@ 1000 hrs - Need some Advice

Just to put this "legal interpretation matter to bed..." I'll write an official letter to the FAA regarding the matter, and post the results back here....
 
I would probably be getting my commercial and instrument tickets.
Click to expand...

That was the original point of the thread.Instrument yes, Commercial.... maybe, but I see your point. However, my comment about "no intention to be a commercial pilot" was exactly that.... Even if I get a commercial license, for the pure sake of "ensuring the legality," I still would not be looking to "charge customers" / "Ship packages" / Be an ATP / etc... and I would expect that my day to day operations as such would STILL not fall under commercial operations.

I know people will argue differently, but I do not think that the FAA's definition of "goodwill" and that of which I've discussed up to this point are in conflict. But as I have mentioned.... I will write a letter to the FAA, and get a verdict, and report back the official answer.
 
This is going to get interesting. Just to clarify, a commercial ticket will have no effect on this situation. A commercial ticket allows you to fly for someone else in their plane and get paid. I obviously don't know but, predict if the OP inquires about this it will be shot down by the FAA. Another point the OP might want to look at is flying F 500 employees around in SE aircraft by private pilots is generally discouraged and forbidden by many. They are HUGE liability implications. Not trying to be a crotchety old man as you accused Bob of being but, just trying to pass along some observations acquired through a few thousand hours of corp[orate flying.
I will add, at the risk of being crotchety, that a SE piston aircraft even with de ice is not so you can launch into known icing but, maybe escape an inadvertent encounter, IMO.
 
USAF-LT-G said:
But as I have mentioned.... I will write a letter to the FAA, and get a verdict, and report back the official answer.
Click to expand...

By God no, don't do that!! That is how the big ****ups in the chief counsels office get started. Someone writes a letter because he needs to win an argument and the next thing we can't fly into clouds when it's freezing or lose the ability to receive reimbursement from our employer. Mangiamele was an answer to a gratuitous question tagged on to a letter about charity flight.
 
Naw, go ahead LT. It will be interesting. Private pilots have for eons been trying to figure out how to be compensated. Similar to commercial pilots trying to figure out how to get around 135 regs. Most of us old crotchety pilots have been there in decades past. Many of us speak from experience, LOL.
 
ronnieh said:
This is going to get interesting. Just to clarify, a commercial ticket will have no effect on this situation. A commercial ticket allows you to fly for someone else in their plane and get paid. I obviously don't know but, predict if the OP inquires about this it will be shot down by the FAA. Another point the OP might want to look at is flying F 500 employees around in SE aircraft by private pilots is generally discouraged and forbidden by many. They are HUGE liability implications. Not trying to be a crotchety old man as you accused Bob of being but, just trying to pass along some observations acquired through a few thousand hours of corp[orate flying.
I will add, at the risk of being crotchety, that a SE piston aircraft even with de ice is not so you can launch into known icing but, maybe escape an inadvertent encounter, IMO.
Click to expand...

To put the "what plane will you fly business to rest a bit..." I've landed on the fact that the mission will require a multi, and I'm landing on a Navajo with FIKI.

2) I think for whatever reason people are interpretting what I'm saying regarding taking "employees" in an aircraft as "official business" which again... is just simply not the case. By your "...interpretation of F 500 companies frowning on employees going in an SE aircraft by private pilots and is forbidden" that would "allude" to meaning that somewhere in the expense policy, contract, or agreement an employee of said F 500 company would be "legally" unable to fly in a SE plane, or with a private pilot at anytime period.

Fortunately, laws don't work this way, and therefore policy can not be written this way. "Official Business" is another matter entirely..... and as I have stated, under the interpretation of the law, this is NOT official business.

3) For some reason, the general impression seems to be that folks here are thinking I'm "conducting official business" with "customers" and again.... that's not the case.

4) The ruling on Mangiamele (2009) states that
Section 61.113(a) states, in pertinet 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 and 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(b)....
Click to expand...

Therefore, the portion of whereby I am transporting myself to a Customer site is covered.

