Overly restrictive business flying requirements.

"Bob Noel" wrote:
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.

There is no alternative, in many cases, to travel by car - it would be
impossible for the university to forbid it. That is not true for private
flying.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Wily,

That's acutally a pretty reasonable policy, especially for country as
difficult as Wyoming. The total time requirement is half what it is
for some other companies I've looked at, and the insurance is doable.
The only question I have is that prohibiting single engine actual IFR
tends to work in reverse, causing pilots to scud run rather than make
a perfectly safe IFR flight. That policy has lead to the loss of
several CAF airplanes and pilots.

Given that universities have had some pretty horrendous losses with
employees flying on business, I'm a little surprised the policy you
quoted is as resonable as it is. I keep thinking of the UCLA employee
who was flying his airplane on business in the early '80s. He was
VFR, not talking to anyone and flew into what is now called Class D
airspace and had a midair with a military Boeing 717 (KC-135), killing
everyone in both airplanes. The university employee was at fault and,
as I recall, the university paid pretty heavily in the ensuing suits.

General aviation has a lousy accident rate when the airplanes are not
flown by professional pilots, and it also suffers from a poor public
perception of safety, so a lot of businesses don't allow personal
flying. I suspect someone at the University of Wyoming was very
determined to fly his own airplane and pushed very hard for the policy
you quoted.

All the best,
Rick

(Wily Wapiti) wrote in message . com...
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.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
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.


Trains and cars are still over 10x safer than GA aircraft flown by
non-professional pilots.

Mike
MU-2

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:mNd1b.170452$Oz4.43720@rwcrnsc54...
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Probably driven by the University's
insurance carrier.

Not necessarily. Frequently it's the sign of an overly conservative risk management
department. Margy is forbidden from even mentioning Young Eagles to her students.
There's no insurance carrier involved, just a overly anal-retentive risk managment
department.

"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?

It means that they don't authorize it and may take some sanction against you
if you do. They are at risk, just as they are if you walk or drive on company
business. I had it out with my former companies managment over issues with
car insurance. Again, it had nothing to do with real risk and or legal liability
issues but some putz's idea of how he could insert the company in the personal
business of their employees (told him it was none of his freaking business about
what insurance I carried on my car, if I was travelling on business they'd better
insure the company interests).

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:ncf1b.220551$Ho3.28819@sccrnsc03...

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.

The Army would reimburse private airtravel at the POV (automotive) rates provided
we got our division chief to sign off on it being "more advantageous to the government"
than other modes of travel. Actually, you needed the same sign off to drive your
car on government business. Of course, it wasn't hard to prove that personal car
travel was more advantageous as the alternative was to go out and rent a car
instead (We used to do this).

"Ted Huffmire" wrote in message ...


Absolutely. If you consider private pilots it's probably
even worse than the overall GA accident rate.

I don't think private pilots alone make much of a difference. I've never
heard of an insurer giving a hoot over private versus commercial certificates.
Instrument ratings and pilot time seem to be the dominating yardsticks for
risk.

"Ted Huffmire" wrote in message ...
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."

This is common. But it's immaterial to the issue. If you
were to injure yourself flying on company business, you
could sue and would probably prevail for medical expense
reimbursement. It happens all the time with car accidents.

Insurance companies can always make the argument
that any medical
bills are your own fault since many conditions
are preventable to some degree.

Just because an insurance company won't pay, doesn't
mean your employer can't be held liable.

Bob Noel wrote:

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.

Hold it there. This brings up the debate of relative safety.
Statistically, travel by train has about the same safety record as
travel by commercial airlines in terms of fatalities per
passenger-mile. It is far safer than GA, or other non-scheduled
commercial air travel. Long distance buses are by far the safest mode of
all.

Looking at auto travel, the overall statistics show that it is something
like 10 times riskier than commercial airline travel, however, there are
refinements one should take into account.

In the case of commercial air travel, most accidents are during takeoff
and climbout, or during landing. That affects the statistics in that the
longer the trip, the safer air appears to be. Conversely, the shorter
the trip, the riskier it is to fly. Also, automobiles using interstate
highways are something like 4 times as safe as those driving on city
streets or secondary roads.

Therefore, since you wouldn't look to an airline for a 25 mile trip, and
you wouldn't likely drive on a transcontinental trip, you really have to
restrict the comparison to trips that are competitive between the two
options. If you only look at statistics for automobiles on interstates
compared to short airline trips, you will find that the risk is about
the same for trips of around 300 to 500 miles. Autos are safer for
shorter trips, and airlines for longer. If you look at non-scheduled
commercial service, or GA in comparison, you will find they are
substantially riskier.

The universities have learned the hard way that they are exposed to
substantial liability and risk if GA or commercial charters are used.
The university becomes the "deep pocket" without the insulation of a
large scheduled airline, when the lawyers are looking for someone to
sue. There have been a number of very public accidents involving their
sports teams, where the standards of the commercial operators were quite
poor. This includes everything from pilot experience and training,
checkrides, maintenance of equipment, through barebones
instrumentation.

Just recently there was a Kingair accident, which involved a U of
Oklahoma sports team, where a two person flight crew lost spatial
orientation within a minute after an AC power failure affected their
instruments, even though they had a working AI. Not something you would
expect from IFR-rated commercial pilots. Questions arose about
everything from pilot training and experience, aircraft maintenance,
cockpit resource management, and in general the university's policies on
charter travel.

The universities have reacted by establishing tight regulations for
traveling on any aircraft other than commercial airlines. Most large
companies have similar policies for exactly the same reasons.

Ah, thanks, I was looking for the appropriate wording for my company policy.


"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Here's my company's policy:

*************

Employee's holding at least a Private Pilot license are permitted and
encouraged to use personally owned or rented aircraft for transportation
on
company business whenever the flight can be made in compliance with FAA
regulations and is covered by appropriate insurance.

All costs such as fuel and aircraft rental will be fully reimbursed.

Employees will be given paid time off when ever work load permits for the
purpose of flight training and practice to enhance the safety of their
flying or just to improve their moral, productivity, and give them a
better
outlook on life.

Time spent reading aviation magazines, corresponding with other pilots on
Usenet newsgroups, or otherwise thinking about flying during working hours
will be considered a positive contribution to productivity as long as
productions schedules are met and other work does not suffer.

If the sky is clear and the winds are calm, we won't ask why your desk is
empty.

*************

Of course, I'm a one man operation and I get to make all the rules.

I love my boss

--
Roger Long