Whiz Quiz Comm Op?

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
So, father son operation. Schedule a bunch of urinealisis's across the state and then fly to each airport and perform the collection.

Father and son fly in their own plane and both have a PPL. Incidental? This would not be possible by car. Well, maybe if team driving...

What do ya'll think? Legal?
 
Read Mangiamele. No passengers permitted with PPL on business travel when there is reimbursement (I assume travel expenses are being charged), and I'm assuming they're not flying a DC-3 or Learjet where two pilots are required (hood doesn't work because the hood is only on part of the time). Only way it works is if they eat the cost of the flying out of their own pockets, not from the business or the clients.
 
Used to be legal and we need a test case to make it legal again so tell them to go for it.
 
Captain said:
So, father son operation. Schedule a bunch of urinealisis's across the state and then fly to each airport and perform the collection.

Father and son fly in their own plane and both have a PPL. Incidental? This would not be possible by car. Well, maybe if team driving...

What do ya'll think? Legal?
Click to expand...

If they are the **** Nazis and are flying from airport to airport doing collections for their **** nazi business, sounds coincidental to me.
 
Ron Levy said:
Read Mangiamele. No passengers permitted with PPL on business travel when there is reimbursement (I assume travel expenses are being charged), and I'm assuming they're not flying a DC-3 or Learjet where two pilots are required (hood doesn't work because the hood is only on part of the time). Only way it works is if they eat the cost of the flying out of their own pockets, not from the business or the clients.
Click to expand...

This was my understanding as well. Passengers can have a pro-rata share of the flight but true reimbursement can only occur if you are the sole occupant and the flight is incidental to the business (saying it's required to complete the operation sounds a little less than incidental).
 
Where is there a passenger involved in the OP?:confused: They are going to collect pee.
 
Why do they need two people to collect specimens ?
 
frfly172 said:
Why do they need two people to collect specimens ?
Click to expand...

Depends how many there are to do and if the whizzing needs to be witnessed (technically when I was on **** nazi duty I had to watch you pee), you have one person doing the paperwork and the other person handing the collection. Typically if the crew was <10, one person handled it,10-25 two, when I had 300 total on the boat the company sent down 20 guys.
 
Is " Whiz Quiz" the name of your new venture? :rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
Two people in a 1-pilot aircraft means one of them is a passenger unless the second person is an instructor giving training.
Click to expand...

You have a father and son from the same company headed to the same location on company business.
 
Henning said:
You have a father and son from the same company headed to the same location on company business.
Click to expand...
There are no exceptions in either 61.113 or the Mangiamele letter interpreting that regulation for passengers who are related to the pilot flying on business. In fact, that letter specifically addresses reimbursement of a PPL husband flying on business with his wife as a passenger as being a violation.

I realize that we've had discussions about people flying friends or family around without common purpose with the passengers picking up the whole tab in violation of the 61.113(c) pro rata expense sharing rule, and how the FAA isn't likely to get involved in such personal matters. However this is a 61.113(b) business flying reimbursement question which has been specifically addressed by the Chief Counsel in writing -- and the answer to the OP's question is that it's not legal for the pilot to reimbursed for the expenses of the flight.

One supposes that the passenger could be reimbursed by the business for his share (up to half) of the operating expenses of the flight paid by the PPL pilot (not the business -- that would turn the pilot into a paid company pilot and require Commercial privileges), since there is clear common purpose, but not the pilot's share, which will have to come out of the pilot's pocket unreimbursed. The pilot will not be able to be paid for his time spent flying, either, if billing by the hour.
 
Where did reimbursement come into the picture? This is father and son flying to a location together same as they would ride in a car.
 
Henning said:
Where did reimbursement come into the picture?
Click to expand...
Because they're travelling on business (did you miss the part about this being a business operation doing urinalyses for clients and flying around to collect the samples?), and not many people travel to a client's location on business without getting reimbursed for their travel expenses. As I said twice already, if the pilot pays for it himself (i.e., personally, out of his own pocket, not by the business and not reimbursed by anyone), there's no issue (but that's probably going to make a big dent in his pay for the day). If the pilot gets reimbursed by the business, it's illegal.

And the father/son relationship is irrelevant -- in this situation, they're just two employees of a business.
 
It's their operation, there doesn't need to be any direct reimbursement.
 
Henning said:
It's their operation, there doesn't need to be any direct reimbursement.
Click to expand...
For the third time -- if the business pays for the plane rather than the pilot paying for it and being reimbursed, then the pilot needs Commercial privileges because he's acting as the company's paid pilot transporting passengers in the course of company business -- and that's been clearly addressed in other interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
For the third time -- if the business pays for the plane rather than the pilot paying for it and being reimbursed, then the pilot needs Commercial privileges because he's acting as the company's paid pilot transporting passengers in the course of company business -- and that's been clearly addressed in other interpretations.
Click to expand...

So if the he pays himself from business earnings, then pays for the aircraft expenditures out of his wallet it is legal is it not? The owner could just increase his earnings so that he may be able to afford to pay for the plane "out of his pocket". It sounds like a loophole that I'm sure has been addressed by a letter before.
The passenger (son or father depending on who's flying) is just that; a passenger and sounds against the privlidges of a private license as you said.
 
Last edited:
If dad is paying the full bill for the flight, or even if they are going prorata, how is that against the rules since they are heading there with a common interest? As long as the company doesn't directly pay for the flight, there is nothing against the rules.
 
NJP_MAN said:
So if the he pays himself from business earnings, then pays for the aircraft expenditures out of his wallet it is legal is it not?
Click to expand...
No, it is not. That reimbursement is exactly what the Mangiamele interpretation prohibits when passengers are carried.