5) What is "not" clarified through Mangiamele is that I am a principal owner of my company, and that regardless of "who else is in the cockpit with me" no one is paying for any portion of the trip except me. As a private pilot, therefore, I am paying for the entire portion of the flight myself, through my entity and at no time am I seeking for pay or hire that of additional occupants who may be on-board at that time.

In addition as previously stated above, "Customers" who HAPPEN to be with me and who happen to be Customers on one hand, but more as a personal relationship in the case of definition (Post meeting, post official business) who would "like to go fly" (regardless of the location) somewhere after hours, off the clock as an "experience" are also not paying me, nor are they reimbursing me. I am still paying solely for the flight and all expenses. <--- this is mainly the point that is not covered as a "business principal" that is murky and needs clarification.
 
Also, just a general add here..... I'm not being hostile, sorry if I'm coming off that way. I have some law background schooling, plus I write contracts, review policies, yada yada, almost on a daily basis. I get passionate on this stuff :cool:
 
USAF-LT-G said:
To put the "what plane will you fly business to rest a bit..." I've landed on the fact that the mission will require a multi, and I'm landing on a Navajo with FIKI.

2) I think for whatever reason people are interpretting what I'm saying regarding taking "employees" in an aircraft as "official business" which again... is just simply not the case. By your "...interpretation of F 500 companies frowning on employees going in an SE aircraft by private pilots and is forbidden" that would "allude" to meaning that somewhere in the expense policy, contract, or agreement an employee of said F 500 company would be "legally" unable to fly in a SE plane, or with a private pilot at anytime period.

Fortunately, laws don't work this way, and therefore policy can not be written this way. "Official Business" is another matter entirely..... and as I have stated, under the interpretation of the law, this is NOT official business.

3) For some reason, the general impression seems to be that folks here are thinking I'm "conducting official business" with "customers" and again.... that's not the case.

4) The ruling on Mangiamele (2009) states that

Therefore, the portion of whereby I am transporting myself to a Customer site is covered.

5) What is "not" clarified through Mangiamele is that I am a principal owner of my company, and that regardless of "who else is in the cockpit with me" no one is paying for any portion of the trip except me. As a private pilot, therefore, I am paying for the entire portion of the flight myself, through my entity and at no time am I seeking for pay or hire that of additional occupants who may be on-board at that time.

In addition as previously stated above, "Customers" who HAPPEN to be with me and who happen to be Customers on one hand, but more as a personal relationship in the case of definition (Post meeting, post official business) who would "like to go fly" (regardless of the location) somewhere after hours, off the clock as an "experience" are also not paying me, nor are they reimbursing me. I am still paying solely for the flight and all expenses. <--- this is mainly the point that is not covered as a "business principal" that is murky and needs clarification.
Click to expand...
If the company is paying the expenses, how can it not be considered official business?

I also apologize if I'm being a hostile, I'm trying to understand these crazy rules.
 
A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

USAF-LT-G said:
Work isn't going to pony up for me to "purchase" a plane for myself, but they will reimburse (within relative reason) the costs of my flying.
Click to expand...

So, how exactly does your business do this reimbursing? I need to pass this information on to my CPA.
 
Salty said:
If the company is paying the expenses, how can it not be considered official business?

I also apologize if I'm being a hostile, I'm trying to understand these crazy rules.
Click to expand...

Ah but you're putting both Scenario's into the same bucket, which may be the cause of confusion.

As I pointed out in the FAA's Mangiamele (2009) ruling - Flying myself out to a business meeting, although official, can be reimbursed pretty much with no question.

Carting a customer around, after hours, after work, as a recreational activity (flying the 100 dollar burger) is not official business. We're not doing anything regarding the conduction of business. We're just going to get a burger. Perhaps it was not made clear before.... but in "no" circumstance do I ever, depart pick up a Customer and conduct a transfer or cart them around from office to office (which would be considered official business). The circumstance in which a customer would ever be in the plane, would always occur on an "off-hours" / "recreational" basis.
 
