Flying for Your Own Business
Posted by ScarlettWilkes@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 100 comments
I'm fuzzy on the rules around flying your own plane for a business purpose when you have only a PPL. Here's the situation... I own a business that makes furniture. We made a piece that needs some modification that's been delivered out of state. I want to fly out there, make the changes, and fly home. Can I pay for the fuel through the business? No passengers, just me, my husband (also a PPL who owns the business as well) and some tools. Is that doable?
Future_Combat952@reddit
statute miles not nm
Dry-Horror-4188@reddit
I fly myself through out the Southwest for business all the time. No problems. Been doing it for 20 years now. I am an PPL, SEL, IR. I write off the expense of the flights that are for business and have no issues (although I did get audited by IRS years ago for using the plane for business, again no issues as it was documented).
Field_Sweeper@reddit
It's isn't the gas and won't know the laws, I think you're Brea then tbh. I mean do you, just saying fyi. Cya.
But I am pretty sure the idea is this: if you're flying for any purposes that will make you money it's a commercial activity. Even if the flight isn't paid for. I could be wrong and perhaps that's just the "commute" but I'd probably double check on that before at least saying it out loud lol.
mirassou3416@reddit
When I worked for Grumman and used my aircraft to fly to a work destination I was reimbursed for all actual expenses
muchoqueso26@reddit
You can absolutely fly your plane for business purposes. You aren’t flying people or things for reward. You are flying yourself to a job. You can also charge a client for travel expenses if you are flying there to work on their things or meet with them. As long as you aren’t flying them. I have been doing this for decades and it is perfectly legal.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
If you were doing it solo then I believe the answer would be yes, however your husband would count as a passenger because its a single pilot aircraft and he isn't a required crewmember. Whether or not he is a rated pilot has no bearing on the fact that if you're PIC, he is just a passenger which would make this flight illegal.
BluProfessor@reddit
The husband is not a paying passenger. The flight is in furtherance of their business, that is hey own together. That's completely legal.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
True, my fault. I forgot that it only matters if the passengers are being carried for compensation or hire.
jet-setting@reddit
The passenger doesn’t have to be the one paying. The business is paying to transport the passenger.
Therefore the passenger is being transported for compensation. A PPL can only do that when sharing costs with common purpose.
You were correct in your original comment.
old_flying_fart@reddit
"because you are transporting people [...] you may not seek reimbursement from your employer" - FAA.
Doesn't get much more clear than that.
The ownership of the business is not relevant.
throwaway5757_@reddit
Can you cite that? Thanks! Trying to learn
old_flying_fart@reddit
Mangiamele interpretation
It's one of the more clear letters from the FAA, it always comes up, and 60% of pilots get it wrong (that's a number I pulled out of my...flight bag.)
It's highly likely to show up at a commercial oral, and it's highly unlikely to ever be enforced in the real world.
throwaway5757_@reddit
Thank you!
old_flying_fart@reddit
The husband isn't a paying passenger, but he is a paid passenger.
jet-setting@reddit
Incorrect. Not sure why so many people are missing this.
Coworkers are still passengers. Doesn’t matter if they’re paying, that is outside the allowance for incidental reimbursement.
NotGoodPilot@reddit
How do you know it's a single pilot aircraft?
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
Because I'm assuming a PPL is probably not acting as PIC of a multi-crew type certificated aircraft with their husband.
NotGoodPilot@reddit
Ah, so you don't know that. Noted.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
Do you have any examples of a multi-crew aircraft that you could get insurance coverage for as a PPL?
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
What the hell does insurance have to do with anything? I can buy a G650 and not have insurance.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
Its a practical requirement for operating the aircraft. Ever tried getting a hangar for a G650? They will ask for the insurance paperwork.
Sure, you could fly one legally without insurance, but practically you can't.
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
Don’t give me “practical”. I can go out and write a check for G650 and fly and I absolutely do not need insurance.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
At this point you're forgetting that none of this applies to OPs situation at all. I prefer to focus on things that happen in real life instead of a made up world where I have infinite money.
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
You assumed because they had PPL they couldn’t own a multi-crew aircraft because of insurance and it’s not even a thing. You can buy some clapped out jets for peanuts.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
I'm done discussing this. I made a reasonable assumption which it appears most people understand. If I'm wrong then you're welcome to show me the loads of PPLs out there flying their personal gulfstreams.