The owner could just increase his earnings so that he may be able to afford to pay for the plane "out of his pocket". It sounds like a loophole that I'm sure has been addressed by a letter before.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a fraudulent transaction to me, but I'm not an expert on criminal forensic accounting.
 
Henning said:
If dad is paying the full bill for the flight, or even if they are going prorata, how is that against the rules since they are heading there with a common interest? As long as the company doesn't directly pay for the flight, there is nothing against the rules.
Click to expand...
As I said four times already, if the dad pays the full bill for the flight, and receives no reimbursement from the company (directly or indirectly), it's perfectly fine. What the dad cannot do is accept even one penny from the company or the clients to cover the cost of the business flight with a passenger aboard. He could pay the full cost out of his own pocket (not the business), and then get the passenger's pro rata share from the passenger, and the passenger could be reimbursed for that portion (up to but not more than 50% of the operating expenses as defined in 61.113 since the flight is being conducted with two people aboard) by the company. However, any legal way you do it, the dad/pilot is going to be out of his own pocket for at least half the cost of the flight.
 
Which is all a completely moot argument, because the FAA is never going to go after a reimbursement issue on a father-son trip - business related or not.

Owning the own company, using a personal aircraft, there is no way the FAA is ever going to bust them on that. Sure, there's a legal interpretation from our favorite moron Rebecca Dumbass McPhereson (don't care enough to look up the spelling of the *****'s name), but the chance of an inspector going after a father and son to make sure dad didn't pay 49% of the flight is about as likely as the aforementioned interpreter being able to tell the difference between her ass and a hole in the ground.
 
EdFred said:
Which is all a completely moot argument, because the FAA is never going to go after a reimbursement issue on a father-son trip - business related or not.

Owning the own company, using a personal aircraft, there is no way the FAA is ever going to bust them on that. Sure, there's a legal interpretation from our favorite moron Rebecca Dumbass McPhereson (don't care enough to look up the spelling of the *****'s name), but the chance of an inspector going after a father and son to make sure dad didn't pay 49% of the flight is about as likely as the aforementioned interpreter being able to tell the difference between her ass and a hole in the ground.
Click to expand...

Lol, so you don't like her?
 
Odds are strong the FAA would never have busted Mangiamele, either. Nor any of the who-knows-how-many Private Pilots who have flown on business with passengers and been reimbursed. Nor have I ever heard of it happening. But that wasn't the OP's question, which was answered a long way back, and that answer doesn't change regardless of whether anyone has ever or will ever be caught doing it and violated for it.
 
If the authorities don't seek out or prosecute something then can it really be illegal?
 
Captain said:
If the authorities don't seek out or prosecute something then can it really be illegal?
Click to expand...

That's really one of the major problems in our country, we have too many non and unenforceable regulations and laws that it dilutes respect for the ones that matter.
 
Cap'n Ron
Example Question:
If dad earns $1000 per collection and the flight costs $100, dad's "profit" is $900.
If it would have cost $50 to drive, dad's "profit" driving is $950.

Since this is sole proprietorship, isn't "reimbursement" useless semantics?
 
TMetzinger said:
Put Dad under the hood and have Son be a safety pilot.
Click to expand...
Doesn't work, as Dad will not be under the hood from chock to chock, and when he isn't , Son is a passenger. Asked and answered by the Chief Counsel in a question about landing currency for flying to obtain instrument recent experience. And please don't tell the FAA you're taxiing, taking off, and landing with the hood on -- they will not respond well to that.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Cap'n Ron
Example Question:
If dad earns $1000 per collection and the flight costs $100, dad's "profit" is $900.
If it would have cost $50 to drive, dad's "profit" driving is $950.

Since this is sole proprietorship, isn't "reimbursement" useless semantics?
Click to expand...
I don't think hiding the reimbursement this way would be in keeping with generally accepted accounting practices. As I said before, if you lie about where the money came from and went, you can probably make it appear there was no reimbursement for FAA purposes, but then you have to deal with the IRS (assuming the CPA doing your books will sign off on it in the first place). And that doesn't change the fact that under FAA rules, reimbursement by the business of a Private Pilot's expenses for a business flight with a passenger (the original question) is prohibited regardless of the pilot's relationship to the passenger.
 
"Cooking the books" is not my question
He contracted to do a service. All the expenses are his responsibility, including travel to and from the site. How he nooses to get there Nd other expenses are his own concern.

I have no idea if the IRS would care - though I could see the FAA making the reach, if what you proffer is true
 
They might as well make it similar to AK hunting regs no flying and hunting on the same day. Make it so you can't fly on any day you also earn money. Joking but that would be the only way to be sure.
 
ClimbnSink said:
They might as well make it similar to AK hunting regs no flying and hunting on the same day. Make it so you can't fly on any day you also earn money. Joking but that would be the only way to be sure.
Click to expand...

That would be a sure fire way to put a stake in the heart of GA.
 
No reimbursement - company plane. "Cost" to use for the flight: $0
 
EdFred said:
No reimbursement - company plane. "Cost" to use for the flight: $0
Click to expand...
Company plane means company pilot and that means Commercial privileges.

You can fiddle the books, lie to the FAA/IRS, whatever you want, but it's just not legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
Company plane means company pilot and that means Commercial privileges.

You can fiddle the books, lie to the FAA/IRS, whatever you want, but it's just not legal.
Click to expand...

Sole proprietorship means a guy can't fly his own plane? Ooooooooooook. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top