Private Pilot Reimbursement

DrMack

New member
A stroke of the pen may be all that is needed to breath new life into general aviation,which is being strangled by the FAA Chief Counsel's interpretation of a single regulation, 14 CFR 61.113 (b):


61.113 - Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) 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.

The FAA CC has determined that a private pilot may be reimbursed by an employer for expenses incurred by the pilot if they fly their own airplane to attend to company business but ONLY if that pilot flies ALONE and there is no company property aboard. If there is any other passenger
on the trip (let's say a business colleague) or company property, then no reimbursement is allowed. The spirit of the regulation is to prevent private pilots from holding out their piloting skills for compensation without obtaining the necessary commercial license or to circumvent regulations applicable to commercial flight operations, a policy that I agree is in the public interest.

The execution however is deeply flawed. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water. If employees who just happen to hold
private pilot licenses were able to be reimbursed for the use of their own airplane, providing that all the provisions of the regulations to distinguish such operations from commercial flying enterprise are kept intact, then it is probable that general aviation would expand dramatically and immediately. What private pilot wouldn't jump at the chance to fly if their employer was willing to pick up the tab for actual expenses like they would if we were talking about the use of their private automobile? Aviation industries would employ more, build more, design more, and all businesses who have private pilots in their employ (not as pilots mind you) would experience all the efficiency gains inherent in general aviation that our forebears who built this amazing infrastructure had envisioned.

For this to work, employees who operate as private pilots would necessarily not be required to possess a pilot license as a condition of their employment and the employer would have to be indifferent as to the mode of transportation that en employee chooses to use for any business trip, i.e., the employee can never be compelled to use their airplane (or one they rent) for a business trip. As long as the common purpose test is met and the pilot is not compensated as a professional pilot, reimbursement of direct expenses for the use of a private aircraft for incidental business purposes should be allowed, regardless of whether other employees or business associates are carried.

We have relied on government regulators and the courts to provide relief but to no avail. Under the current statutory, regulatory and case law regime no change in the status quo will occur. Therefore, a statutory change is the best unambiguous way to achieve this goal.

No other country on Earth has a general aviation infrastructure that compares to the Untied States. Let's put it to work for the benefit of all Americans! Private aviation is an exceptional characteristic of the American economy. Let us unfetter this miracle of the modern age from the shackles of onerous and unnecessary government meddling in our freedom to fly for private benefit.

Let's have a public dialogue on the issue and see if the notion has any merit in the marketplace of ideas. I admit that I may be overlooking something but let's hear your thoughts and perhaps we can identify if there is something of value in the idea, enough perhaps to build a case with Congress for statutory relief.


 
denverpilot said:
Actually no one did. The Chief Counsel made it up.
Speaking of things made up:

"Common purpose" is a phrase the FAA has not added to the regulation, yet it is pivotal to pretty much all of the Counsel's determinations. The FAA has had years, and probably decades, to insert that phrase into the regulation, but has not. Evidence indicates that few people consider "common purpose" to be implied in the regulation. The question then becomes why the FAA refuses to clarify the regulation, or what it thinks it is accomplishing.
 
DrMack said:
Because of the poorly written regulation the FAA lawyers have ended up winding themselves into such convoluted logical Gordian knots with their published opinions on the matter that the agency is essentially hopelessly paralyzed.
The FAA has done more that engage in tying Gordian knots; they also managed to supply simultaneous contradictory interpretations of their own rules. Several decades ago in "Administrator v. Marshall, 39 C.A.B. 948 (1963)" the court adopted a meaning for "incidental" that is at odds with more recent definitions by the FAA.

Then a court found in 1999 in Alaska Professional Hunters v. FAA ( http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/intern...9C50835B1B85256F15006C3F20/$file/98-1051a.txt ) that the FAA had been providing contradictory guidance to two sets of private pilot groups. (Hence an earlier joke by me about hunting for bears to avoid problems.)

I'd suggest you consider what you can do to avoid the use of "incidental" because historically that word's meaning appears to have caused legal problems not only for pilots, but for the FAA as well.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Will this affect those guys in the ultra-lights that escort cranes from Canada to Florida?
They aren't covered by Part 91; that would require changes to Part 103.
 
Back
Top