Companies Allowing Employees to Fly

"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.

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

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.

"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

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.

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.

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

In article et,
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.

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

In article et,
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

"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