Dr. Mack's proposed law.

[ronnieh]

In my last post I was going to ask the question on who would benefit from Dr. Mack's proposed law.

Those of you who work for a non aviation related business and have to travel occasionally or often for your job, would you benefit? Could you name the company that allows it? Remember Dr. Mack does not want to change the common purpose clause.

Some of you may use your plane under the don't ask don't tell policy but how many work for a company that will even allow private aviation to be used in their business (corporate aviation not withstanding). It is my understanding that both Beech and Cessna forbid this.

On a similar note, how many would favor the dropping of the common purpose requirement and let PP's be reimbursed for any purpose?

I have known of one company in my 40 years in the workforce that allowed PP's to fly themselves on company business, reimbursement or not. It was privately owned, both of the owner's sons were PP's and they had a company airplane that I flew.

This is the main reason I don't think Dr. Mack's bill will go anywhere. Just might not be enough interest. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[jbarrass]

Every company I have worked at (all-non aviation) allowed personal aircraft. One capped the reimbursment at the cost of the airline fare but most just accepted the IRS rate.

Incidential use is a common term well understood in business and would work fine.

The little petty bureaucrat nonsense about having someone ride along making it a violation is so widely ignored, making it go away won't have a practical impact. It's like lowering the speedlimit from 55 to 50 because no one is going 55....

 

[ronnieh]

Size of companies, number of companies, type of business?

 

[midlifeflyer]

On a similar note, how many would favor the dropping of the common purpose requirement and let PP's be reimbursed for any purpose?

I wouldn't. I'm not as concerned about the potential safety impact as I am about protecting the investment of small businesses that jump through the necessary hoops.

Besides, ain't gonna happen unless it's part of removing the entire shared expense exception to the no-compensation rule altogether.

 

[wabower]

When you introduce the business element, it's helpful to understand the big picture regarding both public and privately-held companies. Aircraft ownership and use patterns are subject to many outside factors including the IRS.

Prior to Sutherland, many planes were owned by principals and leased back to the company. Business vs personal use was scrutinized, but owners became adept at documenting the usage to comply with the rules. After Sutherland won in tax court, ownership was switched to the companies since the benefits to owners and companies were ~ the same and the SIFL rules were of little consequence. In fairness, the rules were too sweet in favor of aircraft owners and the IRS bore down to enact changes. Since enactment of JOCA 2004 with its associated disallowance of personal use rules, ownership has again reverted to individuals since the tax benefits the companies were once able to claim are no longer available.

The off-shoot of the current regulations is that the individuals who now own the planes are no longer eligible for the reimbursements and tax benefits previously received for personal use, and are therefore more conscious of operating costs that must be paid from their own pocket. Cost-sharing has again become more widely-discussed, and situations similar to the Mm case have become more visible if not more common.

I don't know how this affects the guys who are chipping in gas money for the hamburger runs and hunting trips, but I deal with it on an ongoing basis in structuring transactions with businesses whose employees are pilots.

From a personal standpoint, none of this stuff has ever been a problem since I only fly to places I want to go and am happy to have others ride along if they want. I don't expect them to buy the gas because I was going anyway and the airplane doesn't care how many seats are used. Money has never been discussed, and if somebody else buys breakfast the FAA will just have to deal with it. And if a friend's kid is sick the last thing he will need to worry about is paying for gas.

 

[ronnieh]

Wayne, extremely well put!

 

[bbchien]

From a personal standpoint, none of this stuff has ever been a problem since I only fly to places I want to go and am happy to have others ride along if they want. I don't expect them to buy the gas because I was going anyway and the airplane doesn't care how many seats are used. Money has never been discussed, and if somebody else buys breakfast the FAA will just have to deal with it. And if a friend's kid is sick the last thing he will need to worry about is paying for gas.

AMEN.

 

[Ghery]

No impact to me one way or the other. I work for a large (100,000+ employees worldwide) company and GA is forbidden with the exception of our shuttle fleet when traveling on company business. Too bad, it would be the second fastest way for me to get to the Oregon site (second to the shuttle, which is a faster plane than a 182).

