Companies Allowing Employees to Fly

[Steve - KDMW]

Question...

I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
liability in the matter.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Steve
CP - ASEL/IA
PA28-151
N43291

[Roy Smith]

"Steve - KDMW" > wrote:

> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

The difference is probably that they're insured when you're in your car but
not when you're in an airplane.

Another difference is that they understand and are comfortable with the
risks of you being in your car, but they don't understand the risks of you
being in an airplane.

They could gain an understanding of the risks. They could meet with their
insurance carrier, and their lawyers, and look carefully at the issue to
better understand exactly what their liability exposure is. This would
take time and money, and be of no benefit to them.

[ktbr]

Steve - KDMW wrote:
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

I believe what they are worried about is if you crashed into a
house or something that other people would sue your company. It
happens all the time and what they don't realize is that they
are also just as easily sued if you ran into someone with your car.

In this day and age people sue other people at the drop of a hat.
A plane crash is just more 'spectacular' for a lawyer because they
can play many angles (generally ignorance and envy) and end up
with a much bigger pot o'gold.

If it were me I'd just fly anyway, screw 'em. I hate driving.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Steve - KDMW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>
> Steve
> CP - ASEL/IA
> PA28-151
> N43291
>

There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban covered
employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.

[John Theune]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Steve - KDMW" > wrote:
>
>> Question...
>>
>> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
>> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
>> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
>> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
>> liability in the matter.
>>
>> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
>> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>
> The difference is probably that they're insured when you're in your car but
> not when you're in an airplane.
>
> Another difference is that they understand and are comfortable with the
> risks of you being in your car, but they don't understand the risks of you
> being in an airplane.
>
> They could gain an understanding of the risks. They could meet with their
> insurance carrier, and their lawyers, and look carefully at the issue to
> better understand exactly what their liability exposure is. This would
> take time and money, and be of no benefit to them.
Actually I would argue that it is of tremendous benefit to the company
because they can get a lot more work out of their worker if he does not
spend time on the road butter rather doing what he is paid for. That's
the argument I would use.

PS It did not work for me :(

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Steve - KDMW" > wrote:

> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Back in the late 1980's-early 1990's, (I think it was National Business
Aircraft Association) had a packet available for just this purpose. It
outlined how to approach your management and counter their arguements
against allowing individuals to use personal aircraft. One of the items
was to include the business as a named insured on the owners policy and
also included some insurance guidelines.
You might contact them and see if such a packet is still available.

[David Lesher]

Dave Touretzky won this battle in an academic environment;
I suspect you can find his writeup.


--
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

[Robert M. Gary]

If you work for a large company is probably going to be imposible
unless they already have a policy to allow it. For me, I could buy a
$50 million dollar liability policy and it would still be no where near
enough for my company. On the other hand, if you work for a very small
company you should be able to just add the company to your policy and
it may provide enough coverage for them. The more valuable the company,
the more insurance they should ask for.

Robert, CFII

Steve - KDMW wrote:
> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>
> Steve
> CP - ASEL/IA
> PA28-151
> N43291

[Robert M. Gary]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Steve - KDMW" > wrote in message
>> There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban covered
> employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.

True, and Worker's Comp is just the begining. Try looking into general
liability policies. If your company normally has $10 million in
liability when you're driving the rental car, they'll need at least
that for the plane. Now try to find that coverage for a C-172.

-Robert

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Steve - KDMW wrote:

> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>
> Steve
> CP - ASEL/IA
> PA28-151
> N43291
>

When I worked for Texas Instruments we had a specific policy AGAINST it.
I had several occasions that would have been nice. When Raytheon bought
the defense business of TI, I checked the policy and we COULD use
personal aircraft. But, then again, Raytheon owns Beech.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[[email protected]]

Hewlett Packard used to allow it when the president was a pilot
and the executive suite was mostly rated. Took IR and 3 million
smooth policy. Try buying that sometime.

There were two categories: Company benefit and personal benefit.

On personal, you could only have members of you family on board.