LT to your point #2: You are going to find that the real world is different. No doubt that on official business, the SE plane with private pilot will be frowned upon. That I think we agree on. However in the upper echelons of corporate management, many times due to things like life insurance exclusions, dangerous hobbies ( example sky diving) is forbidden even on personal time. Many companies will simply forbid upper level management to participate in risky endeavors.
Let me add, I have no dog in this hunt. I would not have even brought this up except that someone else did. My expectation is this endeavor as you have explained it will be shot down by many companies and my prediction (for what that is worth) is that if you ask the FAA about your particular situation they too will shoot it down. The FAA is VERY adverse to private pilots hauling passengers where there is any chance that the flying can in any way benefit the private pilot. Not saying it is right, just a fact of life.
In fact let me just add with due respect, that most companies would not even let you fly yourself on company business. It is only that you are an owner and can give yourself permission are you able to do it. Chances are (IMO) you are going to get considerable push back from both corporate legal types and the FAA when you want to use your private plane and private ticket to (in your words) wine and dine clients to garner their good will. Most companies that do this have a corporate flight department with professional pilots to do this kind of thing.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
 
ronnieh said:
LT to your point #2: You are going to find that the real world is different. No doubt that on official business, the SE plane with private pilot will be frowned upon. That I think we agree on. However in the upper echelons of corporate management, many times due to things like life insurance exclusions, dangerous hobbies ( example sky diving) is forbidden even on personal time. Many companies will simply forbid upper level management to participate in risky endeavors.
Let me add, I have no dog in this hunt. I would not have even brought this up except that someone else did. My expectation is this endeavor as you have explained it will be shot down by many companies and my prediction (for what that is worth) is that if you ask the FAA about your particular situation they too will shoot it down. The FAA is VERY adverse to private pilots hauling passengers where there is any chance that the flying can in any way benefit the private pilot. Not saying it is right, just a fact of life.
In fact let me just add with due respect, that most companies would not even let you fly yourself on company business. It is only that you are an owner and can give yourself permission are you able to do it. Chances are (IMO) you are going to get considerable push back from both corporate legal types and the FAA when you want to use your private plane and private ticket to (in your words) wine and dine clients to garner their good will. Most companies that do this have a corporate flight department with professional pilots to do this kind of thing.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
Click to expand...

Got it. Agreed. #2 is iffy to say the least. I'll look into getting the commercial as part of the IFR for many a different reasons than this.

But I do see your point, and totally understand the insurance aspects. I have not ever personally run into this issue dealing with c levels at other corporations, but from experience i know that in part in the "real" world some of what you say is true and I have seen it other policies. Again... An iffy endeavor to say the least.

Better to play it safe on this matter as you suggest.

To be honest #2 is not that frequent of a request anyways, and more often than not the more typical scenario is that I'm flying myself solely somewhere which was detailed above



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
USAF-LT-G said:
Ah but you're putting both Scenario's into the same bucket, which may be the cause of confusion.

As I pointed out in the FAA's Mangiamele (2009) ruling - Flying myself out to a business meeting, although official, can be reimbursed pretty much with no question.

Carting a customer around, after hours, after work, as a recreational activity (flying the 100 dollar burger) is not official business. We're not doing anything regarding the conduction of business. We're just going to get a burger. Perhaps it was not made clear before.... but in "no" circumstance do I ever, depart pick up a Customer and conduct a transfer or cart them around from office to office (which would be considered official business). The circumstance in which a customer would ever be in the plane, would always occur on an "off-hours" / "recreational" basis.
Click to expand...
But the company is paying the expenses for your "recreational" flight. That doesn't add up.
 
Salty said:
But the company is paying the expenses for your "recreational" flight. That doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Right where the law gets fishy... (But again I'm subletting this to my previous statement above, that it's better to play it safe than not, and will pursue the commercial...) is that I'm a principal owner of my own company. Granted, it's not a "Sole Propietership" entity, regardless, it could (in law speak) mean that because the company is mine... The "private pilot" (me) and the company (also me) are one in the same and paying for the flight.

