Can I bring company pilot along on reimbursed flight?

Sam D

Sam D

Pattern Altitude
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
1,538
Location
Petaluma, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Sam D
This is a twist on the "can I bring passengers on a flight that my employer reimburses me for?" and the related Mangliame opinion:

Let's say I periodically fly myself solo for business and get reimbursed for the flights. Suppose that our company employs a couple of pilots to fly our company's "real" :D plane.

Could I bring one of those pilots with me if their ONLY role is to assist with my flying and still get reimbursed for the flight? That is, they have no other reason to be on the trip.

Would it matter who was PIC or that the other pilots were CFI's?
 
Sam D said:
This is a twist on the "can I bring passengers on a flight that my employer reimburses me for?" and the related Mangliame opinion:

Let's say I periodically fly myself solo for business and get reimbursed for the flights. Suppose that our company employs a couple of pilots to fly our company's "real" :D plane.

Could I bring one of those pilots with me if their ONLY role is to assist with my flying and still get reimbursed for the flight? That is, they have no other reason to be on the trip.

Would it matter who was PIC or that the other pilots were CFI's?
Click to expand...

As long as they hold a commercial rating, not a problem, PIC would be irrelevant.
 
Henning said:
As long as they hold a commercial rating, not a problem, PIC would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Actually, under Mangimele PIC would be relevant if the OP is a private pilot.

Let the other guy act as PIC, you fly the plane, all good.
 
I'd think it would be worth something to have such a guy come along to teach you about crew-related flying vs single-pilot ops. I'd think you might even be willing to pay a reasonable amount for such training.
 
Sam D said:
Could I bring one of those pilots with me if their ONLY role is to assist with my flying and still get reimbursed for the flight?
Click to expand...
Per Mangiamele, no, because they are not required crew.

Would it matter who was PIC or that the other pilots were CFI's?
Click to expand...
Yes. The company could rent the plane from you for the day, and have their company pilot act as PIC to transport you, the passenger. Whether that would be acceptable to your insurer or not is something you'd have to investigate. What you cannot do is be the PIC in this situation, or be reimbursed for your expenses for flying.

The key would be having the company rent the plane from you and provide their own pilot to transport you rather than having you fly and be reimbursed. It may not seem much different, but the paperwork would be critical to staying legal. As for whose hands are on the controls, this isn't a 135 operation, so what happens in the cockpit stays in the cockpit.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
As long as they hold a commercial rating, not a problem, PIC would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Not so. The issue is acting as PIC for compensation/hire, or transporting passengers for compensation/hire. The fact that your passenger has a commercial certificate (not "rating") doesn't change what you are doing as PIC.
 
wabower said:
I'd think it would be worth something to have such a guy come along to teach you about crew-related flying vs single-pilot ops. I'd think you might even be willing to pay a reasonable amount for such training.
Click to expand...

Honestly, yes it would. Our current plane doesn't have a jump seat (somehow the FAA signs them off from the luxury of the cabin!) but our next one might. I'm looking forward to seeing things in action.
 
Serious answer...just do it...no one cares or will bust your azz for it.

It's kinda like running 8 mph over the speed limit on the interstate. The state rods will just look at you and shrug because they have bigger fish to fry.
 
timwinters said:
Serious answer...just do it...no one cares or will bust your azz for it.

It's kinda like running 8 mph over the speed limit on the interstate. The state rods will just look at you and shrug because they have bigger fish to fry.
Click to expand...
He asked if it was legal. Are you disagreeing on the legality? Or just saying it's OK to break the rules as long as you don't get caught?

BTW, several years ago, the FAA revoked the licenses of two pilots who got caught illegally double-logging PIC time exactly as you suggest the person asking about it might do without getting caught.
 
Ron Levy said:
...
BTW, several years ago, the FAA revoked the licenses of two pilots who got caught illegally double-logging PIC time exactly as you suggest the person asking about it might do without getting caught.
Click to expand...

Ron, I understand that you are a believer in complicance with the most extreme interpretation of these 'letters' possible. There's nothing wrong with that, it's an entirely reasonable approach to your flying.

I do think that you are sometimes are hard pressed to find real world examples where the FAA really knew or cared about operations that might, just might, have barely touched the penumbra of a Chief Counsel letter. So you cite these enforcement actions that are entirely unrelated to the question at hand.

In the above cited case two pilots were both logging identical PIC all the time either one of them flew in their shared airplanes because they were trying to build time. The tach times didn't support the hours at all, and there's not really a legal way to to double log PIC for 100% of a flight.

