Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

12 Answers

Private Pilot must pay when renting plane to use for employer?

Asked by: 14862 views FAA Regulations

I'm a Private Pilot.  Another pilot says that if my employer rents a plane, and asks me to fly it incidentally to the business (not to carry passengers or cargo for hire) the company can pick up the whole tab for rental if they choose to. 

I think FAR 61.113(c) is pretty clear:"(c) 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."  To me that means that the FAA does not care who rents the plane or for what purpose, but it does care that no matter what else goes on, my half, or third, or the whole price if I fly alone, comes out of my pocket.  As I read it, even to accept reimbursement from the company later would violate the reg.

Who's right?

Ace Any FAA Written Test!
Actual FAA Questions / Free Lifetime Updates
The best explanations in the business
Fast, efficient study.
Pass Your Checkride With Confidence!
FAA Practical Test prep that reflects actual checkrides.
Any checkride: Airplane, Helicopter, Glider, etc.
Written and maintained by actual pilot examiners and master CFIs.
The World's Most Trusted eLogbook
Be Organized, Current, Professional, and Safe.
Highly customizable - for student pilots through pros.
Free Transition Service for users of other eLogs.
Our sincere thanks to pilots such as yourself who support AskACFI while helping themselves by using the awesome PC, Mac, iPhone/iPad, and Android aviation apps of our sponsors.

12 Answers



  1. Koehn on Jul 05, 2011

    It’s become as clear as anything from the FAA that if you’re commuting (as you say, transporting yourself and others in furtherence of business) that you can legally be reimbursed for the actual expenses incurred in that transportation. The rules are similar to those for driving: you can be reimbursed for mileage driven, but to be paid for transporting people or cargo you need a commercial drivers license/commercial pilot certificate.
    The AOPA has a whole article about commuting on its Let’s Go Flying website.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  2. Micah on Jul 05, 2011

    Koehn is right, but you as a pilot need to know the difference between 61.113 (b) and (c). Several co-workers from a prior job were PPL holders and would frequently fly to see a client instead of driving. This makes great sense from a business perspective and, if incidental (which means volitional), then is no different than compensating for mileage driven.
     
    The concern I have with your question (and this may simply be the language you’ve chosen and not specific to your situation) is whether: your company is “asking” you do to this and whether they will “pick up the whole tab… if they chose to.” Incidental travel means you could have arrived by another method (ie, a PPL cannot likely transit by seaplane to an off-shore oil rig) but also means that the flight is volitional. It would be ok for your boss to ask you about it, so long as “asking” allows you to choose freely.
     
    Likewise, your company has no more right to refuse reimbursing you for travel expenses via airplane than the right to refuse mileage compensation or rental car reimbursement. If you are reimbursed for travel as a standard business expense then incidental air travel should be an identical process (this is not the same as commuting in the article linked above, as commuting costs are not business expenses). If your boss “asks” you to fly to a client and “chooses” whether to reimburse you then you are in violation, not because you aren’t paying your pro-rata share, but because you are essentially acting in the role of a commercial pilot with a PPL (this air travel is not incidental but required by your employer). In that case, you can’t make the trip on your PPL even if you pay a pro-rata share.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. John D. Collins on Jul 05, 2011

    I have read the regulations and searched thru the FAA council interpretations and can’t find an interpretation that specifically answers your question.  FAR 61.113 (b) permits a private pilot to act as PIC for compensation or hire of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: the flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and, passengers or property are not carried for compensation or hire. FAR 61.113 (c) only applies to flights with passengers and would not apply to the situation you posited. So If for example the flight was to attend a business meeting or visit a customer and there were no passengers or cargo, I would guess it falls under 61.113 (b).

     

    For a private pilot, I am not sure it makes a difference if the company rents the airplane or the employee rents it and is reimbursed. In the case of a commercial pilot who is carrying employees of the company and being compensated for his or her flying, it would make a difference as the aircraft and the pilot can’t be provided together or it would be considered a part 135 operation. In this case, if the company rents the airplane and hires the pilot to fly the aircraft, this would not be a part 135 operation according to the FAA Chief Council’s interpretations I have read.

    +2 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  4. Matthew Waugh on Jul 05, 2011

    You are entering into a very complex area where you can run afoul of the FAA in a heartbeat. It’s very easy for a flight to slip into the area that requires a Part 135 certificate without you noticing and equally easy for a flight to require a commercial certificate even if it doesn’t need a Part 135 certificate. It’s also pretty unlikely anybody will find out (I”m just saying, you don’t have to like it).
     
    In your case, if it really falls under 61.113(b), then you’re good to go. So for each and every flight YOU must be going along for specific reasons related to the business and not just because you’re the dude that can fly the plane.
     
    The easy solution is go and get a commercial certificate (I realise that may not be the most practical answer, but boy it solves a lot of problems). Then at least there’s no question about you getting paid to fly – the only question is if your employer is getting paid to move people or goods (which is still your problem, but hopefully easier for everybody to understand – ha!).

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  5. John Parsons on Jul 07, 2011

    Gentlemen,
    Thanks for all your informative replies. All of them were enlightening, but I think Koehn’s shows that I didn’t state the original problem very clearly. I’m not talking about commuting; nor am I worried about the company reimbursing me. It’s assumed they would if I asked, and that is the source of my concern over 61.113(c).

    I am employed as a civil engineer, not as a pilot. My employer has projects over a wide area, and it would often save time if managers and designers could get to project sites by Cessna instead of by Subaru. (For the really far-off sites, they already use a Part 135 outfit with a bigger, faster plane.) I have been proposing that I use a rented 172 for the sites that can be reached in an hour or two. Typically, I would only be going because I was the pilot. Such flight would be incidental to the business, and thus OK according to 61.113(b) as I understand it. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of 61.113 are not mutually exclusive. As I interpret them, (b) says that I can fly for the company while collecting my engineer’s salary, if the business of the company is engineering and not flying, but (c) says I have to pay my pro rata share. Matthew’s suggestion that a commercial ticket would solve everything is dead on, but that’s probably a few years away.