Long since gone. Carly flew too, but on a different scale :-\

Bill Hale


Ross Richardson wrote:
> Steve - KDMW wrote:
>
> > Question...
> >
> > I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> > work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> > company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> > they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> > liability in the matter.
> >
> > Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> > my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> > difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> > example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
> >
> > Steve
> > CP - ASEL/IA
> > PA28-151
> > N43291
> >
>
> When I worked for Texas Instruments we had a specific policy AGAINST it.
> I had several occasions that would have been nice. When Raytheon bought
> the defense business of TI, I checked the policy and we COULD use
> personal aircraft. But, then again, Raytheon owns Beech.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> KSWI

[Ron Natalie]

Ross Richardson wrote:

>
> When I worked for Texas Instruments we had a specific policy AGAINST it.
> I had several occasions that would have been nice. When Raytheon bought
> the defense business of TI, I checked the policy and we COULD use
> personal aircraft. But, then again, Raytheon owns Beech.
>

Yeah, I'll let you know. Textron (Cessna, Lycoming, Bell Helicopters)
just announced they are buying my company.

[wise purchaser]

Steve - KDMW wrote:
> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>
> Steve
> CP - ASEL/IA
> PA28-151
> N43291

If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
**** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!

You have some sort of problem using YOUR car you may find yourself
with out ANY coverage at all!!! everyone WILL BAIL on you!! your
insurance and THEIRS! don't be stupid CHECK IT OUT! in America it's
EVERY FAMILY FOR ITSELF NOW!

Many people have been SHAFTED and have lost everything thinking they
are covered!

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Steve - KDMW" > wrote:

> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

fwiw, the MITRE corporation does allow the use of small aircraft.
Prior permission is required (at some Officer level) and naming
the company on your insurance (of at least $1,000,000). I've only
been able to arrange to use an airplane 4 times for business travel
(the first three before I owned my airplane).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Ron Natalie]

wise purchaser wrote:

>
> If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
> covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
> insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
> **** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!

You're confusing the issue. The first is whether you have any
liability if you are travelling on company business and have an
accident.

However, the issue we were discussing is whether the company has
liability (and they most certainly do whether you are walking,
driving, or flying).

[.Blueskies.]

"Steve - KDMW" > wrote in message oups.com...
: Question...
:
: I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
: work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
: company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
: they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
: liability in the matter.
:
: Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
: my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
: difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
: example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
:
: Steve
: CP - ASEL/IA
: PA28-151
: N43291
:

The company I work for will not allow use of a personal aircraft for company business. Also, they provide a life
insurance policy for all employees, and you guessed it, it will not pay if you die in a private plane. You can die in a
motorcycle crash, but not a light plane. Makes no sense....

[[email protected]]

..Blueskies. > wrote:

> "Steve - KDMW" > wrote in message oups.com...
> : Question...
> :
> : I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> : work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> : company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> : they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> : liability in the matter.
> :
> : Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> : my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> : difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> : example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
> :
> : Steve
> : CP - ASEL/IA
> : PA28-151
> : N43291
> :

> The company I work for will not allow use of a personal aircraft for company business. Also, they provide a life
> insurance policy for all employees, and you guessed it, it will not pay if you die in a private plane. You can die in a
> motorcycle crash, but not a light plane. Makes no sense....

Of course it does, airplanes are scary, but at least they are not as
scary as my .22 target pistol...

Common sense is not very common in this day and age.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[wise purchaser]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> wise purchaser wrote:
>
> >
> > If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
> > covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
> > insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
> > **** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You're confusing the issue. The first is whether you have any
> liability if you are travelling on company business and have an
> accident.
>
> However, the issue we were discussing is whether the company has
> liability (and they most certainly do whether you are walking,
> driving, or flying).

It works BOTH WAYS! you use YOUR personal car for their business and
you can find yourself with no coverage! I have seen for MYSELF just
how much you can count on insurance coveage if you don't cover all of
the bases

They are SMART getting people (suckers) to use their cars for
COMMERCIAL endevors such as pizza deliveries then when some thing goes
WRONG they BAIL! or settle out of court ON THE SIDE excluding YOU from
the settlement YOU still are holding the bag as you are the OWNER of
the car! and you PERSONAL insurance say's your NOT COVERED as the car
was engaged in a commercial use and the policy is PERSONAL

Watch just HOW FAST your personal insurance company runs for COVER or
crawdad's when you ask for in WRITING for coverage on a personal
NON COMMERCIAL policy and your using the car for Business endevors.


People need to STOP being stupid! In america it's EVERY family for
itself now!

[wise purchaser]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> wise purchaser wrote:
>
> >
> > If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
> > covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
> > insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
> > **** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You're confusing the issue. The first is whether you have any
> liability if you are travelling on company business and have an
> accident.
>
> However, the issue we were discussing is whether the company has
> liability (and they most certainly do whether you are walking,
> driving, or flying).