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
There is a citation at the airport south of me that’s worth about 1/2 what a 40yr old 172 is and it flys every month. Owner doesn’t have a license so he gets anyone wanting free turbine time to haul him around. No insurance and I seriously doubt it’s got a current inspection because he won’t even update the GPS database. So I can assume this isn’t the only one in the country.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
Sure bud.
NotGoodPilot@reddit
I'm not the one making assumptions and assertions and therefore have no duty to provide you anything. See ya :)
old_flying_fart@reddit
We assume you're a pedantic tool. As you said, you don't have to prove us wrong.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Because the question doesn't make sense otherwise.
airboss1998@reddit
Have to disagree. See above.
jet-setting@reddit
Sorry, above is correct. No passengers.
jet-setting@reddit
Under the allowance for flying incidental and being reimbursed for the costs, this flight is perfectly fine. HOWEVER.
Only one person can be onboard. If you’re both pilots, then you have to pick. The stipulation for incidental flying and reimbursement is that no other persons or property is carried on the aircraft. So that includes coworkers, whether they are a pilot or not.
This is all assuming you’re both PPL. If one of you is a commercial pilot then it’s just a normal 91 op.
KeyOfGSharp@reddit
So if op was a commercial pilot, and the scenario was exactly the same, how do you figure out would then be allowed? (Working on my commercial now)
jet-setting@reddit
Great question.
So only one small tweak is needed for this to be legal for a commercial pilot: the business needs to own the plane. In this case that’s probably just some paperwork since OP owns the business as well as the plane already.
The business can hire a commercial pilot to conduct flights for the business. So with a commercial pilot, they can use the plane for transportation like moving workers or parts/cargo from place to place. They could even give friends/family a ride wherever they want to go.
Where the music stops is once anyone tries to give the business money for operating the plane. No passengers can pay for a seat, and no one can pay for cargo to be transported. Once that happens then an operating certificate is required as the business is now providing transportation for compensation or hire.
JimTheJerseyGuy@reddit
What if OP packs a pair of foggles and hubby is acting as a safety pilot?
ScarlettWilkes@reddit (OP)
I was wondering about this, too... Our insurance company sure would love it if we both had more PIC time.
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
Sounds to me like all you Reddit “experts” put way too much thought into all of this.
Fly the plane, bill the company for some mileage like you used your car if you want paid. NO ONE CARES!! There is absolutely no one going to know anything about your flight or the purpose of the flight or how many passengers or if anyone paid. There is absolutely no boogie man fed hiding in the bushes waiting for you to land. Jesus Christ these can’t be real.
If I hire an escort and fly her to Miami for the weekend and she gives me a discount on services I’m sure there is some Reddit asshole that will claim the discount was “more than your pro-rated share” and that violated section 1379522 of the FAR Aim under code blah blah blah.
So for all of you waiting to jump on the legal bandwagon remember Nobody cares, nobody! There isn’t a plane owner anywhere that hasn’t hauled someone somewhere and was compensated somehow that wasn’t in violation of some dumbass rule intended to stop illegal charters. So before you quote some section of the FAR Aim remember, no one cares.
And to the OP, fly the plane, have fun and quit worrying.
poisonandtheremedy@reddit
Thank you.
JFC...
jet-setting@reddit
The question being asked was if it’s legal.
Answer is no.
What they do with that info is up to them. It’s only being made complicated because so many people are saying it’s perfectly legal.
KrabbyPattyCereal@reddit
The answer was “yes” ding dong lol
jet-setting@reddit
It’s not.
Again.
The question was if they can have the business reimburse the flight even with both people onboard.
That answer is no. Buisiness reimbursement for an incedental flight is only allowed if no passengers or property are onboard. The coworker is a passenger.
cmmurf@reddit
You’re allowed to bring passengers. But their pro-rata share isn’t a reimbursable expense for the business, even if they are co-workers.
https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2019/april/01/flight-incidental-to-business
Since this example involves two principals in the business who are also married, I think a different interpretation may be applicable because there’s no conflict of interest. In effect they’re one entity 😂
I think the flight expenses are reimbursable to the owners and deductible for the business. It’s both necessary and reasonable. (But IANAL or CPA.)
Whether to invoice the customer for this amount or eat it as a cost of doing business is purely a business decision.
jet-setting@reddit
You’re correct about pro-rata not being something a business can reimburse. Pro-rata cost sharing and incidental reimbursement are two completely separate forms of legal PPL compensation and importantly they cannot be mixed or combined.
However.