That was my original argument and where the FAA's official interpretation was/is unclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
USAF-LT-G said:
Right where the law gets fishy... (But again I'm subletting this to my previous statement above, that it's better to play it safe than not, and will pursue the commercial...) is that I'm a principal owner of my own company. Granted, it's not a "Sole Propietership" entity, regardless, it could (in law speak) mean that because the company is mine... The "private pilot" (me) and the company (also me) are one in the same and paying for the flight.

That was my original argument and where the FAA's official interpretation was/is unclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
See, that makes total sense and is completely logical. But it's not how I understand the Faa sees it.
 
Last edited:
LT, the commercial ticket is of no use in this scenario. See my post # 83. As Salty has said it is the "being reimbursed" that is the sticky part. The FAA carved out a special situation for private pilots. To paraphrase "a private pilot may be reimbursed by the company he works for as long as he is the SOLE passenger in the aircraft". In fact you can not carry freight either. Once you add passengers AND you get reimbursement you are running a foul of the FAA.
My point is you MAY (IMO you do) have a two prong problem in your plans. First you plan on being compensated while flying passengers. BTW, the amount is of no concern, ANY compensation is forbidden. Also "good will" can and most likely would be considered compensation. Second, I predict you will get considerable push back from corporate legal types. Most corporations have little appetite for any activity that increases their liability/risk for little if any gain.
Your proposed activity has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. The carve out I described is very narrow in its concept with little if any wiggle room. The FAA is not likely to change its stance on private pilots getting ANY compensation. I point this out so as to assure you, you are not being singled out for persecution. A member here (Dr. Mack, I guess he is still a member) spent hundreds of hours trying to get legislation passed to expand the carve out to allow passengers, so far with no success. We can of course have a philosophical debate to the fairness of the FAA rules but, it will not change anything. Again, good luck.
 
ronnieh said:
LT, the commercial ticket is of no use in this scenario. See my post # 83. As Salty has said it is the "being reimbursed" that is the sticky part. The FAA carved out a special situation for private pilots. To paraphrase "a private pilot may be reimbursed by the company he works for as long as he is the SOLE passenger in the aircraft". In fact you can not carry freight either. Once you add passengers AND you get reimbursement you are running a foul of the FAA.
My point is you MAY (IMO you do) have a two prong problem in your plans. First you plan on being compensated while flying passengers. BTW, the amount is of no concern, ANY compensation is forbidden. Also "good will" can and most likely would be considered compensation. Second, I predict you will get considerable push back from corporate legal types. Most corporations have little appetite for any activity that increases their liability/risk for little if any gain.
Your proposed activity has been discussed ad nauseam on this board. The carve out I described is very narrow in its concept with little if any wiggle room. The FAA is not likely to change its stance on private pilots getting ANY compensation. I point this out so as to assure you, you are not being singled out for persecution. A member here (Dr. Mack, I guess he is still a member) spent hundreds of hours trying to get legislation passed to expand the carve out to allow passengers, so far with no success. We can of course have a philosophical debate to the fairness of the FAA rules but, it will not change anything. Again, good luck.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you mean by your first sentence. I didn't understand it in post 83 either. Can you elaborate?
 
Understood, I see your point. It's the problem of flying passengers.

Let's for a moment, however, disband the assumption of "other" Corporations which will be hereby referred to after as "Customers," being that for sake of argument.... the Customer's expense policy, contracts of employment, or otherwise hereby referred to as "The Articles," are not at conflict with the desire of the employee to take a ride with a "private pilot."

That being said If a Private Pilot "owns" his own company, and takes passengers (Customers or anyone else).... and from the way I read the FAA's interpretation of a Private Pilot owned company being one in the same as the Private Pilot...... Then what is the difference between the Private Pilot paying out of his own checkbook for the flight activities, or his own entity paying for the flight activities.... if "joyriding."
 