 

[flyingron]

Every company I have worked at (all-non aviation) allowed personal aircraft. One capped the reimbursment at the cost of the airline fare but most just accepted the IR

In the 31 years I've been working and flying, it wasn't until I became employed by a company involved in the manufacture of GA aircraft, engines, and propellers that use of private aircraft became banned.

 

[DrMack]

I have yet to hear about any college or university, my employer included, that prohibits the use of a privately owned aircraft on university business and all of them in fact publish reimbursement rates for the employee-pilot who chooses to incidentally use their own aircraft to travel on university business. There are roughly 4,500 colleges and universities in the United Sates that employ approximately 1.5 million people. Even the federal government allows it for federal employees.

 

[Tom-D]

No impact to me one way or the other.

Me either, when I give folks a ride to where THEY want to go, I simply give them the ride.

But it would be nice if the FAA's ability to doubt that was removed.

 

[gprellwitz]

I have yet to hear about any college or university, my employer included, that prohibits the use of a privately owned aircraft on university business and all of them in fact publish reimbursement rates for the employee-pilot who chooses to incidentally use their own aircraft to travel on university business. There are roughly 4,500 colleges and universities in the United Sates that employ approximately 1.5 million people. Even the federal government allows it for federal employees.

I've flown myself twice for my college. The first time, I was reimbursed up to the coach fare, so nowhere near the actual cost, but fair to the taxpayer! The second time, with a new controller, I had coworkers with me, and we were all told that the college would not reimburse for the private flight at all.

 

[Unbeliever]

I have yet to hear about any college or university, my employer included, that prohibits the use of a privately owned aircraft on university business

Caltech (and by extension, JPL, being a division of Caltech). As in "you're fired if you use GA for business purposes" offense.

They're paranoid about their endowment.

Some of the arguments they give are outrageous. As in: "What if you mid-air with a 747 and it crashes into the Rose Bowl during the Rose Bowl game in the middle of the Rose Bowl telecast? We'll not only be sued by the families of everyone that was in the 747 and the stadium, but by everybody who was watching TV that day!"

I'm not joking. The risk lawyers actually did give that argument.

--Carlos V.

 

[bflynn]

At large companies it's usually a risk control to prohibit GA. They really don't care about what you want, but if you were to crash, they are open to be sued by anyone involved if you were flying on business.

Govt and smaller companies - either don't know or don't care.

There are only only two changes I'd really like to see:

1) Explicitly place the decision to fly with the PIC and protect companies from being sued as a result of employees flying

2) Reword 61.113 so that it doesn't become a crime to get a travel reimbursement just because someone else sits in the next seat.

#1 prevents companies from having employees fly.
#2 prevent me from flying because we can't justify the cost with just me and I can't justify paying for my own travel if someone travels with me.

Making these changes would result in more frequent flying, which we are always told is safer flying. So one wonders why the FAA resists safer flying...

 

[denverpilot]

In my current job role, zero difference if I can carry business pax or not. I believe company policy didn't cover it, but haven't even bothered to check the new parent company.

 

[DrMack]

There are only only two changes I'd really like to see:

1) Explicitly place the decision to fly with the PIC and protect companies from being sued as a result of employees flying

2) Reword 61.113 so that it doesn't become a crime to get a travel reimbursement just because someone else sits in the next seat.

#1 prevents companies from having employees fly.
#2 prevent me from flying because we can't justify the cost with just me and I can't justify paying for my own travel if someone travels with me.

Making these changes would result in more frequent flying, which we are always told is safer flying. So one wonders why the FAA resists safer flying...

