Overly restrictive business flying requirements.

[Wily Wapiti]

Hello.
I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.

WW

UniReg 177-12d:

(d) When approved in advance by the President, or designee, travel by
privately owned, rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft may be
authorized, subject to the following requirements:

1) When a University employee wishes to utilize a privately owned,
rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft for official University travel
(either with or without passengers), the pilot must, as a minimum
requirement:

i. Possess a current private pilot license issued in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration regulations (FAR's), appropriate to
the craft to be flown, and must be in compliance with the currency
requirements of said FAR's with respect to flight time, biennial
flight review, and other requirements as appropriate to the ratings
held;

ii. Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of total flight time;

iii. Have an instrument rating, issued in accordance with the FAR's,
and must be current for flight in instrument conditions, as defined by
the FAR's;

iv. For night or actual instrument conditions, have logged a minimum
of 100 hours of instrument time, either actual or simulated; and

v. Not withstanding the requirements in paragraph iv.), no
authorization will be granted for single engine aircraft night or
actual instrument conditions.

2) Whenever travel is approved under this policy, the employee shall
verify to the approving University officer that the pilot possesses a
medical certificate issued by a FAA designated medical examiner and a
biennial flight review within the preceding 2 years. The pilot will
show proof of instrument currency, as defined by current FAR's (See,
for example, FAR 61.57).

3) Employees wishing to use personally owned aircraft for travel on
official business must obtain liability insurance coverage in an
amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, and must include the
University of Wyoming as an "Additional Insured" on such policy. A
copy of an endorsement to the employee's policy reflecting the above
coverage, and a certificate of insurance issued to the University
shall be filed with the University's Risk Management Office and, by
reference, included on all purchase orders (Note: agent binder letters
are not acceptable).

4) Employees wishing to use leased, rented, borrowed, trade-out, or
other non-owned aircraft for official University travel must obtain
liability insurance coverage as described in paragraph 3) above, must
name the University as an "Additional Insured" on such policy, must
obtain adequate hull damage insurance to cover any possible loss of
the aircraft, and must provide documentation of such coverage as
required above.

[Peter Gottlieb]

The more cowardly BS I see from these companies, the more I realize that I
will only ever be happy with my own company.


"Max T, CFI" > wrote in message
news:Qgc1b.219260$Ho3.28733@sccrnsc03...
> I work for a large high tech company and the insurance requirements
> are even higher, and one can only get approval if it's "company
convenience"
> which is hard to ever justify living near multiple airports with lots of
flights going
> everywere. Effectively it keeps anyone from flying their own plane on
business any more.
> Max T, CFI
>
> Wily Wapiti > wrote in message
om...
> > Hello.
> > I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
> > think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
> > your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
> > low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
> > I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.
> >
> > WW
> >
> > UniReg 177-12d:
> >
> > (d) When approved in advance by the President, or designee, travel by
> > privately owned, rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft may be
> > authorized, subject to the following requirements:
> >
> > 1) When a University employee wishes to utilize a privately owned,
> > rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft for official University travel
> > (either with or without passengers), the pilot must, as a minimum
> > requirement:
> >
> > i. Possess a current private pilot license issued in accordance with
> > Federal Aviation Administration regulations (FAR's), appropriate to
> > the craft to be flown, and must be in compliance with the currency
> > requirements of said FAR's with respect to flight time, biennial
> > flight review, and other requirements as appropriate to the ratings
> > held;
> >
> > ii. Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of total flight time;
> >
> > iii. Have an instrument rating, issued in accordance with the FAR's,
> > and must be current for flight in instrument conditions, as defined by
> > the FAR's;
> >
> > iv. For night or actual instrument conditions, have logged a minimum
> > of 100 hours of instrument time, either actual or simulated; and
> >
> > v. Not withstanding the requirements in paragraph iv.), no
> > authorization will be granted for single engine aircraft night or
> > actual instrument conditions.
> >
> > 2) Whenever travel is approved under this policy, the employee shall
> > verify to the approving University officer that the pilot possesses a
> > medical certificate issued by a FAA designated medical examiner and a
> > biennial flight review within the preceding 2 years. The pilot will
> > show proof of instrument currency, as defined by current FAR's (See,
> > for example, FAR 61.57).
> >
> > 3) Employees wishing to use personally owned aircraft for travel on
> > official business must obtain liability insurance coverage in an
> > amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, and must include the
> > University of Wyoming as an "Additional Insured" on such policy. A
> > copy of an endorsement to the employee's policy reflecting the above
> > coverage, and a certificate of insurance issued to the University
> > shall be filed with the University's Risk Management Office and, by
> > reference, included on all purchase orders (Note: agent binder letters
> > are not acceptable).
> >
> > 4) Employees wishing to use leased, rented, borrowed, trade-out, or
> > other non-owned aircraft for official University travel must obtain
> > liability insurance coverage as described in paragraph 3) above, must
> > name the University as an "Additional Insured" on such policy, must
> > obtain adequate hull damage insurance to cover any possible loss of
> > the aircraft, and must provide documentation of such coverage as
> > required above.
>
>