[Rant against the stupidly of the part 61 logging rules suppressed.]


My point is that your cited case has nothing to due with the OP's original question. Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting double logging of anything.

Certainly the suggested situation doesn't rise to the level of a seven month long coordinated attempt to massively pad a logbook.

On a related note, I was glad to see that just week the NTSB had changed their rules to bring enforcement actions in line with the Pilot's Bill of Rights. This will let pilots get to Federal Court quickly, where the pilot's lawyer letter has equal weight with the government's lawyer letter. In Federal Court a real judge can determine who is right based on actual laws, not just CYA lawyer letters.
 
JimNtexas said:
So you cite these enforcement actions that are entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
Click to expand...
You noticed that too, eh. That seems to be the case as often as not. I guess he thinks no one will actually read them.
 
Sometimes I e-mail my lawyer looking for an answer to a question. Other times I call him on the phone.
 
JimNtexas said:
My point is that your cited case has nothing to due with the OP's original question. Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting double logging of anything.
Click to expand...
The issue raised partly through the thread was trying to log it as though the second pilot was required for the whole flight because you flew under the hood. The FAA clearly says this isn't kosher.
 
JimNtexas said:
On a related note, I was glad to see that just week the NTSB had changed their rules to bring enforcement actions in line with the Pilot's Bill of Rights. This will let pilots get to Federal Court quickly, where the pilot's lawyer letter has equal weight with the government's lawyer letter. In Federal Court a real judge can determine who is right based on actual laws, not just CYA lawyer letters.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that is true? There is a whole history of case law which shows that the Federal courts strongly favor the interpretations by Federal agencies of their own regulations over those proposed by others. See Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 147, 150-57 (1991) (holding that courts must defer to interpretations of Secretary of Labor rather than to those of OSHRC in split-enforcement regime under Occupational Safety & Health Act, as well as Hinson, 57 F.3d at 1149-50, and Public Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 196-97 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The PBOR only eliminated the requirement that the NTSB defer to FAA interpretations; it did not change anything else in that regard.
 
Ron Levy said:
What makes you think that is true? There is a whole history of case law which shows that the Federal courts strongly favor the interpretations by Federal agencies of their own regulations over those proposed by others. See Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 147, 150-57 (1991) (holding that courts must defer to interpretations of Secretary of Labor rather than to those of OSHRC in split-enforcement regime under Occupational Safety & Health Act, as well as Hinson, 57 F.3d at 1149-50, and Public Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 196-97 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The PBOR only eliminated the requirement that the NTSB defer to FAA interpretations; it did not change anything else in that regard.
Click to expand...

It did Ron. It actually says:

(e) Standard of Review-
  • (1) IN GENERAL- In an appeal filed under subsection (d) in a United States district court, the district court shall give full independent review of a denial, suspension, or revocation ordered by the Administrator, including substantive independent and expedited review of any decision by the Administrator to make such order effective immediately. [emphasis mine]

    ​
 
jbarrass said:
It did Ron. It actually says:



(e) Standard of Review-
  • (1) IN GENERAL- In an appeal filed under subsection (d) in a United States district court, the district court shall give full independent review of a denial, suspension, or revocation ordered by the Administrator, including substantive independent and expedited review of any decision by the Administrator to make such order effective immediately. [emphasis mine]

Click to expand...
And where in that portion you quote (or any other portion of that bill) does it say to ignore the precedents I cited and give "equal weight" (to use Jim's term) to the interpretation of an FAA regulation by the other party?
 
JimNtexas said:
So you cite these enforcement actions that are entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
Click to expand...


timwinters said:
You noticed that too, eh. That seems to be the case as often as not. I guess he thinks no one will actually read them.
Click to expand...

Old Geek said:
Ron continually offers very narrow interpretations of the rules and then justifies them with legal case law that is only vaguely related to the original issues. Why?
Click to expand...


You guys do know you're dealing with someone who has little, if no legal training, correct? This is all a layman's understanding, nothing else. Take it for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
Ron, I understand that you are a believer in complicance with the most extreme interpretation of these 'letters' possible. There's nothing wrong with that, it's an entirely reasonable approach to your flying.

I do think that you are sometimes are hard pressed to find real world examples where the FAA really knew or cared about operations that might, just might, have barely touched the penumbra of a Chief Counsel letter. So you cite these enforcement actions that are entirely unrelated to the question at hand.

In the above cited case two pilots were both logging identical PIC all the time either one of them flew in their shared airplanes because they were trying to build time. The tach times didn't support the hours at all, and there's not really a legal way to to double log PIC for 100% of a flight.

