goods or people.

I own my own company traveling for work and have studied up on the regs...is you are flying solo you can actually be fully reimbursed for all of the direct expenses of the flight, as soon as there is another soul or board...employee or otherwise...the pro-rata share thing kicks in and you can no longer be fully reimbursed for what would be their share of the costs otherwise that would be receiving compensation to fly them.

If you pick up the tab for the flight expenses you can fly the employees all you want and the company can pay them travel time.

"(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire" means you are being paid to deliver that product or person. Example...as a salesman you can transport a widget for a sales meeting presentation but you could not deliver those widgets for delivery after a sale. You can fly your sales rep to the meeting with you...you could not receive payment in lieu of a commercial air fare ticket or any other compensation to transport said sales rep.

idahoflier said:
Your situation isn't unique. What does your CFI say?
Click to expand...

Worst advise ever IMO as an answer...While a good start (which the OP apparently already has)...sorry, in no way is every CFI versed in the minutia of every regulation especially business and plane ownership travel as it relates to the PPL. I despise this answer as the purpose off this board is to share knowledge that we have all collectively gained...yet somehow there is a disillusion that just because they are a CFI they are aware of every nuance of all the regulations. Not even close.
 
Last edited:
idahoflier said:
What does your CFI say?
Click to expand...

Shawn said:
Worst advise ever IMO as an answer...
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said it, especially because the next sentence is this:

idahoflier said:
Edit: You're going to get a lot of opinions here.
Click to expand...

So, the OP should have consulted their CFI (who has probably never even thought through the intricacies of this issue), but asking an internet board of GA pilots, many of whom are well versed in this scenario is silly. I don't get it.

That's one of the things I really like about this board. There are a lot of really smart people here with some niche specialties and it's fascinating to me the depth and breadth of knowledge processed by people here. I, for one, would probably come here for answers first on lots of topics.
 
Sluggo63 said:
So, the OP should have consulted their CFI (who has probably never even thought through the intricacies of this issue), but asking an internet board of GA pilots, many of whom are well versed in this scenario is silly. I
Click to expand...
One might be surprised at the number of times CFIs have asked me questions about 61.113 limitations (and where Part 91 and 135 meet).

But I think that once you drill down into some of these, asking SGOTI is equally silly. But one of the advantages of SGOTI is that differing opinions tells the questioner that the answer is not simple and, if important, deserves a one-on-one response from a knowledgeable professional who may well speak in terms of levels of risk rather than a cut-and-dried yes you can/no you can't answer.
 
Last edited:
The FARs don’t matter here. The big issue is liability. All the lawyering and papering in the world won’t prevent the family members of your employee from big lawsuits should an accident happen.

An accident or incident resulting in a lawsuit will effectively terminate your small company.

Check with your lawyer.

-Skip
 
midlifeflyer said:
One might be surprised at the number of times CFIs have asked me questions about 61.113 limitations (and where Part 91 and 135 meet).

But I think that once you drill down into some of these, asking SGOTI is equally silly. But one of the advantages of SGOTI is that differing opinions tells the questioner that the answer is not simple and, if important, deserves a one-on-one response from a knowledgeable professional who may well speak in terms of levels of risk rather than a cut-and-dried yes you can/no you can't answer.
Click to expand...

. . . and every now and then someone is able to dig up case law that accurately illustrates the OP's scenario and effectively answers the question, "How would the actually FAA rule on this situation?"

I agree with the CFI issue, so if you're going to ask one, be sure to ask several others so that you realize maybe NONE of them are right. :cool:

Even a commercial certificate doesn't help much in this scenario. The FAA wants control over the oversight of the aircraft maintenance and operation, which still pushes it into the Part 135 direction.
 
dbahn said:
Even a commercial certificate doesn't help much in this scenario. The FAA wants control over the oversight of the aircraft maintenance and operation, which still pushes it into the Part 135 direction.
Click to expand...

