Illegal charters

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:17:59 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:


How does FAR 61.113b work ?
Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no

A private pilot and part 91? They'd be out of their ever lovin'
minds. Now I can see them asking an employee such as an engineer or
sales staff who has a reason for going and who plans on flying to take
some parts along.

Most companies will not even let their employees fly their own plane
to business conferences. The company I retired from had that policy.
I still flew, but I'd take vacation the day before and the day after
the show, conference, or school so I could get there and back on my
own time. I heard a lot of grumbling, but no one ever said anything
to me about it directly. For "compensation" I was allowed to claim
the same for mileage as if I had been driving a car.

Most of the time I ended up going either commercial or on the company
plane. It was both cheaper and faster back then. Now I can usually
beat the jets on a radius of Michigan to Denver or central Florida.
Given the extended check in times and lay-overs (hardly anything flys
direct from here to any where) and weather that does not cause me to
have to stop for fuel, I can usually beat them by a comfortable
margin.

compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
expenses and "pilot bonus".

You are not being employed as a pilot. You are being employed to make
widgets. The fact that you choose to use an airplane instead of an
automobile to get to your widget show is not the pivot point. Your company
can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on your
trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now you
ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
can't do that.

It gets even more complicated depending on which auditor you draw.
:-))
But the company is probably not going to want to rent an airplane for
one of their employees to fly to the show even if the boss rides
along. Insurance and liability issues aside, There limits as to how
much they can deduct and that varies with how they are set up and who
owns the airplane.

For me, the most I could deduct flying my own plane (or renting) was
the equivalent of a non discount, coach class airfare. The company
can do that per filled seat. Big multinational corporations can
afford to own flying offices and conference rooms as their execs are
worth more per hour than the airplane, but it'd be a very rare small
company of individual that could afford much more than a small plane.
Generally it's far more expensive to fly even a 172 than go commercial
unless paying a non discount airfare. Even then the 172 probably costs
more for a relatively long trip.




Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.

Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

I'd hope the company was more liability savvy than that, but they
legally could do it.


That's the way I read the regulation.\

Me too. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Jim

"Roger" wrote

I liked the example of a primary student in a high performance,
complex, retract as being a charter. I know of a Doctor and his son
who both took their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and a musician
who did it in a Glasair III.

I wonder what their insurance rates were the first few years? :-))

That goes under the classification of "If you have to ask, you can't afford
it." g
--
Jim in NC

Lissen, idiot. The person asked the LEGALITIES, not whether the company
would allow it

READ THE FREAKIN' POST before answering.

Jim



"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:17:59 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:


How does FAR 61.113b work ?
Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no

A private pilot and part 91? They'd be out of their ever lovin'
minds. Now I can see them asking an employee such as an engineer or
sales staff who has a reason for going and who plans on flying to take
some parts along.

Most companies will not even let their employees fly their own plane
to business conferences.

grubertm wrote:
How does FAR 61.113b work ?
Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
expenses and "pilot bonus".
Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.
Yes, no, maybe ?

If I may have a go at this (correct me when/where I got it wrong):

If your employer, the CEO of Widgets-R-Us, asks you to go to
the trade show (without specifying *how*) and that you decide to
fly yourself there (assuming it doesn't go against Widgets-R-Us
corporate policies, as it often does...), as opposed to, say,
drive, or ride a bike, or a pogo stick or walk there, whatever,
then you are in the clear as far as I understand it, even if you
are a private pilot renting the aircraft from your local FBO or
flying club; the reasoning is that you would be going anyway,
flying is just incidental, and that you are paid by your employer
to go -- including expenses to cover your travel costs -- and
attend a trade show, and are not paid to fly. I reckon it
would be equally fine should the CEO comes along.

Things become a lot murkier if your boss specifically asks you to
*fly* there, and down right bad should you decide to charge a
'pilot bonus'... unless the aircraft is owned/leased/operated
by Widgets-R-Us and that you are a commercial pilot...

--Sylvain

RST Engineering wrote:

Lissen, idiot. The person asked the LEGALITIES, not whether the company
would allow it

READ THE FREAKIN' POST before answering.

Wow, was that viciousness of your attack on Roger Halstead, a very
experienced pilot who has done nothing but offer quality and kind advice in
this group over the years, really necessary?

Amazing how more and more of the regulars of this group have moved away
from sharing their experiences for the benefit of us less experienced pilot
and instead use it as a stage for their bloated egos.

Pompous ass.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Your company
can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on your
trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now you
ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
can't do that.

So 100% reimbursement for operating expenses would be okay, but more
than 100% is not ?
61.113b states that a private pilot may act as PIC for compensation or
hire in connection with a business as long as the flight is only
incidental to that business. Where does it define compensation to be
limited to operating expenses ? Your interpretation makes sense, but I
don't see any legal restrictions on the amount/type of compensation in
61.113b.

Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.

Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
61.113.b.2 are met. If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
whether 61.113.c apply.

- Marco

If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
61.113.b.2 is not met

Why?

61.113.b.2 says "... the aircraft does not carry passengers or property
for compensation or hire." The CEO who is also going to the trade show
is a "passenger" but is not a "passenger for compensation or hire". The
business is not being compensated for carrying its own CEO. The clause
would apply if, say, the flight carried somebody who paid the company to
be on that flight, as if it were an air taxi.

Look at it this way - you can take the the sales display with you. You
would be carrying property, and the flight would still be "for
compensation or hire", but you would not be carrying "property for
compensation or hire".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:14:35 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

Lissen, idiot. The person asked the LEGALITIES, not whether the company
would allow it

READ THE FREAKIN' POST before answering.

Jim


One of us must be having a bad day.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:06:00 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote

I liked the example of a primary student in a high performance,
complex, retract as being a charter. I know of a Doctor and his son
who both took their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and a musician
who did it in a Glasair III.

I wonder what their insurance rates were the first few years? :-))

That goes under the classification of "If you have to ask, you can't afford
it." g

I'm retired, on a pension and SS and I don't have to ask:-)) They
probably paid more for insurance than I do for my entire operating
cost per year.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"grubertm" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your company
can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on
your
trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now
you
ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
can't do that.

So 100% reimbursement for operating expenses would be okay, but more
than 100% is not ?
61.113b states that a private pilot may act as PIC for compensation or
hire in connection with a business as long as the flight is only
incidental to that business. Where does it define compensation to be
limited to operating expenses ? Your interpretation makes sense, but I
don't see any legal restrictions on the amount/type of compensation in
61.113b.

Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.

Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
61.113.b.2 are met. If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
whether 61.113.c apply.

This is the part thats baffeling.


- Marco