LSA question

ICUDoc

ICUDoc

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
22
Display Name
ICUDoc
Are there any FAA regs barring an LSA type aircraft from being used as transportation to and from one's business ?
Assumptions: 1 pilot, no pax, short-hauls to hospitals where I have contracts.
 
ICUDoc said:
Are there any FAA regs barring an LSA type aircraft from being used as transportation to and from one's business ?
Assumptions: 1 pilot, no pax, short-hauls to hospitals where I have contracts.
Click to expand...

Aircraft: I think not.

Pilot limitation: I think so. "In the furtherance of a business..." would appear intentionally broad.

IOW, if you're a private pilot or better with a medical flying an LSA, I think you're OK. Sport Pilot or operating under Sport Pilot limitations I think not.
 
He wouldn't be flying for business. He'd be flying to an airport nearby his place of work. There's a difference.
 
What it comes down to is "could I convince an FAA inspector that the flight was not "in the furtherance of a business"".
 
The inspector from the Van Nuys FSDO explained it as follows: If you could do the business without an airplane, just not as quickly, then the flight is incidental to the business. Flying to meetings/jobs is completely within the regs.
 
Stevel said:
The inspector from the Van Nuys FSDO explained it as follows: If you could do the business without an airplane, just not as quickly, then the flight is incidental to the business. Flying to meetings/jobs is completely within the regs.
Click to expand...

Id go with that.
 
Most recent FAA Chief Counsel interpretation:
==============================
The FAA specifically addressed the limitation found in § 61.315(c)(3) in its February 25, 2011 interpretation to Mr. Timothy John Gilbert (copy attached) [note: Geoff linked it]. In that interpretation the FAA noted that flights in which transportation is provided for a business purpose, "even if incidental to your employment or the business you intend to conduct, and not required by your business or employment would be considered in furtherance of a business." A flight would therefore be considered to be in furtherance of a business if it were conducted for a business purpose, even if the flight is only incidental to that business purpose. The FAA also notes that the restriction on the use of a light-sport aircraft in furtherance of a business is not based on the certification of the aircraft being used but rather on the certification of the airman operating the aircraft.
==============================
2012 Allen-Terrafugia Interpretation

Whether it applies to a simple commute or not is a good question. If it does make a difference, I guess a decent guideline might be whether or not you take a tax deduction for the travel expense. With the deduction as a business travel expense, kind of hard to say it wasn't "for a business purpose."
 
Last edited:
Stevel said:
The inspector from the Van Nuys FSDO explained it as follows: If you could do the business without an airplane, just not as quickly, then the flight is incidental to the business. Flying to meetings/jobs is completely within the regs.
Click to expand...
For a private or "better", not for those of us flying without a medical.

See the interpretation I linked above which states that "incidental" is irrelevant. It's not a question of compensation (PP limitation) but "furtherance of a business" (SP limitation).
 
A private pilot who chooses to fly an LSA aircraft without a medical is still operating as a private pilot, yes? Sport Pilot is a different cert with different training requirements, right?
 
OOPS! The advice I quoted above was the distinction between incidental and not. We Sport Pilots do not get the exemption for incidental that PP and up get, so the "It is limited by the pilot, not the plane" stands as the correct answer.
 
Stewartb said:
A private pilot who chooses to fly an LSA aircraft without a medical is still operating as a private pilot, yes? Sport Pilot is a different cert with different training requirements, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, the sport pilot certificate is a separate certificate with lower training requirements than a private pilot.

but...

No. A private pilot who chooses to fly without a medical is not operating as a private pilot; he is exercising "lower level" sport pilot privileges and is bound by sport pilot limitations.

Just like a commercial pilot with only a 3rd class medical can only exercise private pilot privileges and can't fly for compensation or hire (unless covered by one of the 61.113 exceptions).
 
Last edited:
Stewartb said:
A private pilot who chooses to fly an LSA aircraft without a medical is still operating as a private pilot, yes? Sport Pilot is a different cert with different training requirements, right?
Click to expand...

Nope! That pilot would be limited to the Sport Pilot regs, unless they choose to get their medical renewed.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes, the sport pilot certificate is a separate certificate with lower training requirements than a private pilot.

but...

No. A private pilot who chooses to fly without a medical is not operating as a private pilot; he is exercising "lower level" sport pilot privileges and is bound by sport pilot limitations.

Just like a commercial pilot with only a 3rd class medical can only exercise private pilot privileges and can't fly for compensation or hire (unless covered by one of the 61.113 exceptions).
Click to expand...

Thanks. Can you direct me to the regulation that defines that?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I wouldn't go with a phone call from the FSDO on anything.
Click to expand...


I missed the part about him being a sport pilot too.

Ether way you won't be getting a call from a FSDO, proving their case would be very difficult, but based on some of the FAA "court" cases I've read you're guilty until proven innocent, so...


