Company GA Policy

I'll have to agree to disagree. There is nothing about having an IR that fixes an unsafe attitude about "gettheritis" or "pushing the limits". If a pilot has an IR, they may have a greater skill set, but the threat of pushing into conditions they shouldn't is still the same as if the pilot were VFR-only. Your mindset is akin to making flying for business purposes an exclusive process that only those of the IFR-club can partake.

If it was your own proprietorship, I'd say do as you see fit. If you were HR/legal in a corporation trying to establish rules for employees, I'd be fighting you tooth-and-nail to keep you from restricting my freedom to fly myself because of some personal notion that I might be tempted to travel in conditions outside my skill level or rating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I worked for a major company for 20 years (before retiring from them last June). Their policy on GA was quite simple. If the tail number wasn't listed in their insurance coverage, forget it. And the tail numbers just happened to be the aircraft in the company shuttle fleet. Piloting light aircraft on company business was not allowed. I had a conversation with our risk management person and pointed out that the 172 I typically fly weighs less than my Jeep and lands slower than I drive down I-5. Less energy, less damage to anyone if it hits something. Her comeback, which was hard to argue with, was a simple question - "Which one would make the 6 o'clock news?"

Now, I did know some folks who flew anyway, but as long as they didn't get caught...

Now that I own my own company, I make the rules. And I don't have a problem with GA if it makes sense. And while I have an instrument rating, I wouldn't require it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'll have to agree to disagree. There is nothing about having an IR that fixes an unsafe attitude about "gettheritis" or "pushing the limits". If a pilot has an IR, they may have a greater skill set, but the threat of pushing into conditions they shouldn't is still the same as if the pilot were VFR-only. Your mindset is akin to making flying for business purposes an exclusive process that only those of the IFR-club can partake.

If it was your own proprietorship, I'd say do as you see fit. If you were HR/legal in a corporation trying to establish rules for employees, I'd be fighting you tooth-and-nail to keep you from restricting my freedom to fly myself because of some personal notion that I might be tempted to travel in conditions outside my skill level or rating.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, there are unfortunately very few companies in the US (and probably even fewer elsewhere) that allow their employee-pilots to fly on company business.
To make the case for one of the very few that still do, you need to not only be as safe as possible, but to present a convincing "due diligence" picture of safety. This means that you need to show that your attitude is as professional as possible, and you won't get in trouble when encountering unexpected clouds on a business flight.
You may huff and puff and "fight tooth and nail", but I am afraid you'd be tilting at windmills, as most companies wouldn't even start a conversation with you on this topic, let alone reduce their perceived safety margins.
 
I'd be willing to put more money on the opinion that very few companies have any policy about it at all unless you are talking about larger corporations. It's not until you have a pilot bring it up in conversation that it becomes prohibited/permitted. There are tons of smaller businesses who probably don't have any policy about it one way or the other. The subject of this thread was more along the lines of someone creating or modifying a travel policy. In that instance, I believe if you decided to prohibit VFR pilots from making flights on company business solely because you think IR-rated pilots will be less likely to make poor go/no go decisions it would be based on false assumptions and limited data to support it.
 
My intention for using IR pilots as a requirement was two-fold. One, insurance looks at IR pilots more favorably and two, the additional training requirements and financial commitment that a person has made to get it should show thier professionalism.

On another note, I had a reason to fly on my own time and I was going to be in the area of one of our offices that needed to bring something back to the home office. I offered since I would be there anyway and my manager told me I couldn't because there could be liability to the company because I it could be viewed as flying for the company. I offered to sign a liability waiver and they were going to think about it.

So they had to have two employees drive a combined total of 8 hours to get this done when my trip alone would have been 2.5.

I'm still waiting to hear back from the corporate insurance company on what the corporate insurance quote would be. I'm not hopeful.

If it doesn't come back, I'm seriously considering changing careers to one that I know supports GA, as they are one of our clients.
 
This. This is exactly what I'm shopping for in my next career


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jheyen said:
My intention for using IR pilots as a requirement was two-fold. One, insurance looks at IR pilots more favorably and two, the additional training requirements and financial commitment that a person has made to get it should show thier professionalism.
Click to expand...

I think you're making a false assumption on what's likely to drive "professionalism" but there's no doubting that insurance companies look more favorably on IR candidates. Plenty of guys fly VFR-only and you wouldn't know they weren't IR unless you asked due to their flying being at such a precise level.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I think you're making a false assumption on what's likely to drive "professionalism" but there's no doubting that insurance companies look more favorably on IR candidates. Plenty of guys fly VFR-only and you wouldn't know they weren't IR unless you asked due to their flying being at such a precise level.
Click to expand...

When the weather becomes marginal, as it often does in many parts of the country, and you are flying on business (or have otherwise a good reason to be somewhere at a specific time), having the ability to get there without scud running or otherwise eroding your safety margin is a crucial part of being a "professional" pilot. I can't imagine a serious large employer who wouldn't insist that its business flying employees be IFR rated (assuming they are allowed to fly at all).
BTW, I put "professional" in quotes to indicate that professionalism is an attitude, not necessarily
a uniform or job description.
 
RotorDude said:
When the weather becomes marginal, as it often does in many parts of the country, and you are flying on business (or have otherwise a good reason to be somewhere at a specific time), having the ability to get there without scud running or otherwise eroding your safety margin is a crucial part of being a "professional" pilot. I can't imagine a serious large employer who wouldn't insist that its business flying employees be IFR rated (assuming they are allowed to fly at all).
BTW, I put "professional" in quotes to indicate that professionalism is an attitude, not necessarily
a uniform or job description.
Click to expand...

