Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lessons Learned' started by C172, Feb 5, 2020.
That's the best description yet of how the FAA views incidental.
Thanks, and yeah to the other main point in this thread re: transporting other members of the business there is another interpretation which makes it pretty clear. Search the "Lamb-2" interpretation from 2010 (I am too new to post links).
Basically that if you transport yourself for something incidental to the business, but for a business reason, it's fine and you can be reimbursed by employer. If you bring pax, however, you cannot be compensated at all and must pay a pro-rata share. Pretty much black and white. It's hard to argue against, too, since the business is literally giving you money to bring their employees somewhere. Even if you would go on your own anyway, things change once people get in the plane. I think that makes a lot of sense since without that rule it would be very easy for a business to put pressure on the pilot to transport its employees places and at some point you are some percentage an employee of the business and some percentage being paid as a pilot.
Small addition on this - the pilot can only be reimbursed by the passengers. However, the passengers can be reimbursed by the company because they're not pilots and aren't bound by this. So it's a weird sort of route, the money does come from the company, but it cannot go straight to the pilot.
And the pilot cannot be reimbursed for their share at all. So as the pilot, you're paying for your share of the fuel, tie down, etc.
The bottom line is (as has been mentioned) that one should get their commercial ticket. It's the easiest one they'll get (compared to initial private, instrument, ATP, or any type rating; multi may be easier!)
Reminds me of the FBO I used to work for. It was standard practice for the 135 pilots to greet the pax, physically take away any alcohol they showed up with while explaining that Federal regulations prohibit them from allowing passengers to bring alcohol on the airplane but that those same regulations do allow the crew to serve passengers alcohol. They would then hand the alcohol back to the pax and say I am now serving your beverages to you.
Maybe. Maybe not. "Weird sorts of routes" sometimes get compressed into what they actually are. Sometimes they don't. I would not want to ask the Chief Counsel this one.
I feel like I’ve already read that somewhere in a CC letter, but I cannot find it again.
Which won’t help much for many of the scenarios presented, as they would also require a commercial operator certificate, with all of the additional training and testing that goes with it.
That was my thought as well.
But I think it would eliminate any issues with one flying their own plane to a meeting they need to attend, and taking co-workers along. Ultimately, I'd just not charge anyone, I never have, for any flight. Won't even take lunch. Well, maybe lunch.
Heck, I'll pay for my own lunch and reimburse that. All $300 of it.
It doesn't matter if you have your commercial certificate if you carry co-workers. Unless you're flying the company airplane and "pilot" is part of your job description, it's effectively Part 135 under the FAA's current interpretation.
A commercial wouldn’t eliminate those issues if any form of compensation is made.
That's stupid beyond belief, if you aren't being paid to fly, and your cohorts pay only the fuel fraction.
Stupid or not, it’s considered “compensation” by the FAA, and in order to be compensated when providing the airplane as well as the pilot, you need a 135 certificate. You can thank all the pilots who thought they could get somebody else to pay for their flying.