It works BOTH WAYS! you use YOUR personal car for their business and
you can find yourself with no coverage! I have seen for MYSELF just
how much you can count on insurance coveage if you don't cover all of
the bases

They are SMART getting people (suckers) to use their cars for
COMMERCIAL endevors such as pizza deliveries then when some thing goes
WRONG they BAIL! or settle out of court ON THE SIDE excluding YOU from
the settlement YOU still are holding the bag as you are the OWNER of
the car! and you PERSONAL insurance say's your NOT COVERED as the car
was engaged in a commercial use and the policy is PERSONAL

Watch just HOW FAST your personal insurance company runs for COVER or
crawdad's when you ask for in WRITING for coverage on a personal
NON COMMERCIAL policy and your using the car for Business endevors.


People need to STOP being stupid! In america it's EVERY family for
itself now!

[wise purchaser]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> wise purchaser wrote:
>
> >
> > If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
> > covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
> > insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
> > **** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You're confusing the issue. The first is whether you have any
> liability if you are travelling on company business and have an
> accident.
>
> However, the issue we were discussing is whether the company has
> liability (and they most certainly do whether you are walking,
> driving, or flying).

It works BOTH WAYS! you use YOUR personal car for their business and
you can find yourself with no coverage! I have seen for MYSELF just
how much you can count on insurance coveage if you don't cover all of
the bases

They are SMART getting people (suckers) to use their cars for
COMMERCIAL endevors such as pizza deliveries then when some thing goes
WRONG they BAIL! or settle out of court ON THE SIDE excluding YOU from
the settlement YOU still are holding the bag as you are the OWNER of
the car! and you PERSONAL insurance say's your NOT COVERED as the car
was engaged in a commercial use and the policy is PERSONAL

Watch just HOW FAST your personal insurance company runs for COVER or
crawdad's when you ask for in WRITING for coverage on a personal
NON COMMERCIAL policy and your using the car for Business endevors.


People need to STOP being stupid! In america it's EVERY family for
itself now!

[LWG]

I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the
purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance policies
must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of practice, I have
not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the use of any particular
mode of transportation, so long as the use of the transportation "arises out
of" and is "in the course of" the employee's employment. I have personally
defended an employer and insurer where the employee died as a result of the
crash of a helicopter he owned and operated. There was no question of
compensability or coverage.

If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be
right-- without the appropriate rider.

I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I was
with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on firm
business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed to me.
I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat impossible
without flying.

>> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
>> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>>
>> Steve
>> CP - ASEL/IA
>> PA28-151
>> N43291
>>
>
> There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban
> covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.
>

[A Lieberma]

"LWG" > wrote in
:

> I don't think so.

I'd have to concur based on my own experiences.

I used to work for the gubment, and claimed privately owned aircraft when I
travelled. If something happened during my commute, then I was covered
under the Workers comp provisions.

I was paid $1.08 per mile.

Only thing I had to do was a cost comparison to show my flying was cheaper
then an overnight stay, which was very easy considering, I'd have been
paid, hotel, per diem and car mileage for the overnight stay.

On my shorter trips, it was cheaper to stay at a hotel, claim per diem and
car mileage. If I flew, I just took the cheaper of the two, and still got
to fly.

Best part of my workday was my commute to and from work on those days *big
smile* and I'd return home to my own bed that night.

Allen

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> Ross Richardson wrote:
>
> >
> > When I worked for Texas Instruments we had a specific policy AGAINST it.
> > I had several occasions that would have been nice. When Raytheon bought
> > the defense business of TI, I checked the policy and we COULD use
> > personal aircraft. But, then again, Raytheon owns Beech.
> >
>
> Yeah, I'll let you know. Textron (Cessna, Lycoming, Bell Helicopters)
> just announced they are buying my company.

Why would they let you fly a Navion?
Oh yeah... you have a new Lycoming engine!
:-))

[Travis Marlatte]

When I asked my company if I could use private planes for business travel,
they said no. Then I looked at our policy. There was no exclusion. So I
asked a different question, "show me where it says that your not covered."
The end result is that the company agreed that private plane travel is
sanctioned for business and that our AD&D policy covers it for personal use.
That was many years ago. Since then, they have changed carriers many times
and each time they have received explicit inclusionary clauses. I don't take
credit for it, half of the executives either use or own private aircraft.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Ron Natalie]

john smith wrote:

>
> Why would they let you fly a Navion?
> Oh yeah... you have a new Lycoming engine!
> :-))

I used to have a Lycoming, but Lycoming disavows all knowledge
of that engine. I now have a low time Continental IO-550.