[JerryK]

Actually it just says you can't fly a single engine aircraft in IFR or
night. Probably not a bad restriction for flying over the intermountain
west.

jerry

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> Wily Wapiti > wrote:
> > I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
> >think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
> >your own or rented plane on University business.
>
> That's a much longer way of saying essentially what the company I
> work for says: No piloting aircraft on company business.
>
> I do like the "must be instrument rated with 100 hours simulated or
> actual, BUT you're limited to day VFR anyway".
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:
> The more cowardly BS I see from these companies, the more I realize
> that I will only ever be happy with my own company.

Amen. I fly on business when I damned well please.

However, I have partners: I do not carry customers or employees with
me in defference to their worries about liability in the event of an
accident.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Gardner]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
insurance carrier.

Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.

Bob Gardner

"Wily Wapiti" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello.
> I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
> think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
> your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
> low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
> I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.
>
> WW
>
> UniReg 177-12d:
>
> (d) When approved in advance by the President, or designee, travel by
> privately owned, rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft may be
> authorized, subject to the following requirements:
>
> 1) When a University employee wishes to utilize a privately owned,
> rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft for official University travel
> (either with or without passengers), the pilot must, as a minimum
> requirement:
>
> i. Possess a current private pilot license issued in accordance with
> Federal Aviation Administration regulations (FAR's), appropriate to
> the craft to be flown, and must be in compliance with the currency
> requirements of said FAR's with respect to flight time, biennial
> flight review, and other requirements as appropriate to the ratings
> held;
>
> ii. Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of total flight time;
>
> iii. Have an instrument rating, issued in accordance with the FAR's,
> and must be current for flight in instrument conditions, as defined by
> the FAR's;
>
> iv. For night or actual instrument conditions, have logged a minimum
> of 100 hours of instrument time, either actual or simulated; and
>
> v. Not withstanding the requirements in paragraph iv.), no
> authorization will be granted for single engine aircraft night or
> actual instrument conditions.
>
> 2) Whenever travel is approved under this policy, the employee shall
> verify to the approving University officer that the pilot possesses a
> medical certificate issued by a FAA designated medical examiner and a
> biennial flight review within the preceding 2 years. The pilot will
> show proof of instrument currency, as defined by current FAR's (See,
> for example, FAR 61.57).
>
> 3) Employees wishing to use personally owned aircraft for travel on
> official business must obtain liability insurance coverage in an
> amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, and must include the
> University of Wyoming as an "Additional Insured" on such policy. A
> copy of an endorsement to the employee's policy reflecting the above
> coverage, and a certificate of insurance issued to the University
> shall be filed with the University's Risk Management Office and, by
> reference, included on all purchase orders (Note: agent binder letters
> are not acceptable).
>
> 4) Employees wishing to use leased, rented, borrowed, trade-out, or
> other non-owned aircraft for official University travel must obtain
> liability insurance coverage as described in paragraph 3) above, must
> name the University as an "Additional Insured" on such policy, must
> obtain adequate hull damage insurance to cover any possible loss of
> the aircraft, and must provide documentation of such coverage as
> required above.

[John Gaquin]

Sounds reasonable to me, given that their objective is to control the risk
to the University. Consider that once they turn you loose on approved
university business, even alone in a light single you have the capability of
bringing $50 million or more in litigation down on their head. I'd be damn
careful, too.

JG

"Wily Wapiti" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello.
> I thought I'd bounce these off the group

[John Harper]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
> insurance carrier.
>
> Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.

What does that mean? Does it mean they fire you if you fly yourself to
a business meeting, or just that they won't reimburse for it?

John

>

[Jay Honeck]

> Amen. I fly on business when I damned well please.

Same here.

It's one of the greatest benefits of owning your own business, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Nathan Young]

(Wily Wapiti) wrote in message >...
> Hello.
> I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
> think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
> your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
> low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
> I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.

Be happy you work for a govt institution. Every major company I've
come across is terrified of self-piloted GA (can you say liability),
and won't allow travel in that manner period.