[Rant against the stupidly of the part 61 logging rules suppressed.]


My point is that your cited case has nothing to due with the OP's original question. Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting double logging of anything.

Certainly the suggested situation doesn't rise to the level of a seven month long coordinated attempt to massively pad a logbook.

On a related note, I was glad to see that just week the NTSB had changed their rules to bring enforcement actions in line with the Pilot's Bill of Rights. This will let pilots get to Federal Court quickly, where the pilot's lawyer letter has equal weight with the government's lawyer letter. In Federal Court a real judge can determine who is right based on actual laws, not just CYA lawyer letters.
Click to expand...

This.

Ron continually offers very narrow interpretations of the rules and then justifies them with legal case law that is only vaguely related to the original issues. Why?
 
Sam D said:
This is a twist on the "can I bring passengers on a flight that my employer reimburses me for?" and the related Mangliame opinion:

Let's say I periodically fly myself solo for business and get reimbursed for the flights. Suppose that our company employs a couple of pilots to fly our company's "real" :D plane.

Could I bring one of those pilots with me if their ONLY role is to assist with my flying and still get reimbursed for the flight? That is, they have no other reason to be on the trip.

Would it matter who was PIC or that the other pilots were CFI's?
Click to expand...

I would think that If the other pilot was a CFI, (and probably is) And you are both employed by the same company (which you are) then you can consider it a "Training flight" for logbook purposes.
And the fact that the training flight also happens to coincide with a business trip which the company usually re-imburses you for, then there should be no worries.
Company pilot/CFI flying with you on a training flight, while you are enroute to a company meeting for the company. would seem to me to be a common purpose, for the flight, just not the destination. Yet while you both are "on company time" so to speak, I would think there would be no worries. and also be good for the company from a safety standpoint. (recurrent training and all that)
 
Ron Levy said:
And where in that portion you quote (or any other portion of that bill) does it say to ignore the precedents I cited and give "equal weight" (to use Jim's term) to the interpretation of an FAA regulation by the other party?
Click to expand...

A full independent review is a review de novo. This is contrasted by a deferential review.
 
Ron Levy said:
And where in that portion you quote (or any other portion of that bill) does it say to ignore the precedents I cited and give "equal weight" (to use Jim's term) to the interpretation of an FAA regulation by the other party?
Click to expand...

I read "full independent" and "substantive independent" as quite different than deferential. You may interpret the terms the same I suppose.

Isn't the point of the new law to level the field some?

Your precedents were all based on the old law aren't they now.....
 
bluerooster said:
I would think that If the other pilot was a CFI, (and probably is) And you are both employed by the same company (which you are) then you can consider it a "Training flight" for logbook purposes.
And the fact that the training flight also happens to coincide with a business trip which the company usually re-imburses you for, then there should be no worries.
Click to expand...
The Chief Counsel has never covered this specifically, but it appears to me that since you are transporting another company employee on company business, reimbursement of your share of the flight would still be prohibited by the Mangiamele interpretation. However, since you have common purpose for the flight, you could accept your passenger's share of the direct expenses.
 
jbarrass said:
I read "full independent" and "substantive independent" as quite different than deferential. You may interpret the terms the same I suppose.

Isn't the point of the new law to level the field some?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, and it does, by eliminating the required deference.

Your precedents were all based on the old law aren't they now.....
Click to expand...
No. I specifically omitted Merrell and its basis in 49 USC 44709(d)(3). The cases I cited deal with agencies other than the FAA, which was the only agency which had the legislative requirement for deference.
 
Yeah, CapnRon is an anal nerd.
And I appreciate his perspective because the few times I have been called on the carpet by a government auditor or inspector, they were all anal nerds. And it helps to understand where they are coming from, or at least to be ready for them.

Ron, I appreciate your input. And I use it for my own decision making. I would rather err on the part of compliance than be caught otherwise.

JimNtexas said:
Ron, I understand that you are a believer in complicance with the most extreme interpretation of these 'letters' possible. There's nothing wrong with that, it's an entirely reasonable approach to your flying.

I do think that you are sometimes are hard pressed to find real world examples where the FAA really knew or cared about operations that might, just might, have barely touched the penumbra of a Chief Counsel letter. So you cite these enforcement actions that are entirely unrelated to the question at hand.

In the above cited case two pilots were both logging identical PIC all the time either one of them flew in their shared airplanes because they were trying to build time. The tach times didn't support the hours at all, and there's not really a legal way to to double log PIC for 100% of a flight.

[Rant against the stupidly of the part 61 logging rules suppressed.]


