Overly restrictive business flying requirements.

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".

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.

"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.
:~)

"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?

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

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

"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

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.

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.

In article et, "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