Having said that, and at first glance, I thought the policy is overly
restrictive, especially the 100 hours min instrument time, plus the SE
night and SE IMC restriction. Then I remembered this was in reference
to Univ Wyoming. I suspect the latter two requirements are due to the
terrain of Wyoming. But let's not degenerate this thread into a SE vs
ME night/IMC thread...

-Nathan

[John Godwin]

(Nathan Young) wrote in
om:

> Be happy you work for a govt institution. Every major company I've
> come across is terrified of self-piloted GA (can you say liability),
> and won't allow travel in that manner period.

When I worked for IBM, the reimbursement policy was the greater of
airline coach fare or existing automobile mileage allowance plus tiedown
and landing fees. In either case, I could never even recoup fuel costs but
there were several meetings that I made and those that flew air carrier
couldn't.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[Rich]

I attended a lecture a couple years ago by Scott Crossfield, first man
to fly twice the speed of sound and the chief engineer and test pilot
for North American's X-15 program. When speaking about general
aviation, he had fond memories of his Beech Bonanza, but he was
annoyed that North American wouldn't let him use it on business - they
considered it too risky.

Rich


> That's a much longer way of saying essentially what the company I
> work for says: No piloting aircraft on company business.
>
> I do like the "must be instrument rated with 100 hours simulated or
> actual, BUT you're limited to day VFR anyway".

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harper wrote:
>
> > Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.
>
> What does that mean? Does it mean they fire you if you fly yourself to
> a business meeting, or just that they won't reimburse for it?

It can go either way. My former employer simply wouldn't pay for it.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Harper wrote:
> >
> > > Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial
air.
> >
> > What does that mean? Does it mean they fire you if you fly yourself to
> > a business meeting, or just that they won't reimburse for it?
>
> It can go either way. My former employer simply wouldn't pay for it.
>
My present employer "demands" it...matter of fact, he's in the left seat.
:~)

[Tom S.]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.44...
> (Nathan Young) wrote in
> om:
>
> > Be happy you work for a govt institution. Every major company I've
> > come across is terrified of self-piloted GA (can you say liability),
> > and won't allow travel in that manner period.
>
> When I worked for IBM, the reimbursement policy was the greater of
> airline coach fare or existing automobile mileage allowance plus tiedown
> and landing fees. In either case, I could never even recoup fuel costs
but
> there were several meetings that I made and those that flew air carrier
> couldn't.

What was IBM paying for the exec's Lear and Gulfstream expenses?

[Bob Gardner]

There is no comprehensive answer to your question because it is determined
by each company on a case-by-case basis. I'm pretty sure that if they had an
unequivocal statement in their employment contracts that travel would be
only by car or commercial carrier, flying in a light aircraft would be
grounds for dismissal. A less stringent sanction would be refusal to
compensate, as you suggest, or compensate at the automobile rate. I'm
neither a lawyer nor an insurance agent.

Back in the 60s I owned a 175, and my employer was delighted at the way I
covered my territory and reimbursed me at the automobile rate. It took only
one trip, with a fellow employee on board, that ran into severe weather
problems and caused delays, to have my employer pull the plug on using my
own airplane. I wasn't there much longer.

Bob Gardner

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1061514219.442569@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
> > Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
> > insurance carrier.
> >
> > Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.
>
> What does that mean? Does it mean they fire you if you fly yourself to
> a business meeting, or just that they won't reimburse for it?
>
> John
>
> >
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54>, "Bob Gardner"
> wrote:

> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
> insurance carrier.

since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
flying?

>
> Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.

which doesn't make this one reasonable.

--
Bob Noel

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54>, "Bob Gardner"
> > wrote:
>
> > Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
> > insurance carrier.
>
> since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
> flying?
>

They are basically saying that the University is not to have its employees
traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident rate
(more than 10x) than commercial flying.


> >
> > Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.
>
> which doesn't make this one reasonable.

See above.

> --
> Bob Noel

[Ted Huffmire]

My employer's medical insurance policy states
"This policy does not cover loss caused by or
resulting from, nor is any premium charged for
expenses arising from riding in any aircraft
other than as a fare-paying passenger on a
regularly scheduled flight of an aircraft
licensed for the transportation of passengers."

But, if I were in a commercial airline crash,
they would probably still deny the claim
since the airline is responsible for any
medical bills anyhow.

Insurance companies can always make the argument
that any medical
bills are your own fault since many conditions
are preventable to some degree.