[john smith]

In article >,
Ron Natalie > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> >
> > Why would they let you fly a Navion?
> > Oh yeah... you have a new Lycoming engine!
> > :-))

> I used to have a Lycoming, but Lycoming disavows all knowledge
> of that engine. I now have a low time Continental IO-550.

Uhn-oh!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Oh, the policy will pay the claim if it is work related. But they will
cancel at the next renewal or sooner. If you look at the first question on
the standard ACCORD application there is a question. "Do you own operate or
lease Aircraft or Watercraft?" As an attorney I'm sure you know that there
are laws against lying on an insurance application.

In the voluntary work comp market carriers can choose the risks they are
willing to underwrite in many cases they choose not to underwrite companies
that operate aircraft.


"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
>I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the
>purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance
>policies must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of
>practice, I have not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the use
>of any particular mode of transportation, so long as the use of the
>transportation "arises out of" and is "in the course of" the employee's
>employment. I have personally defended an employer and insurer where the
>employee died as a result of the crash of a helicopter he owned and
>operated. There was no question of compensability or coverage.
>
> If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be
> right-- without the appropriate rider.
>
> I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I was
> with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on firm
> business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed to
> me. I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat
> impossible without flying.
>
>>> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>>> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
>>> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>>> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>> CP - ASEL/IA
>>> PA28-151
>>> N43291
>>>
>>
>> There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban
>> covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.
>>
>
>

[Jim Stewart]

wise purchaser wrote:
> Steve - KDMW wrote:
>
>>Question...
>>
>>I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
>>work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
>>company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
>>they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
>>liability in the matter.
>>
>>Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>>my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
>>difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>>example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>>
>>Steve
>>CP - ASEL/IA
>>PA28-151
>>N43291
>
>
> If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
> covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
> insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
> **** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!

Or their insurance company. My company
covers employee vehicle liability while on
company time. The coverage doesn't cost
much at all and I think a company would
be foolish not to carry it.

[zatatime]

On 7 Nov 2006 05:34:37 -0800, "Steve - KDMW"
> wrote:

>Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
>difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?


Thanks for the post, and everyone who responded. This came up for me
a couple months ago and the company paid $1,000 for me to fly
commercial when it would have cost only about $300 for me to fly
myself. I was pretty frustrated and have been wondering why they
would exclude use of personal aircraft ever since.

This thread has given me some insight as to why.

z

[LWG]

It's all about loss experience and exposure. Aircraft accidents tend to be
dramatic, newsworthy and expensive.

Many employers will tell you that their carrier has dropped them for much,
much less than an aircraft accident. I don't know whether the policy in the
one WC aircraft accident I handled was renewed, but I doubt it. Not
necessarily because it was an aircraft accident, but because it was a death
claim for a high wage-earner. And a death claim is chump change compared to
what a catastrophic injury would cost.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> Oh, the policy will pay the claim if it is work related. But they will
> cancel at the next renewal or sooner. If you look at the first question on
> the standard ACCORD application there is a question. "Do you own operate
> or lease Aircraft or Watercraft?" As an attorney I'm sure you know that
> there are laws against lying on an insurance application.
>
> In the voluntary work comp market carriers can choose the risks they are
> willing to underwrite in many cases they choose not to underwrite
> companies that operate aircraft.
>
>
> "LWG" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the
>>purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance
>>policies must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of
>>practice, I have not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the
>>use of any particular mode of transportation, so long as the use of the
>>transportation "arises out of" and is "in the course of" the employee's
>>employment. I have personally defended an employer and insurer where the
>>employee died as a result of the crash of a helicopter he owned and
>>operated. There was no question of compensability or coverage.
>>
>> If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be
>> right-- without the appropriate rider.
>>
>> I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I
>> was with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on
>> firm business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed
>> to me. I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat
>> impossible without flying.
>>
>>>> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>>>> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
>>>> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>>>> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>> CP - ASEL/IA
>>>> PA28-151
>>>> N43291
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban
>>> covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 7 Nov 2006 05:34:37 -0800, "Steve - KDMW"
> wrote:

>Question...
>
>I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
>work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
>company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
>they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
>liability in the matter.
>
>Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
>my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the

I worked for a large multi national chemical corporation. We had Two
jets and a turboprop. When it came to flying on a business for
themselves even the pilots were not allowed to serve as crew in any
capacity.

>difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
>example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Company lawyers and insurance companies is the difference.
Plus airplanes are a much higher profile than cars. We accept
multi-car pileups as just the cost of doing business. The public
would be and usually is, up in arms when a small plane hits the free
way if there is an altercation between the plane and someone's car.


>
>Steve
>CP - ASEL/IA
>PA28-151
>N43291
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mike Spera]

>
> There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban covered
> employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.
>


There are also many large companies whose life insurance policies DOUBLE
the coverage while traveling on a "commercial conveyance" to conduct
company business.

Ironically, those same policies usually EXCLUDE coverage for accidental
death while piloting an aircraft or acting as a required crew member.
Your basic life insurance still holds up because these policies have no
exclusions (except for suicide and possibly war).

When you do the math, the mileage reimbursement does not even cover fuel
in an airplane.

If you claim the entire trip's mileage, are reimbursed, and use the
reimbursement for fuel, have you just conducted a "commercial" flight
under your aircraft insurance carrier's eyes? As I recall, fuel expenses
must be shared by the occupants to avoid being a commercial flight under
FAA rules.

Mike

[Roy Smith]

In article t>,
Mike Spera > wrote:

> If you claim the entire trip's mileage, are reimbursed, and use the
> reimbursement for fuel, have you just conducted a "commercial" flight
> under your aircraft insurance carrier's eyes? As I recall, fuel expenses
> must be shared by the occupants to avoid being a commercial flight under
> FAA rules.

The FAR is this:

61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
[...]
(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.

Let's look at that carefully.

"A private pilot may, for compensation": You can be compensated for your
expenses (i.e. claim mileage, per-diem, or even your FBO's full hourly
rental cost).

"... or hire": You can even continue to draw your regular salary or wage.
I get paid an annual salary. As far as the FAA is concerned, if I fly
myself to Chicago, I'm perfectly OK marking down my time for that day as a
normal work day.

"The flight is only incidental to that business or employment": This is
where most people start to get confused. Incidental means the flying is
not an essential or required part of your job. Your boss says, "Be in
Chicago on Tuesday to attend a meeting with our client". The reason for
going to Chicago is because your boss needs you to meet with a client. You
could have driven, bought a ticket on United, rode your bicycle, or stuck a
bunch of stamps on your forehead and climbed into mailbox. The mode of
travel wasn't the important thing; the getting there was.

"The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or
hire": This is another tricky one for many people. Note that it doesn't
say you can't carry passengers or property. It just says you can't do
those things for compensation or hire. So, when I fly myself to Chicago,
if a co-worker, who also has to meet with the same client, comes with me,
that's fine.

One the other hand, if I say to my co-worker, "Hey, Joe, I'm happy to let
you come with me, but the 47 cents/mile rate I'm getting on my travel
expense report only covers half my real flying expenses. If both of us go,
we can both claim 47 cents per mile and if you give me yours, I'll just
about break even", now I'm in trouble. I'm carrying a passenger for
compensation.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 08:53:07 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article t>,
> Mike Spera > wrote:
>
>> If you claim the entire trip's mileage, are reimbursed, and use the
>> reimbursement for fuel, have you just conducted a "commercial" flight
>> under your aircraft insurance carrier's eyes? As I recall, fuel expenses
>> must be shared by the occupants to avoid being a commercial flight under
>> FAA rules.
>
>The FAR is this:
>
> 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
>[...]
> (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.
>
>Let's look at that carefully.
>
>"A private pilot may, for compensation": You can be compensated for your
>expenses (i.e. claim mileage, per-diem, or even your FBO's full hourly
>rental cost).
>
>"... or hire": You can even continue to draw your regular salary or wage.
>I get paid an annual salary. As far as the FAA is concerned, if I fly
>myself to Chicago, I'm perfectly OK marking down my time for that day as a
>normal work day.
>

If you rent you can deduct the whole thing.
If you own it's only so much per mile or was.
If flying your own plane for your own business you can deduct the cost
up to the equivelant of a non discount coach fare or (again) it was
when I was working.