A number of companies run flights under Part 91 with a paid pilot. But the pilot has a commercial.

Part 135 and 121 are for being paid by the passenger to take them somewhere, that you were not going.

Xerox used to run virtually a scheduled airline under Part 91.

When a Commercial would be required, is if the OP were paid to fly some other employees to some location, just to get them there. It could still be Part 91, but the flight is not incidental to his job. As, for that flight, it IS his job.

If he is going to the same location to work, then the flight becomes incidental.

Just like cost sharing for PPL. If you are going to the beach and some friends want to come along and split the rental or the gas, fine. If some friends want to go to the beach and ask you to fly there there, you can no long cost share.
 
Pinecone said:
A number of companies run flights under Part 91 with a paid pilot. But the pilot has a commercial.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the company own the plane in that situation, rather than the pilot? If so it's the company that has oversight on the maintenance and operation of the aircraft. Hundreds of companies operate that way under Part 91. The OP didn't specify who owns the aircraft, which is an important factor.
 
I didn't specify cuz it's kinda hypothetical at this point, eventually once I get PPL/IFR my plan was to buy an airplane for personal use. However, I'm satisfied enough with the answer here to delve a little further and ask maybe my DPE for either his opinion or a contact within the FAA to ensure this potential use case wouldn't cause an issue with the FAA. If I can get a green light from the FAA I'd get with our attorney and insurance contacts for recommendations on how to proceed, and then my business partner (he's also got a PPL, he was actually CFI in another life but that was long before we purchased this business together and isn't current) and I could discuss maybe getting the plane with the company. Not necessarily in that order. I made this post expecting a flat out "no", but I'm happy to see that's not the case.

Thank you all for all the feedback here.
 
When was the last time the FAA asked to see corporate tax forms and receipts to see if an owner was reimbursed for a work flight?
 
TCABM said:
As an HR guy, my first reaction would be along the lines of “Is the employee under the perception their job will be dependent on them saying yes?”
Click to expand...
Several folks have brought this up, so I'm wondering whether there's a rule somewhere that I can't make an employee's employment conditioned on his willingness to travel in small planes. Sure, I might not want to make an existing employee uncomfortable if I value him staying more than I value the efficiency gained. But if I don't care about that, would anything stop me from saying, "This is how we do it now."
 
Irishwake83 said:
...or a contact within the FAA...
Click to expand...


Please don’t.

If you’re sufficiently happy with what you’ve already been told, it’s unlikely the FAA will make you any happier. Remember the FAA mission statement: “We’re not happy until you’re not happy.”

Sometimes it’s best to let lying dogs sleep.
 
I would type the distance driving via google maps, report that mileage to the company for reimbursement of travel costs. That's how I would set it up for all the employees too. If they all pile into one van or your plane or drive separately the company doesn't have to know the specifics.
 
Half Fast said:
What do you suppose all those new IRS agents will be doing? :)
Click to expand...

Is the IRS going to subpoena a logbook to see if you were solo or not? And would they even be aware of a CC letter contradicting 61.113 ?
 
EdFred said:
Is the IRS going to subpoena a logbook to see if you were solo or not? And would they even be aware of a CC letter contradicting 61.113 ?
Click to expand...


Nope. Lack of knowledge has never been a hindrance to the IRS before, though.
 
Shawn said:
Worst advise ever IMO as an answer...While a good start (which the OP apparently already has)...sorry, in no way is every CFI versed in the minutia of every regulation especially business and plane ownership travel as it relates to the PPL. I despise this answer as the purpose off this board is to share knowledge that we have all collectively gained...yet somehow there is a disillusion that just because they are a CFI they are aware of every nuance of all the regulations. Not even close.
Click to expand...

In Post #3 the OP relayed that he had not yet consulted his CFI. Sorry, IMO that's where questions should start and I stand by that. Sure the OP's CFI may be green and may not have a great depth of knowledge on the subject in which case the OP can share the various opinions he has received on here with the CFI. Or MAYBE he just might have an experienced CFI that is well versed on the subject and can impart first hand experienced knowledge on the subject. But let's go with your worst case scenario and the OP's CFI is clueless on the subject. He never asks the CFI because of the great advise he got on this board. So his CFI is still ignorant. Is that a great outcome?
 