Ted

Wily Wapiti wrote:
>
> Hello.
> I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
> think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
> your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
> low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
> I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.
>
> WW
>
> UniReg 177-12d:
>
> (d) When approved in advance by the President, or designee, travel by
> privately owned, rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft may be
> authorized, subject to the following requirements:
>
> 1) When a University employee wishes to utilize a privately owned,
> rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft for official University travel
> (either with or without passengers), the pilot must, as a minimum
> requirement:
>
> i. Possess a current private pilot license issued in accordance with
> Federal Aviation Administration regulations (FAR's), appropriate to
> the craft to be flown, and must be in compliance with the currency
> requirements of said FAR's with respect to flight time, biennial
> flight review, and other requirements as appropriate to the ratings
> held;
>
> ii. Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of total flight time;
>
> iii. Have an instrument rating, issued in accordance with the FAR's,
> and must be current for flight in instrument conditions, as defined by
> the FAR's;
>
> iv. For night or actual instrument conditions, have logged a minimum
> of 100 hours of instrument time, either actual or simulated; and
>
> v. Not withstanding the requirements in paragraph iv.), no
> authorization will be granted for single engine aircraft night or
> actual instrument conditions.
>
> 2) Whenever travel is approved under this policy, the employee shall
> verify to the approving University officer that the pilot possesses a
> medical certificate issued by a FAA designated medical examiner and a
> biennial flight review within the preceding 2 years. The pilot will
> show proof of instrument currency, as defined by current FAR's (See,
> for example, FAR 61.57).
>
> 3) Employees wishing to use personally owned aircraft for travel on
> official business must obtain liability insurance coverage in an
> amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, and must include the
> University of Wyoming as an "Additional Insured" on such policy. A
> copy of an endorsement to the employee's policy reflecting the above
> coverage, and a certificate of insurance issued to the University
> shall be filed with the University's Risk Management Office and, by
> reference, included on all purchase orders (Note: agent binder letters
> are not acceptable).
>
> 4) Employees wishing to use leased, rented, borrowed, trade-out, or
> other non-owned aircraft for official University travel must obtain
> liability insurance coverage as described in paragraph 3) above, must
> name the University as an "Additional Insured" on such policy, must
> obtain adequate hull damage insurance to cover any possible loss of
> the aircraft, and must provide documentation of such coverage as
> required above.

[Ted Huffmire]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>
> They are basically saying that the University is not to have its employees
> traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident rate
> (more than 10x) than commercial flying.
>

Absolutely. If you consider private pilots it's probably
even worse than the overall GA accident rate.

[Bob Noel]

In article t>, "Mike
Rapoport" > wrote:

> > > Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the
> > > University's
> > > insurance carrier.
> >
> > since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
> > flying?
>
> They are basically saying that the University is not to have its
> employees
> traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident
> rate
> (more than 10x) than commercial flying.

Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
commercial flying, my question remains open.


> > > Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial
> > > air.
> >
> > which doesn't make this one reasonable.
>
> See above.

ditto.


Another way to look at it: If commercial flying sets the standard,
than why is use of a car, bus, or train allowed but not non-commercial
flying? Is the University policy to use the lowest cost, most
expeditious (sp?), or safest method of travel?

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:
> Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
> of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
> commercial flying, my question remains open.

There is no alternative, in many cases, to travel by car - it would be
impossible for the university to forbid it. That is not true for private
flying.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Rick Durden]

Wily,

That's acutally a pretty reasonable policy, especially for country as
difficult as Wyoming. The total time requirement is half what it is
for some other companies I've looked at, and the insurance is doable.
The only question I have is that prohibiting single engine actual IFR
tends to work in reverse, causing pilots to scud run rather than make
a perfectly safe IFR flight. That policy has lead to the loss of
several CAF airplanes and pilots.

Given that universities have had some pretty horrendous losses with
employees flying on business, I'm a little surprised the policy you
quoted is as resonable as it is. I keep thinking of the UCLA employee
who was flying his airplane on business in the early '80s. He was
VFR, not talking to anyone and flew into what is now called Class D
airspace and had a midair with a military Boeing 717 (KC-135), killing
everyone in both airplanes. The university employee was at fault and,
as I recall, the university paid pretty heavily in the ensuing suits.

General aviation has a lousy accident rate when the airplanes are not
flown by professional pilots, and it also suffers from a poor public
perception of safety, so a lot of businesses don't allow personal
flying. I suspect someone at the University of Wyoming was very
determined to fly his own airplane and pushed very hard for the policy
you quoted.