>"The flight is only incidental to that business or employment": This is
>where most people start to get confused. Incidental means the flying is
>not an essential or required part of your job. Your boss says, "Be in
>Chicago on Tuesday to attend a meeting with our client". The reason for
>going to Chicago is because your boss needs you to meet with a client. You
>could have driven, bought a ticket on United, rode your bicycle, or stuck a
>bunch of stamps on your forehead and climbed into mailbox. The mode of
>travel wasn't the important thing; the getting there was.
>
>"The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or
>hire": This is another tricky one for many people. Note that it doesn't
>say you can't carry passengers or property. It just says you can't do
>those things for compensation or hire. So, when I fly myself to Chicago,
>if a co-worker, who also has to meet with the same client, comes with me,
>that's fine.
>
>One the other hand, if I say to my co-worker, "Hey, Joe, I'm happy to let
>you come with me, but the 47 cents/mile rate I'm getting on my travel
>expense report only covers half my real flying expenses. If both of us go,
>we can both claim 47 cents per mile and if you give me yours, I'll just
>about break even", now I'm in trouble. I'm carrying a passenger for
>compensation.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On 9-Nov-2006, Mike Spera > wrote:

> When you do the math, the mileage reimbursement does not even cover fuel
> in an airplane.


Maybe if you're flying a turbine powered airplane, but a piston single looks
a whole lot better. In my Arrow, in an hour's cruise I cover a distance
that would typically entail about 180 highway miles (Roads rarely run in a
straight line between origin and destination.) If I am compensated $0.40
per highway mile, that would come out to $72.00/hr, which is well above the
direct operating costs (i.e. fuel, oil, other consumables, and reserves for
engine and prop OHs.)

-Elliott Drucker

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> One the other hand, if I say to my co-worker, "Hey, Joe, I'm happy to let
> you come with me, but the 47 cents/mile rate I'm getting on my travel
> expense report only covers half my real flying expenses. If both of us
> go,
> we can both claim 47 cents per mile and if you give me yours, I'll just
> about break even", now I'm in trouble. I'm carrying a passenger for
> compensation.

But if he uses that to pay the flying expenses without the money going
through you it's not compensation.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ronnie]

My company does allow employees to use personal or rented
aircraft on company business. The requirements are:
- $2 million smooth insurance policy
- Employer named as additional insured
- Must file annual pilot documentation & history forms
- Must get VP approval for each trip
- Cost may not exceed that of an airline ticket or car trip.

When I first started, the $2 million smooth insurance was not
enforced. They would accept $1M with $100K sub-limits.
After our corporate insurance policy was renegociated, they
begin enforcing the $2M smooth requirements. They also
required the company to pay a $7500 rider if an company
employee flew.

I had a number of occasions to fly my Aztec on company business
before the change. After the $2M smooth requirements, I was not
able to get that insurance coverage for the Aztec. I could get it
for my 172, but at $2200 versus $750 for the premium. It no
longer made economic sense, so the net results is that it put an
end to flying yourself on company business.

Ronnie


"Steve - KDMW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Question...
>
> I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
> work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
> company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
> they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
> liability in the matter.
>
> Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
> my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
> difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
> example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?
>
> Steve
> CP - ASEL/IA
> PA28-151
> N43291
>
>

[Blanche]

Long ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...when I worked for Boeing (and it
really wasn't that long ago) we had to take 15 employees (2 managers and
the rest engineers) on a trip to meet customers. Our in-house travel
agency couldn't figure out what was going on, since we had to change
the dates repeatedly over the 2 month period. I finally took over
all the planning (logistics - no big deal, I ran it as if it was an
engineering project!)

On a lark, I called Seattle and asked about "borrowing" one of the
jets that the Executives use. Turns out that yes, we could make
arrangements and use it at the same billed cost as the execs. The
overall cost would have been 50% *cheaper* than flying commercial.
Why? Because due to the changing schedule, we had to pay full-fare in
order to mitigate changing the flights.

For some strange reason, my boss was *not* surprised I did this, but
would not take it to our director (just under the VP level).

Bummer.

[.Blueskies.]