Here is the draft language of the bill:

[FONT=&quot]113TH CONGRESS[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1ST SESSION H. R. XXX[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]JANUARY xx, 2013[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Mr. XXX introduces the following bill; [/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]A BILL[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This Act may be cited as the ‘Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit Act of 2013’. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 2. Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment and be reimbursed for expenses directly related to the operation of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) The private pilot shares a common purpose with passengers or property carried on the aircraft; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (3) The possession and exercise of the privileges of a private pilot license is not a condition of that business or employment for the private pilot; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (4) Consent to be carried by an aircraft operated by a private pilot is not a condition of that business or employment for the passengers or owners of property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 3. OTHER DEFINITIONS.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For purposes of this Act—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) the term 'aircraft' has the meaning given such term in section 101(5) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301(5));[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF ACT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) EFFECTIVE DATE- This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.[/FONT]

Your first desired change is addressed by (a)(3) and by extension to the passengers or owners of property (a)(4).

Your second desired change is addressed by the omission of the prohibition to carry passengers. But that brings up an interesting point. We may have to thwart the bureaucrats by explicitly stating in (a) that passengers and property are allowed on the flight.

 

[geneseib]

From a personal standpoint, none of this stuff has ever been a problem since I only fly to places I want to go and am happy to have others ride along if they want. I don't expect them to buy the gas because I was going anyway and the airplane doesn't care how many seats are used. Money has never been discussed, and if somebody else buys breakfast the FAA will just have to deal with it. And if a friend's kid is sick the last thing he will need to worry about is paying for gas.

When one gives a friend a ride and properly refuses payment, one will often find that the friend tends to be equally generous in entirely unrelated areas of life.

 

[dell30rb]

When one gives a friend a ride and properly refuses payment, one will often find that the friend tends to be equally generous in entirely unrelated areas of life.

You have better friends than I do

 

[wabower]

Sorry to hear that. Might be time to upgrade.

You have better friends than I do

 

[denverpilot]

Most of my friends are broke-ass pilots. Heh.

 

[jrollf]

When one gives a friend a ride and properly refuses payment, one will often find that the friend tends to be equally generous in entirely unrelated areas of life.

According to FAA interpretations that is STILL a form of compensation and thus against regulations. Fortunately they don't have the resources to track us when we aren't flying...... yet

 

[ronnieh]

Just bumping up to see if any more will reply on how Dr. Mack's proposal would affect them. BTW the local university here does not allow private aircraft use. Does not appear many care enough to even comment.

 

[Flavius Renatus]

I love this idea.

 

[ronnieh]

But, will it help you personally. Will you benefit from the change?

 

[DrMack]

But, will it help you personally. Will you benefit from the change?

More GA flying, because it is more affordable for the bulk of us who are regular Joes, means more aviation maintenance jobs, more aviation training jobs, more airport service jobs, more aviation manufacturing jobs, more infrastructure improvements, fewer lost airports, fewer lost ATC jobs, more jobs in the economy at large because of increased transportation efficiency. If you fly in any capacity, you bet it will help you personally. We all have a stake in this issue.

 

[wabower]

It sounds good when you say it fast and with conviction, but I have serious doubts that any material changes would occur. For every post on internet threads that bemoan the egregious inequities of the current system, hundreds if not thousands of pilots are saying "yeah, right" and shaking hands when the flight is completed while knowing the scales will be even when all is said and done. I'm in favor of the changes you propose, simply because any relief from the pressure of the foot on our neck would be welcomed.

More GA flying, because it is more affordable for the bulk of us who are regular Joes, means more aviation maintenance jobs, more aviation training jobs, more airport service jobs, more aviation manufacturing jobs, more infrastructure improvements, fewer lost airports, fewer lost ATC jobs, more jobs in the economy at large because of increased transportation efficiency. If you fly in any capacity, you bet it will help you personally. We all have a stake in this issue.

 

[ronnieh]

From this thread you can see the lack of interest. Wayne summed it up exactly the way I feel. Good luck Dr. Mack.

 

[Mafoo]

From this thread you can see the lack of interest. Wayne summed it up exactly the way I feel. Good luck Dr. Mack.

Well, I see this like I see outlawing gay sex.

It's not something I have any interest in doing, but if I did, I don't think the government will be very effective at stoping me.

I am sure people take friends all over the place, and I am sure they chip in for gas all the time.

 

[ronnieh]

My point exactly, Mafoo. It is mostly an accedemic discussion. Though shear speculation on my part I doubt,you could find 50 people nation wide that would say they would fly more or perhaps even buy an airplane if they could haul passengers and be reimbursed by an employer.