Passengers may not be onboard if you are receiving compensation (reimbursement) from the business. Full stop. Clear as day and backed up by FAA interpretation.
The reimbursement is compensation. As clarified directly via the Mangiamele interpretation.
cmmurf@reddit
Yep. I misread the AOPA article. It does seem like a very narrow carve out for solo private pilots.
dieseltaco@reddit
One of them is likely en-tittied.
old_flying_fart@reddit
The marriage doesn't matter. The business ownership doesn't matter. The second person is a passenger. Passengers mean no reimbursement. That's it.
Anthem00@reddit
they dont differentiate. I've asked an aviation attorney about this - and he said it doesnt matter if its your wife or a friend. Its explicit. So technically its illegal, but agree with you that it /should/ be different when no conflict of interest is there. Though one can make the argument that the husbands family mayn object to him and will sue if something did happen - so then they arent exactly "one entity".
But I ran in to this when I wanted to fly and reimburse from my own company - but the sticking point was that I sometimes had my wife aboard. . so that example was deemed impermissible.
We have to remember - that this is a FAA carve out exclusion. Not the norm. The norm is to have your commercial cert. The carve out for various reasons (including for angel flights, etc) are carve outs that they are allowing and very exclicit with very little room to maneuver.
old_flying_fart@reddit
r/confidentlyincorrect is waiting for you.
jet-setting@reddit
This thread really worries me how many people just cannot read.
old_flying_fart@reddit
They can, but they don't. It's not as if it's a complicated letter.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Brings new meaning to the phrase "in-flight service."
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
And I’m absolutely going to deduct that shit on my taxes.
old_flying_fart@reddit
You pay taxes?
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
As little possible.
old_flying_fart@reddit
As your accountant, I advise you to fly escorts to Miami more often.
MattL-PA@reddit
You forgot that you need to go as an accountant to verify said services first hand.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Ewww.....
Your accountant should be like your AME: "I believe everything you just told me, and there's no reason for me to put my fingers anywhere to verify anything."
LegalRecord3431@reddit
It blows my mind that people actually think shit like this happens, and it’s eye opening to how many pilots (not the OP, just the commenters) really do not have life experience outside of accelerated flight school programs
SimilarTranslator264@reddit
Dude it’s unreal, I know people that have been busted by the Feds for running a bootleg Facebook charter using piston twins and at one time a Cheyenne with no twin endorsement and Bluetooth annuals and they did NOTHING! He still flys, they had a meeting with him with video and photos from airports showing him flying in and out and didn’t even suspend his license. NO ONE CARES!
Even if the boogie man suspends your license you can still fly. They don’t throw you in jail, they give you a stern talking to and go away. So to read these doom and gloom legal experts is laughable in the real world.
I get calls from friends several times a year asking about rides places to pickup cars or look at real estate. I tell them a made up price I think is fair and we go. Sometimes it’s free if I just want to go, again no one knows or cares.
Anthem00@reddit
technically you cant do this. You violate the pro-rata clause because someone else is aboard. But the chances of you getting caught are near nil if you keep your mouth shut. But again - by the technicality of the FAR, this doesnt qualify for pro-rata reimbursement. You would just reimburse half. HOWEVER, since its your own company, they can also reimburse whatever amount to the other person (and whatever happens after that is between you and him). Again, dont have him acting as PIC or anything on the trip either.
throwaway5757_@reddit
How does this violate pro rata share?
Anthem00@reddit
just read the FAR. Or the FAA Advisory Circular which breaks it down in more laymen's terms :
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-142.pdf
But the simple reason is that he/she isnt solo. So if not solo, it has to be paid out pro-rata, and not the entire amount - which is what they want.
jet-setting@reddit
I think you may have a couple things crossed? Or maybe I’m reading your comment wrong.
Pro-rata and incidental reimbursement are two separate methods for legal PPL compensation and they cannot be combined or mixed.
The company cannot reimburse the portion of someone else on the flight. If there’s a passenger onboard, no company reimbursement is allowed at all for any amount.
The passenger and pilot can still split costs pro-rata together since they share common purpose but the business can’t reimburse either of their shares.
throwaway5757_@reddit
Thanks!
LegalRecord3431@reddit
Only if they keep their mouth shut? Buddy i guarantee you that you could call any FSDO in the US right now and openly report this and no one would give a single frick.
Anthem00@reddit
probably so.. but why give any information out to ANYONE that doesnt need to know ? Because some overzealous faa guy might just one day do something about it if he knew. . .
cmmurf@reddit
I’m telling you the divorce was strange. My husband ratted me out to the frickin FAA and the IRS! Neither agency could believe it!
