I'm in a bind and need help

Ron, I concede. I did write that very quickly. "Something" was calling on me from another room in the house at the time. Errors do happen when you rush!

I over-simplified the "holding out" clause. That carries forward to my next statement. I should have clarified a plane other than your own. I was thinking only of obtaining a rental at the time and didn't even write that.

There were more subparagraph's but I was addressing strictly what Darren was speaking of.

As for the passenger in Neal's case, I definitely agree. He takes his producer and/or engineer with him quite often. Cox isn't exactly thrilled with that but they would no more fire him than than Premier would fire Rush if he flew his own G-IV.
 
KennyFlys said:
I over-simplified the "holding out" clause. That carries forward to my next statement. I should have clarified a plane other than your own. I was thinking only of obtaining a rental at the time and didn't even write that.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't matter. I don't know too many FBOs that will rent to non-pilots. And since your name would probably have to be on the rental ticket, YOU are providing the plane.
 
EdFred said:
Wouldn't matter. I don't know too many FBOs that will rent to non-pilots. And since your name would probably have to be on the rental ticket, YOU are providing the plane.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about that. Regs could be interpreted that way even if the credit card came from the other guy.
 
Ron Levy said:
Y'all need to re-read the subsections of 61.113 again. There are a number of instances where a private pilot can be reimbursed for all expenses, including business travel, emergency services, etc.
Click to expand...

So the situation in the "Second Trap" that is indicated as OK is a Private Pilot flying a company owned plane, and the flight is incidental to the COMPANY business, but the PPL pilot was hired for that purpose? Or just an employee who happens to have a PPL? Looks like the attorney is indicating the pilot is employed in the corporate flight department to me. This is from the web article:


Second Trap: A private pilot can fly in connection with business or employment as long as the flying is "only incidental" to that business or employment. This is important! It is the foundation for more than one "Trap for the Unwary," discussed in this article. The FAA considers "only incidental" to apply to the traditional corporate flying situations. For example, a company manufactures "widgets" as their primary business. They have a corporate flight department, in house, with private pilots (or better) who fly company employees and customers and guests on "widget" business. The employees, customers, and guests cannot be charged for the flights. The flying is "only incidental" to the widget business and is perfectly proper under Part 91.


P.S. Seems clear that this would be useful subject matter for the class under consideration here.
 
Last edited:
I see that you mean about 61.113. Exception (b) stands on its own and does not depend on the pro-rata share criteria of (c). (b) says a PPL MAY fly for compensation or hire if, and then gives the limits of incidental to the business or employment, and the company does not charge the passengers. So if it is incidental to the business, but not incidental to the employment? You are employed to wash the plane daily, but you are on call to fly it too? They must have some rules they use to interpret this, because it does say that you can fly for compensation right at the top of the exception. That has got to mean it can be in your job description somewhere.
 
Last edited:
cwyckham said:
I don't believe the yellow areas on sectionals have any legal relevance as far as the 1000' rule. I believe that they're best guesses of town boundaries, etc. and are meant as a VFR navigational aid only. My guess would be that they're plotted by looking at night satellite photos because the lit areas are usually built up areas.
Click to expand...
This makes perfect sense to me.
 
Already mentioned somewhat in here, but hit on Class G ("Anything Goes") Airspace.

If anything, Class Golf is some of the most misunderstood and sometimes most difficult to sort out in terms of VFR minimums.

Also, VFR minimums for student pilots are different than for all other pilots. Sometimes, they get lost in the shuffle. Good to re-emphasize them.

Good luck. Sounds like a great presentation brewing!
 
I'm going to bet this has been covered here, or at least on the boards somewhere, already, but let me throw this scenario out there.

A PP SEL who also happens to be a database architect takes a contract with a small environmental monitoring company. Part of the work happens to be elsewhere, so I, er, the database architect, chooses to rent a plane and fly from here to there. The other two gentlemen from the other company accompany me. My, uh, the DBA's time is billable from door to door, part of which is commuting time, which just happens to be by aircraft.

Am I being paid for flying and therefore in violation as I have no commercial ticket?

Does this scenario still fall under the "must pay the pro rata sharing of expenses rule"?
 
My understanding is that this is all legal. You're being paid to be a database architect, and flying is incidental to that. You're not being hired or rewarded for flying, you're just getting from A to B.
 