All the best,
Rick

(Wily Wapiti) wrote in message >...
> Hello.
> I thought I'd bounce these off the group and see what people
> think. These are the UniRegs at the University of Wyoming for flying
> your own or rented plane on University business. I feel, as a
> low-time private pilot that they are overly restrictive, but I thought
> I'd see what the sage pelicans here thought.
>
> WW
>
> UniReg 177-12d:
>
> (d) When approved in advance by the President, or designee, travel by
> privately owned, rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft may be
> authorized, subject to the following requirements:
>
> 1) When a University employee wishes to utilize a privately owned,
> rented, trade-out, or loaned aircraft for official University travel
> (either with or without passengers), the pilot must, as a minimum
> requirement:
>
> i. Possess a current private pilot license issued in accordance with
> Federal Aviation Administration regulations (FAR's), appropriate to
> the craft to be flown, and must be in compliance with the currency
> requirements of said FAR's with respect to flight time, biennial
> flight review, and other requirements as appropriate to the ratings
> held;
>
> ii. Have logged a minimum of 500 hours of total flight time;
>
> iii. Have an instrument rating, issued in accordance with the FAR's,
> and must be current for flight in instrument conditions, as defined by
> the FAR's;
>
> iv. For night or actual instrument conditions, have logged a minimum
> of 100 hours of instrument time, either actual or simulated; and
>
> v. Not withstanding the requirements in paragraph iv.), no
> authorization will be granted for single engine aircraft night or
> actual instrument conditions.
>
> 2) Whenever travel is approved under this policy, the employee shall
> verify to the approving University officer that the pilot possesses a
> medical certificate issued by a FAA designated medical examiner and a
> biennial flight review within the preceding 2 years. The pilot will
> show proof of instrument currency, as defined by current FAR's (See,
> for example, FAR 61.57).
>
> 3) Employees wishing to use personally owned aircraft for travel on
> official business must obtain liability insurance coverage in an
> amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, and must include the
> University of Wyoming as an "Additional Insured" on such policy. A
> copy of an endorsement to the employee's policy reflecting the above
> coverage, and a certificate of insurance issued to the University
> shall be filed with the University's Risk Management Office and, by
> reference, included on all purchase orders (Note: agent binder letters
> are not acceptable).
>
> 4) Employees wishing to use leased, rented, borrowed, trade-out, or
> other non-owned aircraft for official University travel must obtain
> liability insurance coverage as described in paragraph 3) above, must
> name the University as an "Additional Insured" on such policy, must
> obtain adequate hull damage insurance to cover any possible loss of
> the aircraft, and must provide documentation of such coverage as
> required above.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, "Mike
> Rapoport" > wrote:
>
> > > > Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the
> > > > University's
> > > > insurance carrier.
> > >
> > > since when do insurance carriers make "reasonable" policies wrt
> > > flying?
> >
> > They are basically saying that the University is not to have its
> > employees
> > traveling by air in a manner that has a vastly greater fatal accident
> > rate
> > (more than 10x) than commercial flying.
>
> Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
> of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
> commercial flying, my question remains open.
>

Trains and cars are still over 10x safer than GA aircraft flown by
non-professional pilots.

Mike
MU-2

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
> Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
> insurance carrier.
>
Not necessarily. Frequently it's the sign of an overly conservative risk management
department. Margy is forbidden from even mentioning Young Eagles to her students.
There's no insurance carrier involved, just a overly anal-retentive risk managment
department.

[Ron Natalie]

"John Harper" > wrote in message news:1061514219.442569@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
> > Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
> > insurance carrier.
> >
> > Many institutions/companys flat out forbid travel by non-commercial air.
>
> What does that mean? Does it mean they fire you if you fly yourself to
> a business meeting, or just that they won't reimburse for it?

It means that they don't authorize it and may take some sanction against you
if you do. They are at risk, just as they are if you walk or drive on company
business. I had it out with my former companies managment over issues with
car insurance. Again, it had nothing to do with real risk and or legal liability
issues but some putz's idea of how he could insert the company in the personal
business of their employees (told him it was none of his freaking business about
what insurance I carried on my car, if I was travelling on business they'd better
insure the company interests).

[Ron Natalie]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:ncf1b.220551$Ho3.28819@sccrnsc03...

> Back in the 60s I owned a 175, and my employer was delighted at the way I
> covered my territory and reimbursed me at the automobile rate. It took only
> one trip, with a fellow employee on board, that ran into severe weather
> problems and caused delays, to have my employer pull the plug on using my
> own airplane. I wasn't there much longer.

The Army would reimburse private airtravel at the POV (automotive) rates provided
we got our division chief to sign off on it being "more advantageous to the government"
than other modes of travel. Actually, you needed the same sign off to drive your
car on government business. Of course, it wasn't hard to prove that personal car
travel was more advantageous as the alternative was to go out and rent a car
instead (We used to do this).

[Ron Natalie]

"Ted Huffmire" > wrote in message ...

>
> Absolutely. If you consider private pilots it's probably
> even worse than the overall GA accident rate.

