Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations

[HPNPilot1200]

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Must the private pilot acting as PIC be fully employed by such "business" or is a one-time consultation visit within the scope of 14 CFR §61.113(b)(1)? Hypothetically, you are invited by a major research institute to dedicate the better part of a day to help research and test out new state-of-the-art equipment to test concepts of operation proposed by NextGen. Can you legally accept compensation strictly for the operating costs of the aircraft if you were to fly there?

Appreciate any advice. I took a look through the FAA Chief Counsel Interpretations but didn't find any that particularly addressed this unique, hypothetical case.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you accept a consultation contract, you're an independent contractor in business for yourself, and from an FAA perspective, you can certainly fly yourself and deduct from your income (or claim as expenses) the direct costs of the flight to the job location. OTOH, what the research institute will pay you for expenses is entirely up to them.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

If you accept a consultation contract, you're an independent contractor in business for yourself, and from an FAA perspective, you can certainly fly yourself and deduct from your income (or claim as expenses) the direct costs of the flight to the job location. OTOH, what the research institute will pay you for expenses is entirely up to them.

Thanks for the information, Ron. Does this still apply if you are not receiving any income for your services (ie: volunteer work) but are still receiving compensation for the aircraft operating expenses? I would think so because you are still offering services (though out of your own good will) and are just being compensated for getting there.

Best,
Jason

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks for the information, Ron. Does this still apply if you are not receiving any income for your services (ie: volunteer work) but are still receiving compensation for the aircraft operating expenses? I would think so because you are still offering services (though out of your own good will) and are just being compensated for getting there.

I think so, but I've never heard of the situation arising. Of course, any tax deduction you take for the volunteerism expenses would be reduced by the amount you received in compensation, but that's an IRS, not FAA, issue.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I think so, but I've never heard of the situation arising. Of course, any tax deduction you take for the volunteerism expenses would be reduced by the amount you received in compensation, but that's an IRS, not FAA, issue.

Certainly appreciate your insight to my questions, Ron. Thanks!

 

[t0r0nad0]

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Just for clarification - this says that if I'm flying myself to a conference in Dallas that I have to go to for work, I can accept compensation from my company for the expenses of the flight, but if my coworker has to go with me and I fly us both, I can't? It appears that way to me, but I just want to be sure.

 

[AirBaker]

Just for clarification - this says that if I'm flying myself to a conference in Dallas that I have to go to for work, I can accept compensation from my company for the expenses of the flight, but if my coworker has to go with me and I fly us both, I can't? It appears that way to me, but I just want to be sure.

I read this as: The company could pay for the total cost of the flight, but can't pay you directly as a professional pilot. It wouldn't matter if there were other co-workers in the plane. Basically you're not being paid to fly the other co-worker there, its just the cost of getting both of you to the conference.

Other thoughts?

 

[t0r0nad0]

I read this as: The company could pay for the total cost of the flight, but can't pay you directly as a professional pilot. It wouldn't matter if there were other co-workers in the plane. Basically you're not being paid to fly the other co-worker there, its just the cost of getting both of you to the conference.

Other thoughts?

That's what I'm hoping, but like with so many other FAR's, the language is a bit ambiguous.

 

[mantakos]

I think a useful litmus test is "If the plane was broken, could/would my passengers and I pile into my car, and achieve the same intended effect?"

If the answer is "yeah, we'd just find some other way to get there", then the flying is incidental. It's okay that you're carrying a passenger, because you're not carrying him "for hire".

If the answer is that your passenger might go, but he'd have no reason to take you with him, then you obviously didn't have a reason to be there, other than to transport the passenger, so your compensation was really for your services as a pilot.

If the answer is "no, we wouldn't make the travel at all", then that suggests that flying wasn't "incidental" to the trip. For instance, consider the distinction between "flying to XXX, and looking at some new avionics technology there" with "flying a plane equipped with some new avionics technology, to evaluate it in flight". In the first case, if the plane was broken, you would either drive or take the airlines, so your flying is incidental. In the second case, if the plane was broken, then the trip would cease to have a purpose, so the flying is clearly not incidental.

Also consider that simply because you're only being compensated for the expenses of the plane, that doesn't mean that you're not being compensated for your efforts, because simply logging flight time can be considered compensation.
-harry

 

[poadeleted20]

Just for clarification - this says that if I'm flying myself to a conference in Dallas that I have to go to for work, I can accept compensation from my company for the expenses of the flight, but if my coworker has to go with me and I fly us both, I can't? It appears that way to me, but I just want to be sure.

AirBaker is correct -- co-workers can travel with you as long as you'd be going anyway, i.e., you're not there just to be an aero-chauffeur. And the "drive" test isn't always appropriate, as there are places where you might fly but wouldn't drive for convenience reasons (e.g., length of trip), but still gives the general idea. And the value of logging time is irrelevant to discussion on the "incidental to business" exception because you are allowed to accept this "compensation" in this instance.

As for evaluating the avionics technology, I'm not at all sure that if you were a writer for an aviation magazine, you could not accept reimbursement from the magazine (or take a deduction if you were eating your own expenses as an independent writer) for the cost of the flight even with only a PPL. However, I've never seen a case on point.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Good to hear - knew I could count on you to set me straight Ron, et al!