Aircraft recommendation for 200-300 nm business trips with easy access for dogs

[OkieFlyer]

With the need to haul a pretty good load, easy access for hug dogs, multiple trips per week, regular IMC, and updated avionics, here's the right plane for the job.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-337/1977-CESSNA-337/1358172.htm


If you're set on a single, my vote would be for Cherokee Six or Lance.

 

[Henning]

With the need to haul a pretty good load, easy access for hug dogs, multiple trips per week, regular IMC, and updated avionics, here's the right plane for the job.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/CESSNA-337/1977-CESSNA-337/1358172.htm


If you're set on a single, my vote would be for Cherokee Six or Lance.

A pressurized plane with no de-ice for a 200-300nm mission?

 

[ronnieh]

I just read the Mangiamele letter. The real interesting question it raises is the treatment of flights to our other business location when my wife is a passenger. Unless there is an exception for family members in the regulation cited in the Mangiamele letter, it looks like our business would not be allowed to pay for expenses related to the flight. Of course, I know absolutely nothing about the applicable regs, so there may be something else out there that would be controlling.

As noted this could be a problem. Many disagree with this interpretation. I can understand their feelings. There is however, at least some justification. The FAA's position has ALWAYS been that private pilots will not be allowed to be compensated in any way for flying. Over the years there has been a couple of carve outs. One of which is allowing a private pilot to be compensated in certain business situations as long as no cargo or passengers are on board. The FAA'a reasoning, justified or not, is they will not allow passengers to be exposed to a relatively dangerous activity, which is private pilots in small aircraft, while the pilot is being compensated. Their position is if the public is being exposed while the pilot is being compensated a higher standard is required of the pilot.
As I stated above all of these problems disappear if you simply get a commercial. You are looking at a high performance complex airplane anyway, just go ahead and do the commercial. You could probably use the time to get more comfortable in the plane considering your low time. Your insurance rates might even be favorably altered. This way the plane, owned by the corporation, would be operated by the corporate pilot (you) and as long as you did not "hold out" that is, charge others for use of the plane you would be golden. The commercial is extremely easy. The medical is the same except it is required every year. Problem solved. Maybe you won't be shopping for a boat after all.

 

[ronnieh]

A pressurized plane with no de-ice for a 200-300nm mission?

You think?? A lot of strange ideas huh, Henning?

 

[weilke]

The FAA's position has ALWAYS been that private pilots will not be allowed to be compensated in any way for flying.
Over the years there has been a couple of carve outs. One of which is allowing a private pilot to be compensated in certain business situations as long as no cargo or passengers are on board.

That is not what the regulation says. It says that you ARE allowed to receive compensation as long as you are not carrying people or property for compensation. Transporting your employees or your own merchandise is specifically allowed as long as the transportation is not the core business of your company.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. (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.

They really had to twist themselves into a logic pretzel to come up with the Mangiamele interpretation.

But yes, if he flies on business, he should get the commercial and a second class medical.

 

[ronnieh]

Weilke, that is exactly what I said. I specifically noted the carve outs. If he is in any way reimbursed or compensated in any way even one penny, no passengers or cargo unless he is a commercial pilot. The OP clearly intends to be compensated by the company that will own the plane (OP's company) How could I have made that any clearer?
In his exact situation where the OP is the company I am simply not 100% sure what the reg would be. The commercial ticket moots the point was all I said.
This horse has been beaten so badly on POA the OP can just look up previous threads and decide for himself.

 

[OkieFlyer]

A pressurized plane with no de-ice for a 200-300nm mission?

Yeah, that's my bad. I didn't realize that was a pressurized model. I meant to pick out a non-pressurized one. My train of thought was that he might be better off with a twin for his mission, but as a new pilot, thought the centerline thrust would be quite a bit safer for him to get into quickly. Plus, Skymasters are just awesome.

 

[weilke]

Weilke, that is exactly what I said. I specifically noted the carve outs. If he is in any way reimbursed or compensated in any way even one penny, no passengers or cargo unless he is a commercial pilot.

Actually, the reg says 'The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire'. The preceding paragraph (b) specifcally states that the pilot is allowed to receive compensation, so it is clear that the compensation in sentence (2) refers to the 'passengers or property' that are not to be transported for compensation.
--> you can't take a subcontractor along and he pays a share of the fuel
--> you can't carry consignment merchandise from one store to the other and charge the owner a fee

In his exact situation where the OP is the company I am simply not 100% sure what the reg would be.

Me neither, and I said so much. Mangiamele dealt with a employee seeking reimbursement from a employer, whether it applies to a company owner flying his companies aircraft has to my knowledge not been litigated.
One of these days, the FAA will step on the wrong guy with deep pockets who won't get intimidated by them and goes to district court instead of the NTSB for appeal.

 

[Henning]

You think?? A lot of strange ideas huh, Henning?

If he really had an all weather 200-300nm, multiple times a week, gotta go mission, the minimum plane required, unless he lives in the southwest, is FIKI Seneca II or better. That's a significant step up in cost from a 177RG which could make it 70% of the time except in the southwest, there it'll do it 95% of the time.

If you need to make an IFR schedule in any part of the country that sees icing, the minimum plane available is the Seneca II. Any of the K-Ice singles are significantly more expensive, and only the SR-22 would I want. I can't afford one of those, but I can afford a Seneca II.

 

[ronnieh]

Actually, the reg says 'The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire'. The preceding paragraph (b) specifcally states that the pilot is allowed to receive compensation, so it is clear that the compensation in sentence (2) refers to the 'passengers or property' that are not to be transported for compensation.
--> you can't take a subcontractor along and he pays a share of the fuel
--> you can't carry consignment merchandise from one store to the other and charge the owner a fee

And you can not have a passenger or cargo in the plane if the pilot is a PP and is receiving ANY compensation including ANY reimbursement from a third party. The Mangiamele opinion specifically addresses this. This is a carve out where a PP can receive compensation but, again no passengers or cargo. (There is a couple more carve outs that are of no relevance to this discussion).

I can't figure out if you are agreeing with what I said or disagreeing. The whole point of this twist in the OP's thread was that he is planning on taking his wife and cargo and the company will reimburse him for the use of the plane. I think he will be in violation of this opinion. The fact that he owns (or is) the company will most likely not relieve him of this problem. However, my gut feeling is that in this PARTICULAR case nobody will give a rat's azz.



Me neither, and I said so much. Mangiamele dealt with a employee seeking reimbursement from a employer, whether it applies to a company owner flying his companies aircraft has to my knowledge not been litigated.

I agree but as it stands now (JMO) he would be in violation.

One of these days, the FAA will step on the wrong guy with deep pockets who won't get intimidated by them and goes to district court instead of the NTSB for appeal.

My particular opinion is that I think you are wrong in this prediction. If they were to get too much push back (not likely) they will simply remove the carve out and go back to the pilot can not be reimbursed or compensated, period. Again JMO. It is an academic discussion since a simple commercial will solve the problem for the OP, which we both seem to agree on.