    Unless someone can show how paragraph (c) does not apply, I guess my question is answered, but there are some interesting spin-offs from it. For example, if the company owned the plane (not gonna happen, but what-if) and allowed me to use it, what would my “pro rata share” be? Nothing, right? (They don’t charge me mileage for driving their cars.) So is there only a “pro rata share” to be paid if the plane is rented?

    I still don’t feel like this is nailed down, but I’ve talked too long. If anyone wants to follow up, I’m still listening.

    Thanks,
    John

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  6. Micah on Jul 07, 2011

    John, thanks for the additional info. The regulation isn’t as crystal clear as you would like it and I can see your dilemma. I would search the web for as many interpretations or explanations you can find and see what suits you. As I see it, however, 61.113 (b) and (c) are exclusive, or at least almost always in the case you present. The key here is that this part of the regulations governs commercial interests and not safety of flight interests. The FAA is chiefly concerned that you, as a private pilot, do not engage in any activities that are reserved for Commercial Operators, Air Carriers, etc., since a private pilot is not authorized to be involved in these activities. 
     
    Here are two logical tests that may help figure out your interpretation: (1) If you fly by yourself are you required to pay your pro-rata share (100%) of expenses? Why or why not? (2) If you take a co-worker (or business associate involved in the same project) with you in a rental car are you required to split the expense between the parties?
     
    A situation where you will always get in trouble is if you took a business associate along with you to the same destination but this person goes to another job site. In this case the trip was may have been “coincidental”, but not incidental. A similar scenario (but less clear to me) is if you bring a co-worker with you but that person is working on a different project at a different site. In that case, your PPL may be considered in use for a commercial purpose and the trip not be considered incidental. 
     
    It’s my understanding of the regulations that so long as you aren’t “offering your services” as a private pilot and the trip remains incidental then it rests fully in 61.113(b). The passengers are considered such under part 91 (ie, your currency requirements) but not such in the commercial sense (ie, you wouldn’t fly by yourself and leave another engineer at the office if he/she is required for the meeting; they’re required and not simply passengers along for the ride.) I think that honestly, you’re more at risk on the personal income/tax side for receiving a “benefit” from your employer (did you log the flight time and pay income tax accordingly?) if the flight is reimbursed than you will find pressure from your FSDO, so long as you keep your nose clean and keep the line between flying for business and “holding out” or chartering your PPL clearly drawn.
     
    But in the end, this is something you have to feel comfortable with, either in your interpretation or under the counsel of a knowledgable attorney. Maybe this is a good question for AOPA/John Yodice (or maybe he’s already written to explain this…). Or, if an AOPA member with the legal services plan I imagine they’ll settle this with a phone call. Best regards, and fly safe(ly).

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  7. John D. Collins on Jul 07, 2011

    John,

     

    Read this opinion, in particular the second scenario.  If I understand it correctly, when you as a private pilot are flying alone, you may be compensated if the flight is incidental to your employment. In other words, you can be reimbursed by your employer.  If you carry passengers and they are traveling with you for a common purpose, you can pay your pro rata share of the expenses and collect a pro rata share of the expenses from your passengers and you may not be compensated for your share from your employer.  Read it and see if you come to the same conclusion.

     

    http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

    +2 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  8. John Parsons on Jul 07, 2011

    John Collins,
    The FAA interpretation you referenced hits the nail on the head.  I wouldn’t say the answer was the intuitive one, but it’s quite clear.  I understand the ruling as follows: If my work requires me to attend a meeting or visit a project site, and I rent a plane for the trip, I can accept reimbursement from the company.  If I take others along, who also have the same job-related purpose, I cannot accept reimbursement for my pro rata share, but the others can pay their shares and be reimbursed.  If the others have business at the remote site but I do not, I cannot fly them there.
    -John

    +1 Votes Thumb up 2 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  9. Micah on Jul 07, 2011

    John, thanks for sharing the opinion.  I stand corrected on certain points written above. I agree that the rule is not intuitive (if fact I would describe the interpretation in another way…) but largely my complaint is that the rule does not appear to be written well (or at least clearly). I guess your best position is to fly when traveling solo and use the 135 operation or drive going otherwise.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  10. Matthew Waugh on Jul 12, 2011

    Mr. Parsons – I fully endorse your last message (number 8 in the thread). You have to be going to the site as a Civil Engineer, not as the pilot, which, if I understood some of your earlier messages you would be going solely because you’re the dude that can fly the plane.
     
    So get a commercial certificate, get the company to rent the plane (directly, you cannot be involved in the transaction, which is a somewhat sticky requirement to meet) and then you can go along solely because you are the pilot.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  11. Sophia on Nov 17, 2012

    You are not going to truly find out unless:

    a) You obtain a WRITTEN and SIGNED WAIVER from the FAA that absolutely clears you (good luck with that)

    b) Someone takes you to court for an incident/accident

    c) Someone from the FAA simply FEELS you are in violation and finds ONE TINY
    TECHNICAL ASPECT from which to base his/her own premise…they have billions in attorney costs to back them…How much do you have?

    Welcome to big government…talk about a SERIOUS Weight and Balance failure!!!!

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  12. Homepage on Jan 23, 2019

    … [Trackback]

    […] Informations on that Topic: askacfi.com/4174/private-pilot-must-pay-when-renting-plane-to-use-for-employer.htm […]

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.