Seems like it fits clearly in exception (b). But I suspect it would be important not to "mix and match" the exceptions being used. If you DID get a pro rata share of the flight expenses from someone on the plane, it is going to look like charging for the flight and (b) may not apply. Then you go entirely by (c).
 
gibbons said:
The presentation for our EAA chapter meeting scheduled at my hangar this coming Sunday (1/21) has been cancelled.

I think I'm going to put together a short (15 - 30 min.) presentation of "little known / often misunderstood regs and procedures" but don't have much time to do it. I'll use much of the material I cover during the ground portion of a flight review, but am looking for more ideas. For example, I'll cover the "any traffic in the area please advise" update to the AIM, which situations allow a pilot to enter class C and which don't, cloud and visibility requirements when cancelling IFR in class E airspace, altitude restrictions when given "cleared for the visual, contact the tower", etc.

Your help in putting together items to cover in this presentation would be greatly appreciated. Please post your ideas in this thread and, if you could, post the FAR or AIM reference so I won't have to spend time looking things up. If there's something you've learned recently that you thought you should have known all along, that would be a great start.

Thanks in advance for the help.
Click to expand...


Chip, some regs and AIM that might be good to cover would be:

1. Aviation Safety Reporting Program -
Reference 91.25 - AIM - 7-6-1and on line source http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
If you have made a mistake and inadvertently violated the FARs, the FAA may take enforcement action in the form of suspension, revocation, or civil penalties. The Aviation Safety Report (ASR) Form can be submitted in confidence, to NASA to obtain "Sanction Immunity." If the FAA proves you committed the violation, it may go on your record, but the "sanction" such as revocation, will be avoided if you properly file this form.
2. Reference Chapter 7 AIM I think its figure 7-1-7 METAR Decoding form and Chapter 7 AIM how to read and interpret a TAF (reference chart) were to get this information online or in a fbo. Online source> http://adds.aviationweather.gov/metars/
 
Dwight B. Van Zanen said:
Second Trap: A private pilot can fly in connection with business or employment as long as the flying is "only incidental" to that business or employment. This is important! It is the foundation for more than one "Trap for the Unwary," discussed in this article. The FAA considers "only incidental" to apply to the traditional corporate flying situations. For example, a company manufactures "widgets" as their primary business. They have a corporate flight department, in house, with private pilots (or better) who fly company employees and customers and guests on "widget" business. The employees, customers, and guests cannot be charged for the flights. The flying is "only incidental" to the widget business and is perfectly proper under Part 91.
Click to expand...

Whoa, that doesn't seem right. A corporate flight department with private pilots? Not as their sole duty!
 
gkainz said:
My, uh, the DBA's time is billable from door to door, part of which is commuting time, which just happens to be by aircraft.

Am I being paid for flying and therefore in violation as I have no commercial ticket?
Click to expand...

IMHO, since the trip is taking you LESS time than if you were doing it by car, you are actually making LESS money than you would if you weren't flying, so it's probably OK.
 
jesse said:
It's very difficult to get a good picture doing this. You clear the area visually from the ground to first ensure there are no obstacles. After that you clear the area from the air. I would generally have a 'box' per say that I would stay within and know I was safe.

In order to get good pictures--you pretty much have to fly the camera. I preferred to use the LCD preview for framing purposes and would fly the object into the viewfinder while looking for traffic. I even went as far as to mount the camera in a solid condition and keeping it somewhat zoomed out, flying the object into the view finder, and snapping the picture. The key is to use a real high resolution so you can crop it later. I've done my fair share of aerial photography and have captured some really great pictures of houses in less than ideal conditions.
Click to expand...

Jessie, I am not trying to pick a fight, however I dub thee a BOLD pilot
I hope you live to be an old one!
 
EdFred said:
Why? Jesse, like myself are well above the VASI/PAPI until we touch down. That's about the point I see red over white or 2 reds.
Click to expand...

When I'm working Ag (occassionally we work off a towered airport) I'm never above the VASI.
 
Dwight B. Van Zanen said:
Seems like it fits clearly in exception (b). But I suspect it would be important not to "mix and match" the exceptions being used. If you DID get a pro rata share of the flight expenses from someone on the plane, it is going to look like charging for the flight and (b) may not apply. Then you go entirely by (c).
Click to expand...
That would be correct -- you can't get a reimbursement for the cost of the flight from your company plus a pro rata share. You could get reimbursed for your share of the flight plus the pro rata shares from the pax, or you could get reimbursed for the whole thing and collect nothing from the pax -- either works.
 