My point is that your cited case has nothing to due with the OP's original question. Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting double logging of anything.

Certainly the suggested situation doesn't rise to the level of a seven month long coordinated attempt to massively pad a logbook.

On a related note, I was glad to see that just week the NTSB had changed their rules to bring enforcement actions in line with the Pilot's Bill of Rights. This will let pilots get to Federal Court quickly, where the pilot's lawyer letter has equal weight with the government's lawyer letter. In Federal Court a real judge can determine who is right based on actual laws, not just CYA lawyer letters.
Click to expand...
 
JOhnH said:
Yeah, CapnRon is an anal nerd.
And I appreciate his perspective because the few times I have been called on the carpet by a government auditor or inspector, they were all anal nerds. And it helps to understand where they are coming from, or at least to be ready for them.

Ron, I appreciate your input. And I use it for my own decision making. I would rather err on the part of compliance than be caught otherwise.
Click to expand...
You're very welcome. As I've said before, I try to make sure my advice guarantees the FAA can't bust you if you follow it. I'll let others take the "You can do this and get away with it" route.
 
Ron Levy said:
Per Mangiamele, no, because they are not required crew.
Click to expand...
Bring your foggles, have the other pilot act as safety pilot and you capture and track a VOR for two minutes under the hood. The safety pilot is a "required crew member" when you practice IFR procedures while wearing a view limiting device. A required crew member is not a passenger so no violation of 61.113(b) occurs if you are reimbursed for the flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
The Chief Counsel has never covered this specifically, but it appears to me that since you are transporting another company employee on company business, reimbursement of your share of the flight would still be prohibited by the Mangiamele interpretation. However, since you have common purpose for the flight, you could accept your passenger's share of the direct expenses.
Click to expand...

Would not the CFI on a training flight be a "required" crew member?

I see that DrMack beat me to it. :D
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You're very welcome. As I've said before, I try to make sure my advice guarantees the FAA can't bust you if you follow it. I'll let others take the "You can do this and get away with it" route.
Click to expand...

That's why I said your advice is sensible for your own flying.

It's just that you hurt your own case when you throw out examples of enforcement that have nothing to do with the question at hand.
 
DrMack said:
Bring your foggles, have the other pilot act as safety pilot and you capture and track a VOR for two minutes under the hood. The safety pilot is a "required crew member" when you practice IFR procedures while wearing a view limiting device. A required crew member is not a passenger so no violation of 61.113(b) occurs if you are reimbursed for the flight.
Click to expand...
Not so, and answered by the Chief Counsel in several interpretations. Until the hood comes on, and as soon as the hood comes off, the safety pilot is only a passenger, not a required pilot crewmember.
 
bluerooster said:
Would not the CFI on a training flight be a "required" crew member?
Click to expand...
Not unless you're in a 2-pilots required airplane, or a second pilot is otherwise required by the rules under which you are operating. In a typical 1-pilot-required light plane, only one of you is a required pilot crewmember. There is an exception to the passenger-carrying rules of 61.57 when a CFI is giving training to a pilot with nobody else aboard, but that interpretation strictly limits that to the landing currency rules of 61.57, and so would not cover 61.113 issues.
 
Hey Sam, have you thought about talking to the financial wizard at the company? I've heard he's an extremely sharp guy, knows a lot about aviation and is one of the real movers and shakers in Petaluma.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not so, and answered by the Chief Counsel in several interpretations. Until the hood comes on, and as soon as the hood comes off, the safety pilot is only a passenger, not a required pilot crewmember.
Click to expand...

Perfect illustration of why 61.113(b) and the GC's Byzantine interpretations are so utterly dysfunctional.
 
Henning said:
And why no FSDO inspector would touch it with a 10' pole.
Click to expand...

Inspectors don't sit around reading interpretations and getting into prolonged discussions of how they apply to the 14 CFR's, that's left up to the regional lawyers to decide.

And an Inspector has better things to do with his time than chasing minutia, especially on something that would be next to impossible to do an enforcement on.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Inspectors don't sit around reading interpretations and getting into prolonged discussions of how they apply to the 14 CFR's, that's left up to the regional lawyers to decide.

And an Inspector has better things to do with his time than chasing minutia, especially on something that would be next to impossible to do an enforcement on.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this isn't a 134.5 deal.
 
wabower said:
Hey Sam, have you thought about talking to the financial wizard at the company? I've heard he's an extremely sharp guy, knows a lot about aviation and is one of the real movers and shakers in Petaluma.
Click to expand...

You must be referring to the chickens! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top