Reason number 351 to get a PPL over a SPL if you can.

midlifeflyer said:
... considered to be in furtherance of a business if it were conducted for a business purpose, even if the flight is only incidental to that business purpose.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Wow, why not just write "because we said so"

I really hope some high dollar and high power people start suing the FAA more often, heck it wasn't until they picked a fight with a high power dude that we got the pilots bill of rights. The FAA needs to be put in check and reminded who they work for, I'm all for "safety" and protecting the children and all that, but some of these regs, interpretations, and the FAAs dragging of their feet on matters really bugs the crap out of me.
 
Last edited:
Stevel said:
Nope! That pilot would be limited to the Sport Pilot regs, unless they choose to get their medical renewed.
Click to expand...

Frustrating for me.

I lost no skillsets when my medical expired a few years ago.

Yet I still can't fly at night, nor over 10,000', nor without visual reference to the surface.

But it is what it is - I'm just thrilled this exception to mandatory recurring medicals occurred at about exactly the time it really started working to my advantage!
 
All feedback appreciated - primary concern was LSA aircraft limitations.
It appears that with a PP certificate one could also expense the aircraft in the business and still be within the FAA regs, so I think we're good to go.

The logic behind these regs seems vague, at best.
 
FastEddieB said:
Frustrating for me.

I lost no skillsets when my medical expired a few years ago.
Click to expand...

The 3rd class medical is not supposed to attest to your skills. Although I am in the camp that thinks it is overly-restrictive, and should be eliminated, arguing skillsets is a red herring.
 
Stevel said:
The 3rd class medical is not supposed to attest to your skills. Although I am in the camp that thinks it is overly-restrictive, and should be eliminated, arguing skillsets is a red herring.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're saying.

I was just saying that the day after my medical expired, I was still exactly as capable of flying at night, or over 10,000', or over an overcast, as the day before. So in that regard, the limitation makes no sense.
 
FastEddieB said:
Aircraft: I think not.

Pilot limitation: I think so. "In the furtherance of a business..." would appear intentionally broad.

IOW, if you're a private pilot or better with a medical flying an LSA, I think you're OK. Sport Pilot or operating under Sport Pilot limitations I think not.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Stewartb said:
He wouldn't be flying for business. He'd be flying to an airport nearby his place of work. There's a difference.
Click to expand...
If he's a contractor, then those are job sites, not "his place of work", and his flying is most definitely "in furtherance of a business". If you need that answered specifically in writing to believe it, I suggest you contact the FAA Chief Counsel. But based on the following two interpretations, I strongly suggest nobody try it without asking them.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...011/gilbert - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...-terrafugia - (2012) legal interpretation.pdf

These two interpretations strongly support Fast Eddie B's post #2 in this thread.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Not sure what you're saying.

I was just saying that the day after my medical expired, I was still exactly as capable of flying at night, or over 10,000', or over an overcast, as the day before. So in that regard, the limitation makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with your logic on the day after your medical expires.

So you never renew. Now you are 85. Maybe you have those same skills, maybe you don't. Wouldn't it be nice if someone impartial gave you a little test?

-Skip
 
Stevel said:
The inspector from the Van Nuys FSDO explained it as follows: If you could do the business without an airplane, just not as quickly, then the flight is incidental to the business. Flying to meetings/jobs is completely within the regs.
Click to expand...
You ask the wrong question, you get an inapplicable answer. Read the two interpretations I posted above. This isn't about whether or not it's "incidental to the business", the question is whether it's "in furtherance of a business", and as described by the OP, it is "in furtherance of a business". Per those two interpretations, that means a PP with a medical would be legal to do this in an LSA Airplane, but not a PP without a medical and not a Sport Pilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Whether it applies to a simple commute or not is a good question. If it does make a difference, I guess a decent guideline might be whether or not you take a tax deduction for the travel expense. With the deduction as a business travel expense, kind of hard to say it wasn't "for a business purpose."
Click to expand...
As described by the OP, this isn't a "simple commute", it's a contractor traveling as part of a contracted job from his/her normal place of business to a job site. I don't see the Chief Counsel buying that is not in furtherance of a business, so I strongly suggest not doing it without getting the Chief Counsel to say otherwise in writing (regardless of what some FSDO Inspector might tell you without a paper signed by the Chief Counsel as a supporting reference).
 
Stewartb said:
A private pilot who chooses to fly an LSA aircraft without a medical is still operating as a private pilot, yes?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not -- it would depend on exactly what that pilot is doing. Assuming we're talking about an Airplane, if the operation falls entirely within the Sport Pilot restrictions (see Part 61 Subpart J for those, starting with 61.315), then that pilot is exercising only his/her Sport Pilot privileges and can get by with only a valid US Drivers License. However, if s/he is operating that LSA Airplane beyond those Sport Pilot restrictions (e.g., at night, under IFR, or "in furtherance of a business), then s/he is exercising PP privileges and needs a valid medical.

Sport Pilot is a different cert with different training requirements, right?
Click to expand...
Correct -- and with much stricter restrictions/limitations.
 
Skip Miller said:
So you never renew. Now you are 85. Maybe you have those same skills, maybe you don't. Wouldn't it be nice if someone impartial gave you a little test?

-Skip
Click to expand...

That's a thought.

Maybe something like a flight review every two years?

Wonder why no one ever thought of that before? :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top