LegalRecord3431@reddit
What would be the penalty if it were found out? Would they get their cert revoked? Would they have to siphon the fuel out of the plane? Would they have to pay a penalty equal amount to how much fuel they put in the plane? One could argue that at that point it comes under the jurisdiction of the IRS
Anthem00@reddit
it would absolutely fall under IRS issues as well due to it being "compensation". The FAA woudlnt care about that side of things, but only the legality of it. Like I said - they arent going to go looking for it which I 100% agree. But there is no point to publicize it for the IRS to come looking for trouble.
By your implication - they could write an article about flying for their company and getting reimbursed for Flying magazine. .. Um - how long do you think it'll take for the FAA to come and "rule" that they are violating the FAR at that point ?
VillageIdiotsAgent@reddit
Sounds to me like this is completely incidental to the business. Your business is making the furniture. Your customer wants you to come fix the furniture.
I think the test here is to keep in mind what 61.113 is intended to do. It is to protect people from hiring someone to fly them or their stuff who doesn't hold the proper certification. You aren't being paid to fly here. It's just how you are choosing to transport yourselves to what you are being paid to do.
IANAL, but I think this passes the test as incidental to the business.
Creative-Dust5701@reddit
Agree you have ‘common purpose’ with the other pilot. you aren’t holding out for compensation so the mode of transportation not relevant.
airboss1998@reddit
I would say you're okay. This is not a commercial operation. You're not being compensated and the flying is incidental to your business. No different than you renting a car to complete the task. I don't want to open up too many rabbit holes, but assuming you're not charging the customer for the travel, I'd say you're okay. And, while I've retired, I was an FAA Inspector for nine years and have a pretty good grasp of legalities.
ScarlettWilkes@reddit (OP)
Thanks!
I'm not charging anyone anything. My upholsterer screwed up and put some straps in the wrong place, so that's why I have to go out and fix it. I just want the business to cover the cost because fuel is expensive.
old_flying_fart@reddit
"I'm not charging anyone anything."
" I just want the business to cover the cost "
In the FAA's eyes, those are contradictory statements. You are "seeking reimbursement from," aka charging, the business. Who owns the business is irrelevant.
Grandpas_Spells@reddit
Business activity does not need to be profitable to still be business. Flying to a sales call is business whether it closes or not.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Where did I mention profitability? Are you in the right thread?
Grandpas_Spells@reddit
You are saying statements are contradictory which are not. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant:
Statement 1: "I'm not charging anyone anything." - Irrelevant. A business purpose does not have to directly generate revenue for a give activity to still be using the plane for business purposes. E.g., sales calls.
Statement 2: " I just want the business to cover the cost " - because the plane is being used for business purpose, OP's business can pay for the cost.
I don't see a contradiction but perhaps you do that wasn't spelled out.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Are you a pilot? We're talking about FARs, not accounting issues.
Statement 1 is incredibly relevant, and the word "revenue" never shows up in part 91. " - because the plane is being used for business purpose, OP's business can pay for the cost" is an extremely broad and often incorrect statement.
Grandpas_Spells@reddit
Maybe if you explain the issue with OP's statements you quoted in the context of this specific situation it'll make more sense.
OP is flying to handle a upholstery repair for his furniture business to correct an earlier error. If he were flying commercially or driving, the business could bear the cost, despite OP not charging for that service. It is business travel.
So, "I'm not charging anyone" and "I just want the (his) business to bear the cost" seems fine. I see you now have an edit related to passengers, but that wasn't in your initial reply.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Very little of what you said is relevant to interpretation of FARs. I don't think this discussion will ever get productive.
Grandpas_Spells@reddit
My company has been doing things like this for 15 years without issue and have had multiple audits.
I'm asking a genuine question about a contradiction you saw, because it looks very straightforward to me and you seem to see the exact opposite thing.
old_flying_fart@reddit
"Audits"
You keep coming back to accounting issues. This isn't accounting. This has nothing to do with accounting. We're not accountants. You're in the wrong place.
Grandpas_Spells@reddit
It's OK to make a mistake and just edit or delete your response.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Bye, bot.
Grandpas_Spells@reddit
Sure! Here's a recipe for delicious banana bread.
4 bananas
Grow up in a home where dad ruled with authority and affection was rare.
2 cups sugar
Be taught that making mistakes was bad.