I can. A commercial ticket allows you the pilot to be paid for your service as a pilot. For example a corporate pilot, pipe line flying. Once you cross over to furnishing the aircraft you are put squarely under FAR Pt 135. In your proposed activity you want to furnish plane and pilot. Must have an operating certificate issued under Pt. 135. Even a corporate flight department operating under Pt.91 must be very careful hauling clients around so as to not get caught up in carrying clients on flights in exchange for "things" such as good will.
 
Your post #98 poses a fair question. First let me state for the record, I am not an attorney, nor am I affiliated with the FAA. It MAY depend on who owns the aircraft. If you can demonstrate that even though you own the company and the aircraft you do not get any compensation/benefit or if the company owns the aircraft that it (the company) gets no benefit for flying said passengers you MIGHT be OK but, that might be a high bar to get over when dealing with the FAA. Remember the FAA moto; "we're not happy until you are not happy". They are a fair amount of truth in that.
 
weilke said:
It is an educational benefit he earned through military service. It is 'free money' in the sense that if he doesn't use it to go to college or add aviation ratings it eventually goes away.
Click to expand...

In which case it's earned money.

It's still money coming out of all of our paychecks, or being printed by the fed and devaluing what's in our wallets.

So even if it's earned, calling it free is insulting to those who actually produced it IMO
 
ronnieh said:
Your post #98 poses a fair question. First let me state for the record, I am not an attorney, nor am I affiliated with the FAA. It MAY depend on who owns the aircraft. If you can demonstrate that even though you own the company and the aircraft you do not get any compensation/benefit or if the company owns the aircraft that it (the company) gets no benefit for flying said passengers you MIGHT be OK but, that might be a high bar to get over when dealing with the FAA. Remember the FAA moto; "we're not happy until you are not happy". They are a fair amount of truth in that.
Click to expand...

Got it, and we're on the same page. My original comment (whatever post it was) about contacting the FAA was primarily to get clarification on this matter. But I also saw another post stating "don't ruffle feathers with the FAA...." so I don't to cause more attention / trouble if it's gonna screw others.
 
USAF-LT-G said:
Then what is the difference between the Private Pilot paying out of his own checkbook for the flight activities, or his own entity paying for the flight activities.... if "joyriding."
Click to expand...

One is tax deductible.
 
I wouldn't worry about that. The FAA can screw pilots just fine without your help. As far as clarification from the FAA, it is unlikely they will clear up anything LOL. The way you are presenting it I strongly suspect that the FAA will take the position that regardless of who owns the plane the purpose of said flights is to garner "good will" with clients. If so this will be considered compensation. Here is a test; would you provide the same to non clients? In other words why the flights? Would you be interested in picking me up Saturday afternoon and fly me to the coast for a nice sea food dinner? I can promise you that you will receive nothing of value. Get my point? The FAA is vested in and not likely to change their position of not allowing private pilots to benefit from their flying except in very narrowly defined and specific carve outs.
Bottom line, if this is that important to you a good aviation lawyer might be money well spent. Too many times the info you get from an aviation forum is worth about what you pay for it. I don't think you will get the FAA's blessing but, who knows. I have been wrong so many times it is not even worth going into it.
 
One is tax deductible? Which one?
 
James331 said:
In which case it's earned money.

It's still money coming out of all of our paychecks, or being printed by the fed and devaluing what's in our wallets.

So even if it's earned, calling it free is insulting to those who actually produced it IMO
Click to expand...

Actually no sir, you are incorrect. The GI Bill itself, costs you, the taxpayer, of which, I am ALSO a taxypayer and of which every Veteran is a taxpayer.... nothing. The GI Bill is mostly possible through a combined fund which is payed for and vested by the Veteran earning the benefit and who has elected to procure the benefit for him/herself (not all veterans do).

In addition to the "fund" (which acrues interest / losses as does everything else in the world), the GI Bill is also possible through negotiations made with universities themselves (much like health care insurance negotiates with the hospital bills we send them in which they only need to pay a fraction of the cost).

