Official FAA position on 'Furtherance of business'?

[Captain Wubba]

Hello. Just reviewing the new 'Sport Pilot' regs for their
implications to me as a CFI. Looks like in 61.315(c), the FAA has kept
the unfortunate limitation on being PIC of an aircraft 'in furtherance
of a business' that they had on Recreational Pilots.

Does anyone know of any 'official' FAA definition of this term? I
looked in FAR 1.1, and couldn't find anything specific. I've talked
with other CFIs about this and (surprise) there seems to be a
difference of opinions about this. I think CFIs are like
economists...put two CFIs in a room together and you end up with three
contradictory opinions.

My interpretation of this means that the flight itself may not be for
the specific purpose of furthering a business, but that an
'incidental' activity at the destination related to the business is
legal. For instance, I'm a sport pilot and fly to a destination to see
a friend of mine who I also do business with. We play golf (the
primary reason for the trip), but 'talk' some business during the golf
match. The *purpose* of the trip was to play social golf with a
friend, but the fact that we are playing golf and talking business may
further my business. I can't imagine the FAA expects me to tell my
partner "We can talk about anything else, but since I flew here, we
can't talk about business."

One CFI I talked to said basically that he thinks that the FAA expects
*precisely* that. The that limitation precludes the exercise of the
certificate for *any* flight where there is a reasonable expectation
that business may be furthered as any result of that flight.

I know this seems like splitting hairs, but many people have had
'interesting' experiences with the FAA because of misunderstandings or
differences of opinions like this.

So...doees anyone know of any enforcement actions or letters of
interpretation where the FAA directly and specifically commented on
this issue?

Cheers,

Cap

[Peter Duniho]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> One CFI I talked to said basically that he thinks that the FAA expects
> *precisely* that. The that limitation precludes the exercise of the
> certificate for *any* flight where there is a reasonable expectation
> that business may be furthered as any result of that flight.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA would agree with that CFI, at least
not on the basis of the conversation alone. Just because you discussed
business in the airplane, that does not mean that the airplane contributed
to the furtherance of the business. The word "furtherance" implies that the
aircraft somehow contributed to the business in a unique way, in a way that
could not have been accomplished without the aircraft.

Things that might be in "furtherance" of a business: flight demonstration of
an aircraft as part of a sales effort; a real estate agenet showing
potential buyers property from the air; aerial photography; traffic
reporting; and yes, carriage of passengers to a business meeting elsewhere.

Of course in the "flight to a golf game" scenario, the FAA would undoubtedly
look closely at your relationship with the person in question. Friends and
business occasionally mix, but usually the parties are either primarily
friends, with very little business dealing, or business partners, with a
little social interaction thrown in. If it turned out that you had very
little reason to interact with the person, other than due to a business
relationship, they very well could find that discussing business in the
airplane, or even just the golf trip itself, constituted "furtherance of
business".

That said, I'm not terribly concerned about the potential for restriction.
An outright prohibition on "furtherance of business" exists only for sport
and recreational pilots, certificates that are very clearly intended for a
very narrow kind of flying and which are intentionally designed to greatly
limit the number and type of passengers that the pilot might carry. Banning
carriage of a "business plus golf partner" seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The FAA has a clear history of eliminating grey areas through interpreting
the regulations to take the most strict meaning possible. I don't think
this would be any different.

Pete

[Base194]

>> One CFI I talked to said basically that he thinks that the FAA expects
*precisely* that. The that limitation precludes the exercise of the certificate
for *any* flight where there is a reasonable expectation
that business may be furthered as any result of that flight.<<

Sheesh . . .

Take-off, fly, and land, and that's the end of the FAAs jurisdiction. If you
then conduct business at your destination it's none of their concern. That
business has nothing to do with the conveyance that got you there.

You don't sign away your rights as an American citizen just because of some
ticket the feds issue . . .

Nick

[Peter Duniho]

"Base194" > wrote in message
...
> Take-off, fly, and land, and that's the end of the FAAs jurisdiction. If
you
> then conduct business at your destination it's none of their concern. That
> business has nothing to do with the conveyance that got you there.

Yes, it does (in certain circumstances), if you are the holder of a
recreational or sport pilot certificate.

> You don't sign away your rights as an American citizen just because of
some
> ticket the feds issue . . .

No one said you do. What rights do you claim to have been "signed away"?

Pete

[C J Campbell]

If that CFI is correct then you also could not conduct business when you
returned home, because you had flown home.

That said, the issue has not come up much previously, because the only
people who could not fly in furtherance of a business were student pilots
and recreational pilots. A student pilot who conducted flight in furtherance
of a business likely would have his solo endorsement revoked by his
instructor and that would be the end of it. He would have a tough time
explaining it to his next instructor.

I think the FAA would be concerned if you were making regular business trips
as a sport pilot, especially if you were carrying employees or delivering
supplies or customer orders. I doubt very much the FAA will hang you for
talking about business with your partner while you are up at some mountain
lodge unless the bulk of the time was spent discussing business.

Usually the issue comes up the other way. Someone wants to deduct his
business travel and has to show that the flight was in furtherance of a
business, or they are trying to avoid some state tax on non-business
aircraft. In that case the respondent has had to show documentation for the
business purpose of the travel, usually by showing that he carried employees
or other items for the business and that this was the main reason for
getting an airplane.

If you are deducting your airplane or seeking some other business tax
advantage it might be very hard for you to then tell the FAA that your
flights were not in furtherance of a business.