I don't think private pilots alone make much of a difference. I've never
heard of an insurer giving a hoot over private versus commercial certificates.
Instrument ratings and pilot time seem to be the dominating yardsticks for
risk.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ted Huffmire" > wrote in message ...
> My employer's medical insurance policy states
> "This policy does not cover loss caused by or
> resulting from, nor is any premium charged for
> expenses arising from riding in any aircraft
> other than as a fare-paying passenger on a
> regularly scheduled flight of an aircraft
> licensed for the transportation of passengers."

This is common. But it's immaterial to the issue. If you
were to injure yourself flying on company business, you
could sue and would probably prevail for medical expense
reimbursement. It happens all the time with car accidents.

> Insurance companies can always make the argument
> that any medical
> bills are your own fault since many conditions
> are preventable to some degree.

Just because an insurance company won't pay, doesn't
mean your employer can't be held liable.

[James Robinson]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
> of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
> commercial flying, my question remains open.

Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
all.

Looking at auto travel, the overall statistics show that it is something
like 10 times riskier than commercial airline travel, however, there are
refinements one should take into account.

In the case of commercial air travel, most accidents are during takeoff
and climbout, or during landing. That affects the statistics in that the
longer the trip, the safer air appears to be. Conversely, the shorter
the trip, the riskier it is to fly. Also, automobiles using interstate
highways are something like 4 times as safe as those driving on city
streets or secondary roads.

Therefore, since you wouldn't look to an airline for a 25 mile trip, and
you wouldn't likely drive on a transcontinental trip, you really have to
restrict the comparison to trips that are competitive between the two
options. If you only look at statistics for automobiles on interstates
compared to short airline trips, you will find that the risk is about
the same for trips of around 300 to 500 miles. Autos are safer for
shorter trips, and airlines for longer. If you look at non-scheduled
commercial service, or GA in comparison, you will find they are
substantially riskier.

The universities have learned the hard way that they are exposed to
substantial liability and risk if GA or commercial charters are used.
The university becomes the "deep pocket" without the insulation of a
large scheduled airline, when the lawyers are looking for someone to
sue. There have been a number of very public accidents involving their
sports teams, where the standards of the commercial operators were quite
poor. This includes everything from pilot experience and training,
checkrides, maintenance of equipment, through barebones
instrumentation.

Just recently there was a Kingair accident, which involved a U of
Oklahoma sports team, where a two person flight crew lost spatial
orientation within a minute after an AC power failure affected their
instruments, even though they had a working AI. Not something you would
expect from IFR-rated commercial pilots. Questions arose about
everything from pilot training and experience, aircraft maintenance,
cockpit resource management, and in general the university's policies on
charter travel.

The universities have reacted by establishing tight regulations for
traveling on any aircraft other than commercial airlines. Most large
companies have similar policies for exactly the same reasons.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Ah, thanks, I was looking for the appropriate wording for my company policy.


"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Here's my company's policy:
>
> *************
>
> Employee's holding at least a Private Pilot license are permitted and
> encouraged to use personally owned or rented aircraft for transportation
on
> company business whenever the flight can be made in compliance with FAA
> regulations and is covered by appropriate insurance.
>
> All costs such as fuel and aircraft rental will be fully reimbursed.
>
> Employees will be given paid time off when ever work load permits for the
> purpose of flight training and practice to enhance the safety of their
> flying or just to improve their moral, productivity, and give them a
better
> outlook on life.
>
> Time spent reading aviation magazines, corresponding with other pilots on
> Usenet newsgroups, or otherwise thinking about flying during working hours
> will be considered a positive contribution to productivity as long as
> productions schedules are met and other work does not suffer.
>
> If the sky is clear and the winds are calm, we won't ask why your desk is
> empty.
>
> *************
>
> Of course, I'm a one man operation and I get to make all the rules.
>
> I love my boss:)
>
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message ...

> Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
> Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
> travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
> passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
> commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
> all.

Of course, fatality isn't really the driving factor in the corporate liability.
Being disabled on company business is probably going to cost them more.

[John Harper]

> I had a friend ask risk management this very question. The response
> was, basically, that they can't stop you, but you aren't covered by
> University insurance.

Kind of what I suspected, so it's really a CYA thing. My company seems to be
similar.

John

>
> The reimbursement is more of a grey area; it kind of depends on if you
> have a cool accountant or not.
>
> WW

[Mike Rapoport]

"Wily Wapiti" > wrote in message
om...
> Another point on this:
> What really gets me, is that I could probably become a commercial,
> Part 135 operator in far fewer hours than the University minimums
> required for flying myself. I could then charter flights back to the
> U and fly paying customers (perfectly legal according to another reg).
> In fact, the University owns and flys a King Air, a Conquest, and a
> couple of other passenger planes, and I believe a pilot would qualify
> for these jobs before being able to fly himself legally on business in
> a piston single.
>
> WW

Why don'y you find out? My guess is that the university is employing
professional pilots, paying for annual recurrent sim training ext.