Sluggo63 said:
So, the OP should have consulted their CFI (who has probably never even thought through the intricacies of this issue), but asking an internet board of GA pilots, many of whom are well versed in this scenario is silly. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I NEVER said asking the question on this board was silly. If you want more context of my reasoning in my answer to the OP please read my reply to @Shawn in post #33. And by the way, as predicted, there are varying different opinions being offered on this thread. Was there a clear answer given? Not in my mind because this is and will continue to be a murky subject...
 
Lindberg said:
Several folks have brought this up, so I'm wondering whether there's a rule somewhere that I can't make an employee's employment conditioned on his willingness to travel in small planes. Sure, I might not want to make an existing employee uncomfortable if I value him staying more than I value the efficiency gained. But if I don't care about that, would anything stop me from saying, "This is how we do it now."
Click to expand...

It’s less a rule than a change in your terms of employment which, in even the most right to work of right to work states is still a contract. You can amend that contract as you go, but telling an employee that, going forward, his employment is conditional on employer directed travel modes, to include by small aircraft, is a pretty big change to the contract and may or may not be legal in the state you are doing business in.

I have no idea what the FAA would say about that.
 
farangutan said:
I would type the distance driving via google maps, report that mileage to the company for reimbursement of travel costs. That's how I would set it up for all the employees too. If they all pile into one van or your plane or drive separately the company doesn't have to know the specifics.
Click to expand...
This is very, very, common. I might have done it myself with the tacit knowledge of my manager when I worked for an unenlightened company.

It's also why any company that buys a liability insurance policy with an GA exclusion (even if they they use that as a cowards way to prohibit it) is run by idiots. The risk is very small, but if this pilot hurts someone, the company is exposed even if it's prohibited (especially if any level of management is aware). On every policy I've purchased I asked for it to be removed and they did, easily. Only one time was there even a fee and it was $135 to remove it.
 
Just do it and don't mention it to anyone. Carrying paid employees incidental to your job is no biggie.

SGOTI
 
TCABM said:
It’s less a rule than a change in your terms of employment which, in even the most right to work of right to work states is still a contract. You can amend that contract as you go, but telling an employee that, going forward, his employment is conditional on employer directed travel modes, to include by small aircraft, is a pretty big change to the contract and may or may not be legal in the state you are doing business in.
Click to expand...
In what state would it not be legal?
 
Irishwake83 said:
I didn't specify cuz it's kinda hypothetical at this point, eventually once I get PPL/IFR my plan was to buy an airplane for personal use. However, I'm satisfied enough with the answer here to delve a little further and ask maybe my DPE for either his opinion or a contact within the FAA to ensure this potential use case wouldn't cause an issue with the FAA. If I can get a green light from the FAA I'd get with our attorney and insurance contacts for recommendations on how to proceed, and then my business partner (he's also got a PPL, he was actually CFI in another life but that was long before we purchased this business together and isn't current) and I could discuss maybe getting the plane with the company. Not necessarily in that order. I made this post expecting a flat out "no", but I'm happy to see that's not the case.

Thank you all for all the feedback here.
Click to expand...
A DPE doesn’t speak for FAA policy, so his or her opinion is equivalent to SGOTI. I direct you to FAA legal interpretations, specifically Mangiamele, which addresses your circumstance:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...2009/Mangiamele_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf
 
Wasn't there a new PPL who flew pizzas to a small island in Michigan, and he got busted by the FAA? Didn't make money on delivery - he was just being nice, as he was going there anyway. They said the good will he gained was his payment, or something like that.


OP Since this is infrequent, and you're building hours anyway, M2C is if you want to fly, fly by yourself and don't get reimbursed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top