Private pilot, incidental to business??

[Mustang5.0]

This question was brought up in one of my classes, and I would like some input to try and clear up what exactly "incidental to business" means...thanks

"I had always thought that one cannot be directly paid as a pilot to fly with only a private license. After talking with some instructors at my airport they had said that this is not necessarily true. One instructor gave me a scenario of a pilot he had trained a while back, that worked for a company and his primary job was not as a pilot for the company, but he started flying some of the execs around which eventually he started doing quite often. He was paid the same hourly rate to fly the execs as he made doing whatever he did for the company when he was not flying. I know that one can fly for business if the flying part is incidental to the business. I would think being paid to fly people as part of one’s job duties would require a commercial certificate. The instructor I talked to said that this pilot was not breaking any rules because he was not being paid more during the times he was flying than when he was performing his other duties. I took that to mean he wasn’t actually being paid as a pilot, but one of his job duties was being a pilot. My question still is whether this is legal or not."

Sec. 61.113

Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(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.

 

[SiuDude]

"A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve
only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees."


So if him and his boss have a meeting they both have to go to and the PP pays no less then half of the operating expenses, he may get paid his "regular" wage or salary.

 

[Mustang5.0]

so you are saying, in this scenario...he could legally do this and be paid his hourly wage while flying, provided he paid the pro-rata share?

 

[PNEPilot]

I'm reading the scenario as saying that the pilot was taking execs to places he didn't have to be himself - that's clearly an absolute no.

 

[xdashdriver]

"A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve
only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees."


So if him and his boss have a meeting they both have to go to and the PP pays no less then half of the operating expenses, he may get paid his "regular" wage or salary.

If he and his boss have a meeting they both have to go to, then he does not need to pay pro-rate share. However, if only his boss has to go, and he's just doing the flying, then he needs a commercial certificate.

 

[igneousy2]

From your post this is a clear violation.

It seems he was hired as a pilot and was given other duties to fill his time when he wasn't needed to fly. This is a clear violation of the rules. If he was a salesman and his boss was the regional sales manager and they both had to go to a meeting in Chicago then yes; if as a salesman he went and met with clients at outlying cities, then yes. This case...no.

The personal test i've used to teach students is to ask yourself what would happen if you took the airplane out of the picture. In this case, would your friend still have a job if he was not a pilot? I think the answer is clearly no.

 

[midlifeflyer]

From your post this is a clear violation.

It seems he was hired as a pilot and was given other duties to fill his time when he wasn't needed to fly. This is a clear violation of the rules.

Great answer.

FWIW, and as a context for discussion, here's my personal FAQ

==============================

What is "Only Incidental" to a Business or Employment?

FAR 61.113(b) tells us "A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if ... The flight is only incidental to that business or employment"

The phrase marks a very fuzzy border between operations permitted with a private pilot certificate and operation that require a commercial certificate. If you think about all the ways that "clever" people try to get around regulation, the FAA =had to= use some phrase that was open to interpretation.

The FAA could have created a rule that prohibited all compensation for flying without a commercial pilot certificate and a Part 135 operating certificate, and it would have been easy. But the FAA doesn't operate in a total vacuum and from a policy standpoint it's kind of unreasonable to stop people from sharing the costs of a joint trip or getting reimbursed for taking a personal airplane on a business trip rather than an airline, train, bus or car.

Given that policy decision, how would =you= go about phrasing a rule that was less than 1000 pages long, was absolutely clear and covered all of the creative ways that people can find to get around rules they don't like. I'd say it's impossible.

So we end up with 61.113 which permits compensation for a private pilot for a business flight that "is only incidental" to the business. Notice that it doesn't say that this activity is "not" for compensation or hire. The rule recognizes that it =is= for compensation or hire, but says it's okay.

Let's go back to policy for a moment. Bear in mind the primary policy behind the rule. When the business =is= flying or the pilot is being employed as a pilot, the FAA wants the higher levels of protection of a commercial certificate and when the business is =public flying= the FAA wants the higher levels of protection afforded by Parts 135 and 121.

The view the FAA has regularly taken is that in order to qualify under the "merely incidental" exception, the activity has to =clearly= be incidental. Close questions will be resolved against the pilot. The FAA will look at and apply a number of different factors, none of which by itself answers the question all the time.

Take that business trip. If if a private pilot decides to fly to a business meeting rather than drive and some of his co-workers say, "Wow, that would be cool! Can we come along?" it's probably okay. Just one of a number of ways of getting there. Usually. But do it when you don't have to be at the meeting, or every month, or have the boss start giving only a 1/2 travel day instead of a full one because of the efficiency of flying, and it's probably no longer "merely incidental".

On the other hand, even a one-shot deal can be enough if you "need" and airplane in order to do the job or if the airplane use is a significant cost center. Aerial photography, pipeline patrols, and using an airplane as one method of delivery of goods for resale are examples where the use =becomes= the business rather than being "merely incidental" to it.

But, because of the nature of the beast (people, not the FAA), unlike some other FARs where there are clear (although sometimes confusing) answers, this is one of those areas that will almost =always= be decided on a case-by-case basis. And there will be anomalies, such as the time that the Alaska FAA Region permitted guides to fly patrons to their lodges on the basis that the flights were "merely incidental". The FAA ended up issuing a special notice to stop that one.

The best description of the analysis comes down to "If it quacks like a duck..." Or another way of putting it might be, if you say to yourself, "Hmm. If I do it =this= way..." you probably =won't= get away with it.

 

[Mustang5.0]

thanks midlifeflyer, very helpful

 

[Ailerongirl]

Wow, thanks Mark...I even understand it now!