Mike
MU-2

[RevDMV]

I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights. I'm not sure if that will
change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.

Again the only real level of freedom is your own busines. With risk
comes reward.

[John Galban]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...

> The more cowardly BS I see from these companies, the more I realize that I
> will only ever be happy with my own company.

And when you do own your own company, will you happily accept the
liability for your employees to fly their own planes on company
business? One accident could wipe you out.

I don't know if I'd call these companies "cowardly". In today's
legal environment, they're merely covering their butts. I can
certainly understand why.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Tom S.]

"RevDMV" > wrote in message
m...
> I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
> I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
> aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights.

What do their executives fly on?

> I'm not sure if that will
> change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.

The big difference is "COST". They'll gladly spend $5 a mile for an
executive, but want to reimburse 30 cents for other peons.

[Dan Luke]

"John Galban" wrote:
> And when you do own your own company, will you happily accept the
> liability for your employees to fly their own planes on company
> business? One accident could wipe you out.

One auto accident could wipe me out, too. It is something I take very
seriously; I have fired an otherwise good employee for driving
infractions. But your question is valid. If one of my employees became
a pilot, I believe I would permit him to fly on business. The only
restriction I can think of off-hand: no passengers.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[JerryK]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
> > Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
> > travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
> > passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
> > commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
> > all.
>
> Of course, fatality isn't really the driving factor in the corporate
liability.
> Being disabled on company business is probably going to cost them more.
>
>

The worse thing would be for you to injury or kill somebody else while on
company business.

[JerryK]

That is suprising since Toyota bought the AirFlite FBO in Long Beach for
executive transport.

"RevDMV" > wrote in message
m...
> I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
> I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
> aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights. I'm not sure if that will
> change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.
>
> Again the only real level of freedom is your own busines. With risk
> comes reward.

[JerryK]

Sounds like the way to go. I wish my employer had a King Air, Conquest or
something else for which I could try to get qualified..

jerry

"Wily Wapiti" > wrote in message
om...
> Another point on this:
> What really gets me, is that I could probably become a commercial,
> Part 135 operator in far fewer hours than the University minimums
> required for flying myself. I could then charter flights back to the
> U and fly paying customers (perfectly legal according to another reg).
> In fact, the University owns and flys a King Air, a Conquest, and a
> couple of other passenger planes, and I believe a pilot would qualify
> for these jobs before being able to fly himself legally on business in
> a piston single.
>
> WW

[Peter Gottlieb]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > The more cowardly BS I see from these companies, the more I realize that
I
> > will only ever be happy with my own company.
>
> And when you do own your own company, will you happily accept the
> liability for your employees to fly their own planes on company
> business? One accident could wipe you out.

I can also get killed crossing the street. Actually I do own my own company
and I let my people travel any way they choose.

> I don't know if I'd call these companies "cowardly". In today's
> legal environment, they're merely covering their butts. I can
> certainly understand why.

I can understand why also, it's just that I don't bow to such restrictions.

[John Gaquin]

> ... I could probably become a commercial,
> Part 135 operator in far fewer hours than the University minimums
> required for flying myself.

Can you become a Part 135 operator with a Private certificate, 500 hours and
an Instrument rating?

> ...the University owns and flys a King Air, a Conquest, and a
> couple of other passenger planes, and I believe a pilot would qualify
> for these jobs before being able to fly himself legally on business in

Can you qualify for a job on a KA or Conquest with a Private certificate,
500 hours and an Instrument rating?

Did I miss something?

JG

[John Gaquin]

"Tom S." > wrote in message news:Bew1b.68
>
> The big difference is "COST". They'll gladly spend $5 a mile for an
> executive, but want to reimburse 30 cents for other peons.
>
>

When your time is worth $3000/hour on their books, they might talk to you
about a G-V charter.

JG

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "RevDMV" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
> > I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
> > aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights.
>
> What do their executives fly on?
>
> > I'm not sure if that will
> > change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.
>
> The big difference is "COST". They'll gladly spend $5 a mile for an
> executive, but want to reimburse 30 cents for other peons.
>

That is because a jet makes economic sense when you are sending several
people who collectively cost $5000/hr and a corporate jet has about the same
risk as commercial air travel. Neither apply to having a lower wage,
private pilot employee fly himself.

A business exists to make money for its owners, not to accommadate the
hobbies and passions of its employees.