4 cups white flour
Avoid therapy.
Cinnaomon, pumpkin spice (optional)
Post on Reddit.
2 eggs
When making mistakes, never acknowledge error. Show em the weave and make sure you don't answer when people who think you are arguing in good faith ask questions.
jet-setting@reddit
For what it’s worth, you are absolutely correct.
It’s a shame so many people in this thread are giving such poor information.
old_flying_fart@reddit
Agreed. The letter is really clear - but only if you read the letter.
old_flying_fart@reddit
How do you match "As for carrying your husband, again, not an issue" with "Thus, because you are transporting people to the meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer" from the Mangiamele interpretation?
jet-setting@reddit
This is incorrect.
If OP and the husband want to split costs pro-rata thats fine. But if reimbused from the business as an incidental flight, then no passengers or property can be onboard.
That includes coworkers, pilot or otherwise.
BandicootNo4431@reddit
I sure hope her husband doesn't report her to the FAA.
Alternatively, OP, Put on your foggles and use the other pilot as a required crew member and then they're not a passenger.
jet-setting@reddit
What they do with the information is up to them.
But the question being asked was if the proposed flight was legal under incidental reimbursement. The straight answer is no.
Ok-Skill8583@reddit
Lay off your husband from the furniture company for the flight day—he’s overpaid anyway. He flies the plane in simulated IMC, you safety pilot and pay pro rata share out of “your” pocket.
The purpose of the flight is to get training done. What you do after the flight is your business.
Mispelled-This@reddit
That example falls under the “incidental” exception and is fine.
Whether the business can reimburse your costs is another matter. But if you own the business, you’d just be moving money from one pocket to another anyway, so who cares.
LegalRecord3431@reddit
Is this something that anyone at the FAA would ever know about, let alone care about? Lol
ScarlettWilkes@reddit (OP)
I would really hope not... And, anyway, if I paid on my business credit card but then categorized the expense as a distribution then the business isn't really paying for it at all.
It's kind of crazy how much of a gray area this is though.
cmmurf@reddit
Ask a CPA, I think it’s simple. You use company credit card to buy fuel, oil, landing fees for this flight. And it’s categorized as travel expenses, same as your hotel.
If you care to literally treat your spouse as a co-worker passenger, then half of the airplane expenses would be categorized as “owner draw” or “distribution” - again something accounting can do in 2 seconds clicky clicky style.
A required crew member isn’t a passenger though.
voretaq7@reddit
The practical answer is what u/SimilarTranslator264 said:
This is what most folks I know who use light aircraft for business transportation do, and it's what I'd do if I had to travel: Take reimbursement at the standard mileage rate ($0.70/mile), and if your business policy is to reimburse parking maybe file the FBO/ramp/landing fees there.
Treat it exactly like driving your car (because if the weather was shit you'd just drive, right?)
Is that going to actually cover your operating expenses? Almost certainly not.
Short of establishing an actual company policy on the use of private aircraft for business travel though it's the easiest thing to do with your company's books.
(If you want to lightly toast the books you can finagle the "mileage" over roads with your favorite maps app to reasonably maximize the travel distance rather than calling it straight line air miles and get a few more bucks toward the avgas bill.)
Is the FAA going to get on your ass about it being a commercial flight?
Probably not if you take your "reimbursement" as above.
Is what you described in your post strictly OK according to the FARs? "Meh...."
It's questionable in your case because you're transporting your husband - also an employee of your company.
If it was just you and your tools and no property (stuff that will remain at the customer's site) / persons (other employees) it'd be only incidental to your business and raise no other problems. Bringing anyone else along with you or carrying parts, packages, etc. crosses the line though.
In keeping with the recent theme of citing FAA Counsel Interpretations: Lamb (2010) and Mangiamele (2009) are pretty on point for that.
Computerized-Cash@reddit
Check out 61.113. Sounds fine as long as you are PIC and you’re paying for the expenses. Otherwise you’d violate pro rata and your husband can’t be PIC because he’d be piloting in furtherance of business. Also check out this LOI what you’re looking for is 2-3 paragraphs down.
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I'm fuzzy on the rules around flying your own plane for a business purpose when you have only a PPL. Here's the situation... I own a business that makes furniture. We made a piece that needs some modification that's been delivered out of state. I want to fly out there, make the changes, and fly home. Can I pay for the fuel through the business? No passengers, just me, my husband (also a PPL who owns the business as well) and some tools. Is that doable?
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.