States may also elect to partake in the Veteran's benefit and elect additional negotiation. For example, Illinois has an Illinois Veterans grant, which allows any Illinois State veteran who entered service / commissioning and returned to his home state quite literally "free tuition" to any state schools (excluding I believe room and board, etc.). This is also a negotiated benefit that the state has elected to enforce, in which the state owes nothing, and the taxpayer owes nothing.

That being said.... Unfortunately, there are Vets who use their benefit and drop out or don't make the grade required by the VA, in which case "Drop-out" students / Not making the cut students DO effect the taxpayer, as the VA has worked the agreement to only pay the school back for tuition and services for students who pass their courses. Those "students" end up being a tax write-off to the school which then in turn.... goes back to the taxpayer. However, in that scenario, be advised that that also means I myself, as a veteran, am also paying that bill as well as every other tax paying citizen.

Make no mistake, there is always a cost to freedom
 
ronnieh said:
I wouldn't worry about that. The FAA can screw pilots just fine without your help. As far as clarification from the FAA, it is unlikely they will clear up anything LOL. The way you are presenting it I strongly suspect that the FAA will take the position that regardless of who owns the plane the purpose of said flights is to garner "good will" with clients. If so this will be considered compensation. Here is a test; would you provide the same to non clients? In other words why the flights? Would you be interested in picking me up Saturday afternoon and fly me to the coast for a nice sea food dinner? I can promise you that you will receive nothing of value. Get my point? The FAA is vested in and not likely to change their position of not allowing private pilots to benefit from their flying except in very narrowly defined and specific carve outs.
Bottom line, if this is that important to you a good aviation lawyer might be money well spent. Too many times the info you get from an aviation forum is worth about what you pay for it. I don't think you will get the FAA's blessing but, who knows. I have been wrong so many times it is not even worth going into it.
Click to expand...

Again, I see your point :) However.... I could honestly say that yep.... do this all the time. I have never ONCE in my life asked for re-imbursement or shared pro rata costs of flight ever. I pick friends up all the time. Take people places in a pinch. Just to go fly or help out. I don't expect anything in return nor do I receive anything in return. I fund always. So I probably COULD argue that :)
 
LT, to your post #106. First a big Thank You for your service. Second, even if it were tax payer funded I would much rather it go to vets than many of the things it goes for. Is it free? No, it costs many of our vets dearly. If the benefits are available to you, LT then you use them and call it what ever you like. Again Thank you!

Oh and what time Saturday? <grin>
 
Last edited:
ronnieh said:
One is tax deductible? Which one?
Click to expand...

Tax Time:

Un-reimbursed Expenses --> Did your company reimburse you for any of the expenses of which you are claiming on your taxes for this period?

Could go either way. If I pay it out of pocket, I could claim it as an unreimbursed travel expense (for flying myself solely to a business meeting).
If I claim it as part of the corporation, I get a tax writeoff for expenses not related to the operation or profit of the business.

The later works out better as a better tax writeoff.
 
USAF-LT-G said:
Actually no sir, you are incorrect. The GI Bill itself, costs you, the taxpayer, of which, I am ALSO a taxypayer and of which every Veteran is a taxpayer.... nothing. The GI Bill is mostly possible through a combined fund which is payed for and vested by the Veteran earning the benefit and who has elected to procure the benefit for him/herself (not all veterans do).

In addition to the "fund" (which acrues interest / losses as does everything else in the world), the GI Bill is also possible through negotiations made with universities themselves (much like health care insurance negotiates with the hospital bills we send them in which they only need to pay a fraction of the cost).

States may also elect to partake in the Veteran's benefit and elect additional negotiation. For example, Illinois has an Illinois Veterans grant, which allows any Illinois State veteran who entered service / commissioning and returned to his home state quite literally "free tuition" to any state schools (excluding I believe room and board, etc.). This is also a negotiated benefit that the state has elected to enforce, in which the state owes nothing, and the taxpayer owes nothing.