Mike
MU-2

[Gerry Caron]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> The Army would reimburse private airtravel at the POV (automotive) rates
provided
> we got our division chief to sign off on it being "more advantageous to
the government"
> than other modes of travel. Actually, you needed the same sign off to
drive your
> car on government business. Of course, it wasn't hard to prove that
personal car
> travel was more advantageous as the alternative was to go out and rent a
car
> instead (We used to do this).
>
The AF was the same way -- If you were flying *your* airplane. Problem was
that the TDY mileage rate wouldn't come close to covering your true
expenses. OTOH, if you rented a plane (typically from the aero club), they
considered it a "hired vehicle" and paid the full amount of the rental,
tiedowns, etc. up to the cost of the commercial airline ticket. And you
could use all travelers in your cost justification, so with two traveling
you could almost always cover the entire cost of the rental.

[Tom S.]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "RevDMV" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
> > > I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
> > > aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights.
> >
> > What do their executives fly on?
> >
> > > I'm not sure if that will
> > > change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.
> >
> > The big difference is "COST". They'll gladly spend $5 a mile for an
> > executive, but want to reimburse 30 cents for other peons.
> >
>
> That is because a jet makes economic sense when you are sending several
> people who collectively cost $5000/hr and a corporate jet has about the
same
> risk as commercial air travel.

Yes...I know; I've known it for a long time. But $5000 is a lot for a few
hookers :~)

> Neither apply to having a lower wage,
> private pilot employee fly himself.
>
> A business exists to make money for its owners, not to accommadate the
> hobbies and passions of its employees.

How that last relates to the subject I'll have to figure out.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > A business exists to make money for its owners, not to accommadate the
> > hobbies and passions of its employees.
>
> How that last relates to the subject I'll have to figure out.
>

Think about it.

Mike
MU-2

[John Godwin]

"Tom S." > wrote in
:

> What was IBM paying for the exec's Lear and Gulfstream expenses?
>

I'm not sure since the execs didn't own those particular aircraft. I don't
believe they got any operating reimbursements for flights taken in company
aircraft.

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[John Galban]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > > The more cowardly BS I see from these companies, the more I realize that
> I
> > > will only ever be happy with my own company.
> >
> > And when you do own your own company, will you happily accept the
> > liability for your employees to fly their own planes on company
> > business? One accident could wipe you out.
>
> I can also get killed crossing the street. Actually I do own my own company
> and I let my people travel any way they choose.

Are your "people" directly employed by your company and is the
business travel directly related to the business (not to-from work)?
I can't believe you'd have no restrictions whatsoever, as you imply
above. If an employee is a low-time VFR PPL you wouldn't mind if he
headed of to a job site in a complex single in marginal weather?
Granted, that's an extreme example, but it's the reason that most
companies have risk-management departments that issue draconian
restrictions. Given the current litigious climate (particularly in
aviation matters), you have to see a substantial benefit to private
flying on company business to justify the risk.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[David Lesher]

Dave Touretzky did a lot of work on his employer, a large university.

<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/dst/public/flying/ga-travel-policy.txt>


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
<c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote:

> > Given that the University will allow travel by car or train, both
> > of which also have a vastly greater fatal accident rate than
> > commercial flying, my question remains open.
>
> There is no alternative, in many cases, to travel by car - it would be
> impossible for the university to forbid it. That is not true for private
> flying.

by "car" I was assuming the employee driving his own car.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom S."
> wrote:

> > A business exists to make money for its owners, not to accommadate the
> > hobbies and passions of its employees.
>
> How that last relates to the subject I'll have to figure out.

How it could not be obvious eludes me.

--
Bob Noel

[RevDMV]

Interesting, I know that last week they sent out an email to reafirm
the standard policy that prohibited chartered flights.

There are multiple Toyota afilliated(support) companies this could one
of those and they might have a different policy.

"JerryK" > wrote in message >...
> That is suprising since Toyota bought the AirFlite FBO in Long Beach for
> executive transport.
>
> "RevDMV" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I agree with Rick, and others here, that is a most reasonable policy.
> > I do work for Toyota and GM, and you can't fly on GA, or chartered
> > aircraft. Only scheduled airline flights. I'm not sure if that will
> > change when when/if they decided to build GA aircraft.
> >
> > Again the only real level of freedom is your own busines. With risk
> > comes reward.

[Casey Wilson]

I once had an employer who would not authorize me to fly business trips
because "I don't think single engine airplanes are safe." His point was he
was protecting me. Not much I could do about it. Quitting wasn't an option.
I needed the $$ more than time in the log book. It's all a matter of
priorities, isn't it?