Though I think there MIGHT be some unintended consequences such as fellow employees being pressured into flying when they did not want to (paragraph 4 not withstanding) I speculate it would affect such a small number of pilots to be of little concern in the big picture.

I am all about less regulation. I do not believe in a nanny state and believe each person needs to demonstrate personal responsibility. It is for this reason I will follow Dr. Mack's journey on this issue with interest and will be standing in the cheering section.

 

[n20junkie]

The rules are as they are because pilots will take a little slack and run with it.

We all laugh at 134.5 jokes. And thats with commercial pilots/instructors. Allow private pilots to fly for money, what will happen then?

The reality is, on average, an individual with a PPL does not have the experiance to handle a flight for compensation with the possible time constraints and pressure. And please restrain from the talks of the 5,000 hour PPL who knows more than most ATP's, because chances are they don't.

Are there nurses that can do the job of doctors? I'm sure there is. But we all accept that someone with DR before their name had has more training and experiance than someone with RN.

Its the system, accept it. Want to fly and recieve money? Take a few days out of your schedule and do the training.



Unless I get a script pad, you don't get to fly for money. Welcome to life.

 

[Mafoo]

The rules are as they are because pilots will take a little slack and run with it.

We all laugh at 134.5 jokes. And thats with commercial pilots/instructors. Allow private pilots to fly for money, what will happen then?

The reality is, on average, an individual with a PPL does not have the experiance to handle a flight for compensation with the possible time constraints and pressure. And please restrain from the talks of the 5,000 hour PPL who knows more than most ATP's, because chances are they don't.

Are there nurses that can do the job of doctors? I'm sure there is. But we all accept that someone with DR before their name had has more training and experiance than someone with RN.

Its the system, accept it. Want to fly and recieve money? Take a few days out of your schedule and do the training.



Unless I get a script pad, you don't get to fly for money. Welcome to life.

I am not sure anyone here is suggesting you fly and make money without a comercial license. I think the question is should you be allowed to fly, and it cost you less money to do it, under certain conditions.

 

[ronnieh]

Nope, that is not the question. Dr. Mack's proposal is very narrow. The ONLY change he wants is if he is recieving compensation (reimbursement) from his employer for useing his (or rental) plane legally under the present rules, he wants to expand it so that he can take passengers on the flight with him when the passengers work for the same employer.
He does not want PP's being paid to fly. At least that is the way I understood it.

 

[n20junkie]

What if the company he works for rents him the plane.

Now a PPL is flying employees to a job site, while being paid a wage and all expenses covered.

This is the slippery slope for a low cost flight department.

 

[Ted]

I think it's a good proposal. It won't impact me any (part of working for an enormous multi-national company) but the principle is good. Will it help me? No. I'm also in agreement with Wayne on cost sharing, although sometimes we'll split costs as appropriate.

It won't help or hurt 134.5 any. And from what I've seen, 134.5 isn't restricted to Commercial and CFIs. I've seen private pilots do outright 134.5.

 

[Mafoo]

What if the company he works for rents him the plane.

Now a PPL is flying employees to a job site, while being paid a wage and all expenses covered.

This is the slippery slope for a low cost flight department.

That would be illegal. He would need to do it on his own time, or he is now a charter service.

I see the slippery slope. And I see if your salaried, and you fly co-workers along with you durring work hours, and get reimbursed for it, you are effectively you companies new charter pilot.

That's easy to solve. If he is hourly, don't pay him for those hours. If he is salaried, require him to do it on his own time, or take what me makes a year, divide it by 2080, multiply it by the number of hours he flys, and then deduct that from how much he can be reimbursed.

It's not an unsolvable problem, and I am not a fan of the slippery slop argument myself. In just about every place it's applied, you are penalizing 99% of the people who would benefit from it, so you can keep the 1% from doing something unfavorable.

 

[Ted]

Many people would likely be willing to fly on their own time/unpaid as suggested above. I've been told I can fly myself if I want, but I can't report it, and it'll be on my own dime. I said "That's fine, I'll just go by the means you pay for."