Dwight B. Van Zanen said:
So the situation in the "Second Trap" that is indicated as OK is a Private Pilot flying a company owned plane, and the flight is incidental to the COMPANY business, but the PPL pilot was hired for that purpose? Or just an employee who happens to have a PPL? Looks like the attorney is indicating the pilot is employed in the corporate flight department to me. This is from the web article:

Second Trap: A private pilot can fly in connection with business or employment as long as the flying is "only incidental" to that business or employment. This is important! It is the foundation for more than one "Trap for the Unwary," discussed in this article. The FAA considers "only incidental" to apply to the traditional corporate flying situations. For example, a company manufactures "widgets" as their primary business. They have a corporate flight department, in house, with private pilots (or better) who fly company employees and customers and guests on "widget" business. The employees, customers, and guests cannot be charged for the flights. The flying is "only incidental" to the widget business and is perfectly proper under Part 91.
Click to expand...
Change that to reade "with commercial pilots (or better)" and it reads OK. Since these folks are acting as pilots for compensation/hire, a PPL isn't enough. The "incidental to business" exception is when one of the widget designers who happens to have a PPL is required to go to a widget design meeting somewhere, and flies himself to that meeting -- that's OK. But if you're on the trip only because you're flying the plane, you're being compensated for being a pilot, and you need a commercial or better.

Where the issue of "employees, customers, and guests cannot be charged for the flights" comes in is obviating the need for a Part 135 operating certificate. That doesn't change the need for the paid pilots to have a commercial or better.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
IMHO, since the trip is taking you LESS time than if you were doing it by car, you are actually making LESS money than you would if you weren't flying, so it's probably OK.
Click to expand...
Your company may care about whether it costs them more or less for your enroute time by flying vs driving, but the FAA doesn't. The only thing that matters to them is that the flying is incidental to your job and that you don't get reimbursed more than the direct cost of the flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your company may care about whether it costs them more or less for your enroute time by flying vs driving, but the FAA doesn't. The only thing that matters to them is that the flying is incidental to your job and that you don't get reimbursed more than the direct cost of the flight.
Click to expand...

I thought that if you have very detailed records and an actual hourly cost - not just a "local-flight-school-cost-equivalent (mine was $107.85 for the year in '06) that you can get reimbursed at that rate.
 
Nobody mentioned it yet:

When a Procedure Turn is/is not allowed on an instrument approach.

The newest AIM had language changes to try to end the controversy.
 
If you still have time:

Suppose you have an airplane on a giant conveyor belt .....

:) :yes: :D
 
In interesting tidbit:

The ILS critical areas on the airport surface are only protected when contitions less than 800/2. If you want those areas protected when contitions are better than above, advise tower you want to do an autoland or coupled approach.
 
EdFred said:
I thought that if you have very detailed records and an actual hourly cost - not just a "local-flight-school-cost-equivalent (mine was $107.85 for the year in '06) that you can get reimbursed at that rate.
Click to expand...
That's an IRS issue, not FAA. If you get more reimbursement than you can document to their satisfaction, the IRS considers it excess reimbursement and that makes it taxable income.
 
How about a discussion of how to get a legal interpretation of a reg from a regional or chief counsel's office (and when that's not such a good idea).
 
lancefisher said:
How about a discussion of how to get a legal interpretation of a reg from a regional or chief counsel's office (and when that's not such a good idea).
Click to expand...

I have no idea. That's one I want to hear about the next time we get together. The last time (the only time) I sent an email to the feds asking for clerification I never received a response.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I've started putting together a presentation, but now it looks like weather might kill the entire meeting. Even so, thanks again for the suggestions.
 
gibbons said:
I have no idea. That's one I want to hear about the next time we get together. The last time (the only time) I sent an email to the feds asking for clerification I never received a response.
Click to expand...
It normally takes a few months for the legal types to provide an answer -- be patient.

Even so, thanks again for the suggestions.
Click to expand...
Given the number of suggestions above, is it not scary how many regulations/procedures that would appear to affect a lot of our flying are considered confusing or little-known?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top