"Blanche" > wrote in message ...
: Long ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...when I worked for Boeing (and it
: really wasn't that long ago) we had to take 15 employees (2 managers and
: the rest engineers) on a trip to meet customers. Our in-house travel
: agency couldn't figure out what was going on, since we had to change
: the dates repeatedly over the 2 month period. I finally took over
: all the planning (logistics - no big deal, I ran it as if it was an
: engineering project!)
:
: On a lark, I called Seattle and asked about "borrowing" one of the
: jets that the Executives use. Turns out that yes, we could make
: arrangements and use it at the same billed cost as the execs. The
: overall cost would have been 50% *cheaper* than flying commercial.
: Why? Because due to the changing schedule, we had to pay full-fare in
: order to mitigate changing the flights.
:
: For some strange reason, my boss was *not* surprised I did this, but
: would not take it to our director (just under the VP level).
:
: Bummer.

Any employee in our company can try to book a flight on the company jets. There is even a rudimentary reservation
system. The catch is that there has to be enough demand locally and the planes need to be passing by. Sounds good until
you actually try to use it. Imagine, the CEO is on board, but we are going to stop by Kalamazoo to pick up a design
engineer that needs to go to Cleveland...

[John Theune]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> "Blanche" > wrote in message ...
> : Long ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...when I worked for Boeing (and it
> : really wasn't that long ago) we had to take 15 employees (2 managers and
> : the rest engineers) on a trip to meet customers. Our in-house travel
> : agency couldn't figure out what was going on, since we had to change
> : the dates repeatedly over the 2 month period. I finally took over
> : all the planning (logistics - no big deal, I ran it as if it was an
> : engineering project!)
> :
> : On a lark, I called Seattle and asked about "borrowing" one of the
> : jets that the Executives use. Turns out that yes, we could make
> : arrangements and use it at the same billed cost as the execs. The
> : overall cost would have been 50% *cheaper* than flying commercial.
> : Why? Because due to the changing schedule, we had to pay full-fare in
> : order to mitigate changing the flights.
> :
> : For some strange reason, my boss was *not* surprised I did this, but
> : would not take it to our director (just under the VP level).
> :
> : Bummer.
>
> Any employee in our company can try to book a flight on the company jets. There is even a rudimentary reservation
> system. The catch is that there has to be enough demand locally and the planes need to be passing by. Sounds good until
> you actually try to use it. Imagine, the CEO is on board, but we are going to stop by Kalamazoo to pick up a design
> engineer that needs to go to Cleveland...
>
>
I used to work for General Dynamics and when there was a group of 10 or
so who had to go from San Diego to LA for a evening meeting of a Tech
Society we were able to use a corporate aircraft for it. This was long
before I started flying and I did not know the benefits of GA but it a
no brainer for this flight as we all worked a full day, flew up for the
meeting and returned that night. All we had to do was submit the
request and have the various sign offs but it worked well for us. This
was in the 80s so who knows what the process would be now.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Up until the Compaq merger, Hewlett-Packard used to have an "employee
pilot" program. Some of the requirements were pretty stiff (time, annual
checkride with the company chief pilot, high insurance liability
coverage) and were designed to discourage VFR weekend pilots from using
their aircraft for business trips. Nevertheless, it was a reasonable
program for semi-professional pilots.

Since the influx of the Compaq management however, that program has been
completely cancelled. Even though being lobbied to re-authorize the
program, HP's current management has turned a deaf ear.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .Blueskies. ]
> Posted At: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:28 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: Companies Allowing Employees to Fly
> Subject: Re: Companies Allowing Employees to Fly
>
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Long ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...when I worked for Boeing (and
it
> : really wasn't that long ago) we had to take 15 employees (2 managers
and
> : the rest engineers) on a trip to meet customers. Our in-house travel
> : agency couldn't figure out what was going on, since we had to change
> : the dates repeatedly over the 2 month period. I finally took over
> : all the planning (logistics - no big deal, I ran it as if it was an
> : engineering project!)
> :
> : On a lark, I called Seattle and asked about "borrowing" one of the
> : jets that the Executives use. Turns out that yes, we could make
> : arrangements and use it at the same billed cost as the execs. The
> : overall cost would have been 50% *cheaper* than flying commercial.
> : Why? Because due to the changing schedule, we had to pay full-fare
in
> : order to mitigate changing the flights.
> :
> : For some strange reason, my boss was *not* surprised I did this, but
> : would not take it to our director (just under the VP level).
> :
> : Bummer.
>
> Any employee in our company can try to book a flight on the company
jets.
> There is even a rudimentary reservation
> system. The catch is that there has to be enough demand locally and
the
> planes need to be passing by. Sounds good until
> you actually try to use it. Imagine, the CEO is on board, but we are
going
> to stop by Kalamazoo to pick up a design
> engineer that needs to go to Cleveland...
>