That being said.... Unfortunately, there are Vets who use their benefit and drop out or don't make the grade required by the VA, in which case "Drop-out" students / Not making the cut students DO effect the taxpayer, as the VA has worked the agreement to only pay the school back for tuition and services for students who pass their courses. Those "students" end up being a tax write-off to the school which then in turn.... goes back to the taxpayer. However, in that scenario, be advised that that also means I myself, as a veteran, am also paying that bill as well as every other tax paying citizen.

Make no mistake, there is always a cost to freedom
Click to expand...

paid for by the vet, whos paycheck comes from the government, whos money comes from all of our paychecks. So yes it does cost the tax payer, might be a 6 degrees from keven bacon thing, but end of the day the tax payers flip the bill for everything from military normal pay, do the tooth brush the military gives you. Hence why our military spending is INSANE.

Not saying to not use you benefits or anything, that was the deal when you signed up, and its rightfully yours to use, but just also remember to thank the American people for their involuntary support ;)
 
ronnieh said:
In fact let me just add with due respect, that most companies would not even let you fly yourself on company business. It is only that you are an owner and can give yourself permission are you able to do it. Chances are (IMO) you are going to get considerable push back from both corporate legal types and the FAA when you want to use your private plane and private ticket to (in your words) wine and dine clients to garner their good will. Most companies that do this have a corporate flight department with professional pilots to do this kind of thing.
Click to expand...

An investment sales guy crashed his privately owned 421 near Palwaukee in 2006. Unfortunate for his employer, he had customers on board. Morgan Stanley settled for 15 million.
 
Good luck with everything, hopefully there is a wad of $$$ in your pocket.

I'm at BUU, life is better north of the cheddar curtain.

I can help with the AME, check out Elgin and/or St Charles.
 
James331 said:
paid for by the vet, whos paycheck comes from the government, whos money comes from all of our paychecks. So yes it does cost the tax payer, might be a 6 degrees from keven bacon thing, but end of the day the tax payers flip the bill for everything from military normal pay, do the tooth brush the military gives you. Hence why our military spending is INSANE.

Not saying to not use you benefits or anything, that was the deal when you signed up, and its rightfully yours to use, but just also remember to thank the American people for their involuntary support ;)
Click to expand...

Well the military never gave me a toothbrush, but I earned and used every penny of my benefits. And I don't feel I have to thank the American people James. If you feel it's involuntary, well, try another country to see about involuntary taxes hitting your wallet.
 
James331 said:
paid for by the vet, whos paycheck comes from the government, whos money comes from all of our paychecks. So yes it does cost the tax payer, might be a 6 degrees from keven bacon thing, but end of the day the tax payers flip the bill for everything from military normal pay, do the tooth brush the military gives you. Hence why our military spending is INSANE.

Not saying to not use you benefits or anything, that was the deal when you signed up, and its rightfully yours to use, but just also remember to thank the American people for their involuntary support ;)
Click to expand...

A Few Good Men

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way.

Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I actually did the PIC course in 8 days (got two days off for good behavior). Of course, I was EXTREMELY prepared: IFR book knowledge already down cold and nearly 500 hours in the particular aircraft I was doing the course in.

If you can take stuff at the pace offered, you can definitely do it in ten days. Do NOT plan on doing anything else during that time frame. There's homework to do several of the evenings and you're going to be putting in grueling solid days on the flying days.
 
mscard88 said:
Well the military never gave me a toothbrush, but I earned and used every penny of my benefits. And I don't feel I have to thank the American people James. If you feel it's involuntary, well, try another country to see about involuntary taxes hitting your wallet.
Click to expand...

And I earn every dollar I make, as do many people in the private sector, only difference is if people don't like what we are doing they don't give us their business and we just disappear from the market.

Do we need a millitary, yeah, do we need this overgrown monster, nope.


Question, do really think it's the soldier that wins the war??
It's not,
Cold War was a perfect example, it's the economy and how much money the country has, and that is all on the private sector.

I also don't think the founding fathers would be too cool with what our millitary has become.