Here's where I can agree, but offer an easy solution: drive. If you allow VFR-guys to fly on company business and conditions won't warrant the flight while remaining in their comfort zone/legal minimums, they can always scrub the flight and just drive like they normally would have. However, by restricting anyone from traveling via personal aircraft on a CAVU day just because you're worried that they won't be "professional" enough when conditions are worse is just ridiculous. Let all pilots fly for business purposes if they so desire, and let them drive when the flight doesn't look like a good option.
 
There's also the fact that forecasts are not 100% reliable, so a trip that starts out looking like it's going to be in VFR conditions may turn into IFR conditions, or marginal, before it's time to come home.
 
The real blame is the "we have to be able to sue somebody" lawyers. Get rid of them, and GA wouldn't be an issue.
 
EdFred said:
The real blame is the "we have to be able to sue somebody" lawyers. Get rid of them, and GA wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It doesn't help that when someone seeks to use GA themselves, people start looking at what other companies have instituted without really evaluating the "why". Just because you "don't know of any company" that allows non-IR (or non-comm'l, or non-ATP) pilots to fly themselves isn't much of a reason for incorporating that rule into your own business's travel policies. There's really very little reason to restrict people with rules until it becomes an issue.
 
It would be nice if someone like AOPA or NBAA would come out with a nice white sheet about personal GA business travel and the true safety statistics. Hell, some enterprising organization could sell a liability rider against that kind of travel to both the company and the pilot.

Judging by the financial despair AOPA makes us believe they're in with their constant fundraising, my guess is that EAA will come along at some point and help us out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Palmpilot said:
There's also the fact that forecasts are not 100% reliable, so a trip that starts out looking like it's going to be in VFR conditions may turn into IFR conditions, or marginal, before it's time to come home.
Click to expand...

This doesn't change because someone has their IR though. An ifr pilot flying through an unforecast thunderstorm in a piston single comes to mind.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
And they ARE out there. I'm know of two for sure in industries that I can work in.
Click to expand...

I'm unfortunately well compensated but burned out in my current position.... But once some of the debt's paid down I'm going to focus on getting my aircraft brokerage off the ground and go get a less stressful/demanding day job. N

Maybe I'll just go get my IR/MEL/CPL and go fly right seat on CJ's for $20/hr.

Without a degree I know my options are limited, but something in the realm of GA manufacturing/accessories/equipment would be right up my alley.

In the meantime, I'll keep making PVC pipe so y'all can keep enjoying those carrots and lettuce year round!

PS... I assume you'd upgrade to at least a TB-10? I think any company would squawk at the time it would take you to get there in a 9.

(I kid...you know how much I like my 9 too!)

The sad thing is....My boss, who used to be an a&p for RayJay, actually supports me flying--even though he won't step foot in a GA plane again.
 
It all depends on which project I get put on. The GSA reimbursement rate is based on straight line statute mile. It doesn't matter how long it takes. If we go with driving equivalent pay (map it like I drove a car and pay at that rate) it is the same deal. Anything within a couple hundred nm would be fine in the Tampico. If I end up running Tennessee to Houston then I see a Trinidad, Comanche, or 310 in my future.
 
There's only ONE obvious choice out of those three...it's 5' wide inside.

Are you a government employee?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm fortunate that I can fly for work but that's because the company is relatively closely held and ownership knows me well. I'm pretty sure if we were to formalize a policy, it would exclude flying GA.
 
EdFred said:
The real blame is the "we have to be able to sue somebody" lawyers. Get rid of them, and GA wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...
Hard to blame them when the court system so consistently rewards that behavior. I blame the judges that let it happen time and again, and then complain that their case load is too large.:confused:o_O
 
PPC1052 said:
Hard to blame them when the court system so consistently rewards that behavior. I blame the judges that let it happen time and again, and then complain that their case load is too large.:confused:o_O
Click to expand...

Aren't most/all judges lawyers? ;)
 
Tampico Trauma said:
It would be nice if someone like AOPA or NBAA would come out with a nice white sheet about personal GA business travel and the true safety statistics. Hell, some enterprising organization could sell a liability rider against that kind of travel to both the company and the pilot.

Judging by the financial despair AOPA makes us believe they're in with their constant fundraising, my guess is that EAA will come along at some point and help us out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is the last thing you want. If people making the decisions were aware of the real statistics you can bet the answer would be no.
 
RotorDude said:
First, I wouldn't require a CPL, only encourage it. I would require IR, however.
My reasons are based on my own perspective, having flown in both modes on business, over decades.
I consider myself a very conscientious and rule-abiding pilot, yet I can tell you that on almost every business flight as VFR-only, I was strongly tempted to push the limits. I didn't, then got my IR, and realized that the IFR ticket is more than just the ability to fly in poor weather, it is more of an attitude. You may still be a private pilot on paper, but by flying IFR (even in good weather) you force yourself into a professional regimen. Everything you do, before and during the flight, is a lot more structured and regimented. Assuming you are a conscientious pilot to start with, flying IFR channels you into the mindset of a pro, and your operation becomes more like an airline.
Yes, you may buy the farm both as VFR and IFR, but as IFR rated, proficient and current, you are more likely to get there and back in one piece, IMO.
The very fact that you went into the trouble to get the rating and maintain it, clearly demonstrates an attitude. And it is that attitude that I'd be looking for in an employee flying on business.
Click to expand...
 
Yet, when one reads the FAA nightmares, many of the accident reports are due to weather and many involve pilots with IFR ratings though often times with few hours . Get there itis has a lot to do with it. Then sometimes the pilot doesn't have enough fuel to get to an alternate, or does not have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top