 

[n20junkie]

Our countrys laws and policies are based on the 1 percent of trouble makers.

How many people really have the honest need for this rule change? Honestly. .001 percent of the pilot population.

The rules, record keeping requirements and grey areas will never warrant such a thing when a small amount of training is all thats needed to comply with the current rules.

If you don't meet the hour requirements of the CPL, you have no business flying around co-works on a dictated schedule.

Many times these arguments are based on a low time person wanting to either 1. Build hours on someone elses dime or 2. A high income PPL wanting to use their brand new aircraft for business, and their ego gets hurt when they are told no.

 

[bflynn]

Would this help me? Yes. I'm currently working for a small company who doesn't practice risk management, so my issue #1 above doesn't affect me...and I don't think it is really addressed anyway.

But issue #2 would affect me. I travel less frequently for now because travel expenses are cut back for the rest of the year. But otherwise a coworker and I usually travel to a customer site about once a month. We pay around $500-700 each for air travel for both of us round trip which takes a minimum of 6 hours.

In a C172, the customer site is about 3 hours, 45 minutes away by a direct flight. Cost of flying that would be about $900.

Today I cannot justify selecting a $900 flight when a $500 flight is available. I also cannot justify paying $450 out of my own pocket to travel for work if someone goes with me.

However - I could easily justify getting reimbursed $900 for flying the 4 hour flight with two of us on board. Not to mention that 2 of us arriving 2 hours earlier and leaving 2+ hours later (not worried about missing the flight) would create another 8+ hours of billable time on each trip. Overall, this would raise my revenue contribution by about 4-5%.

These trips are not critical, they are love and care trips. Delays are unfortunate, but acceptable. Even complete cancellations are ok, we'd just do the trip the next week.

 

[DrMack]

Nope, that is not the question. Dr. Mack's proposal is very narrow. The ONLY change he wants is if he is recieving compensation (reimbursement) from his employer for useing his (or rental) plane legally under the present rules, he wants to expand it so that he can take passengers on the flight with him when the passengers work for the same employer.
He does not want PP's being paid to fly. At least that is the way I understood it.

You have read the intent correctly, but it also applies to any PPL who flies in connection with business such as small business owners and non-employed folks like traveling salesmen.

 

[DrMack]

Would this help me? Yes. I'm currently working for a small company who doesn't practice risk management, so my issue #1 above doesn't affect me...and I don't think it is really addressed anyway.

But issue #2 would affect me. I travel less frequently for now because travel expenses are cut back for the rest of the year. But otherwise a coworker and I usually travel to a customer site about once a month. We pay around $500-700 each for air travel for both of us round trip which takes a minimum of 6 hours.

In a C172, the customer site is about 3 hours, 45 minutes away by a direct flight. Cost of flying that would be about $900.

Today I cannot justify selecting a $900 flight when a $500 flight is available. I also cannot justify paying $450 out of my own pocket to travel for work if someone goes with me.

However - I could easily justify getting reimbursed $900 for flying the 4 hour flight with two of us on board. Not to mention that 2 of us arriving 2 hours earlier and leaving 2+ hours later (not worried about missing the flight) would create another 8+ hours of billable time on each trip. Overall, this would raise my revenue contribution by about 4-5%.

These trips are not critical, they are love and care trips. Delays are unfortunate, but acceptable. Even complete cancellations are ok, we'd just do the trip the next week.

A friend of mine in Dallas works for a company that is based in Atlanta. He flies an airplane that would make the trip in about 4 hours. His company has told him that if he could bring one or two of his co-workers (he and his coworkers are directors) to monthly senior management meetings in Atlanta they would be willing to reimburse him for the expenses related to the use of his airplane in accordance with the GSA rate (it's a government contractor). He has told them that he cannot do so in compliance with 61.113(b)(2). He does not work for a big corporation. It is a small business. I think it is an outrage that he cannot use his private property for private benefit and I am sure there are tens of thousands of small businesses in this country who could benefit from this type of general aviation operation.