Again, things like the GI bill were part of the deal when he signed up, it's his money, no question, I'm simply stating that he also shouldn't forget the sacrifices the people at home made to feed the industrial millitary complex, many people are living much worse because of the money taken from them to feed the beast, lots of folks can't retire, will never have the "American Dream" due to excessive taxes and inflation with the fed, and what's the Feds main reason for consumption, millitary, between normal military spending and vet benifits, that's 60% of the money the fed takes, about $670,000,000,000 per year.

image.jpg


So no, I don't think it's out of line to thank the private sector.
 
James331 said:
So no, I don't think it's out of line to thank the private sector.
Click to expand...

Well that's' your opinion. Don't hold your breath waiting for it. You do this every few months and get the same response from veterans. Guess it's something you feel you need to do. Whatever, carry on.

 
mscard88 said:
Well that's' your opinion. Don't hold your breath waiting for it. You do this every few months and get the same response from veterans. Guess it's something you feel you need to do. Whatever, carry on.

Click to expand...

And some veterans feel they are above even thanking the private sector for THEIR service, any country with money can make a huge military, it's the economy to pay for all those toys and care and feeding which is the tricky part.
 
James331 said:
And I earn every dollar I make, as do many people in the private sector, only difference is if people don't like what we are doing they don't give us their business and we just disappear from the market.

Do we need a millitary, yeah, do we need this overgrown monster, nope.


Question, do really think it's the soldier that wins the war??
It's not,
Cold War was a perfect example, it's the economy and how much money the country has, and that is all on the private sector.

I also don't think the founding fathers would be too cool with what our millitary has become.

Again, things like the GI bill were part of the deal when he signed up, it's his money, no question, I'm simply stating that he also shouldn't forget the sacrifices the people at home made to feed the industrial millitary complex, many people are living much worse because of the money taken from them to feed the beast, lots of folks can't retire, will never have the "American Dream" due to excessive taxes and inflation with the fed, and what's the Feds main reason for consumption, millitary, between normal military spending and vet benifits, that's 60% of the money the fed takes, about $670,000,000,000 per year.

image.jpg


So no, I don't think it's out of line to thank the private sector.
Click to expand...

So by your logic, regardless of the GI Bill. You're basically suggesting that a veteran should thank you for their choice to serve the United States?

That you would appreciate it if instead of humbling yourself to thank someone who gave up his / her life of a much more lenient "Constitution" for the "UCMJ" to put their lives, and choices at a far more scrutinized risk, that they would walk up to you and host marches in the streets of LA proclaiming how blessed is the non-serving taxpayer?

That a veteran should not be praised, but should be held in contempt as someone "stealing" from the American Citizen?

That the every day lives of the American No-serving Citizen and quality of life would be far greater if there were no veterans to defend the freedoms, values, jobs, education system, right to free speech?

That a veteran should be treated no differently than the guy illegal immigrant snorting coke on the street, or the investor on Wall Street and given no special consideration or treatment once they leave the military despite the fact that he / she gave up / put their lives and families on hold, the opportunities they may have had outside of the military, their education to a large extent?

That a veteran should perhaps pay MORE than their earned income / taxes of which they pay the same as any other American Citizen, in addition to putting "only" their lives on the line with the greater risk of casualty for either themselves or an attempt to save someone as... Yourself.... The average American citizen?

Forgetting that a solider is not only "a solider" but is also still a "tax paying citizen of the private sector...." Who has to still file taxes, pay taxes, fund the same wars, political endeavors, automobile advertisements, activist movements, jails, and that hooker on the street getting free Obama care....

It must be your birthday because YOU SIR.... Deserve a f***ing cake!

Perhaps you have regrets for never being a card carrying member of the DoD, or couldn't pass the weight / fitness requirements? Didn't pass the AFOQT / ASVAB? Got a discharge / Article 15?

I hear there's good anger management classes now, perhaps you should check into one. Otherwise, you're welcome to move to Canada.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
USAF-LT-G said:
So by your logic, regardless of the GI Bill. You're basically suggesting that a veteran should thank you for their choice to serve the United States?
Click to expand...

Difficult to fathom isn't it? He does this every few months. I think he enjoy getting people riled up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top