FAA Private Pilot Question

[Mindstormed]

Under FAA Regs:

Company A is being paid to deliver packages for Company B, 3 days every week. The means of transportation is unspecified. I have a Cessna 172, and would like to fly the packages to their destinations for free. I would pay all the flight expenses, no one is paying me anything, but Company A is making money.

1. Is this legal?

2. If Company A paid for aircraft operating expenses, but not me, would it still be legal?

[slim_slag]

Is this one from the ASA study guide :) It's a bit of a tricky one, but find the applicable FAR and say what you think.

[westhawk]

Mindstormed:

This is an area where several very specific definitions will need to be applied.

Issue 1)

This to address the subject of commercial air transportation services:

From the information given in your question, it appears that "company B" has engaged the services of "company A" to provide transportation services for commercial goods owned by or under the control of "company B". The question to be answered here is whether or not this constitutes "common carriage". Several legal definitions and court rulings apply to this issue. An aviation lawyer specializing in air commerce law would be best qualified to determine this. If this is determined to qualify as "common carriage", "company A" would be engaging in "air commerce" by accepting compensation for transporting these goods and then using you to deliver them by air. In that case, they or you would be required to hold an operator's certificate issued by the FAA under FAR part 119. You and your aircraft would then be required to qualify to operate under the authority of that certificate.

Issue 2)

This to address the issue of whether you, as a private pilot may transport these goods by air.

Far 61.113 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=481183e2f99bfb9e16074d98ae312784&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.5.1.8&idno=14) states in part:

(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.

(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.

Clearly, the purpose of the flights is to deliver these goods, so carrying the goods would not be considered "only incidental to that business or employment". Carrying business associates and/or product samples for the purpose of a sales meeting would be more in line with the intent of the rule.

To summarize:

Whether or not you are personally compensated for the transportation of the goods is probably immaterial to the legal question because "company A" is being compensated for providing this service. This activity would very likely be viewed by the FAA as an illegal charter. Consequently, my advise to you as a pilot is not to do it unless competent legal council advises otherwise. I doubt if any would. But then, I am not a lawyer! If you really want to do this, you could look into obtaining your commercial pilot certificate and a single pilot, single aircraft commercial operator's certificate. If you have the time and money, it can be done. The FAA will even help you do it!

So I don't mean to rain on your parade, but the FAA and DOT take these issues very seriously when they come to their attention. For a private pilot, even free flight time is considered illegal compensation. Better to get your commercial and tow banners or do sightseeing if you want to build time. Or you could consider charity flying organizations like Angel flight.

Best regards,

Westhawk

[411A]

Answers are...

No ---and No.
The FAA would come down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried.:sad:

[IO540]

411A - references?

"The flight is only incidental to that business or employment"

Where is "incidental" defined?

IMV the whole thing hinges on whether the pilot is employed by Company A.

If so, this is a standard "pilot flying on his own business" scenario which is common under FAA, and is common under CAA under both Transport and Private regimes.

The fact that the pilot obviously owns [a part of] the business and therefore makes money as a result of the flight is OK.

What obviously helps is that there is no air freight agreement; any transport can be used. On top of that, the pilot isn't getting paid for it.

I would say the answer is nowhere near as clear as others make out. However, if done in UK airspace, it gets more complicated, for protectionist reasons (protecting UK operators who pay nice AOC fees to the CAA).

[slim_slag]

Four posts and a clearly USA FAA reg question has been turned into an attack on UK CAA protectionism policies. One wonders why one bothers posting.

Where is "incidental" defined?

In the dictionary, IO540, and not to be redefined to suit your purposes :)

Splendid answer from westhawk, 411a as usual to the point :), but what does mindstormed think?

[IO540]

It pays to question everything (almost everything), SS.

Now, if you were an aviation lawyer, posting under your real name, rather than someone who looks like they are just reading the FAR/AIM, I would not be questioning it as much :O

411A may be to the point but, regrettably, without references, such a reply is worthless because nobody can check it out. Most posts on online forums are worthless for that reason - including some of mine.

[B2N2]

The purpose of the flight is delivering the packages, therefore transportation.
Three times a week is no longer incidental no matter how you look at it.
Your fligh time is indeed illegal compensation.
If you pay for it you're still involved in transportation, for somebody elses profit,
but transportation none the less.
Some of these regulations are intentionally vague, so open for interpretation by local FAA offices.

[englishal]

If I (in pre-CPL days) worked for a company making electronic gizmos, and the boss comes to me and says "hey alan, we need these gizmos delivered to Palm Springs pronto, could you take the company turboprop and do it for me?" then yes, I could do it, be paid my salary, and not have to contribute towards the cost of the flight. Even if the company turboprop was offline, and the boss said "Hey alan, I need these gizmos delivered to Palm Springs pronto. Could you load them into your Cessna and we'll pay all your costs", then this would still be ok.

If however the company I worked for was a courier company, then the delivery could not be done as delivering packages is the companies main business.

How is this in JAR land? For example if my company wanted me in Aberdeen for whatever reason and I I fly my own aeroplane, can I claim the costs from the company? (not that there would be any link between my flight and my travel expenses claim - which of course wouldn't be put in in the advent of a mishap ;) )

[Mindstormed]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

Sticking with #1

The pilot is not employed by Company A. He's not obligated by any means to take the package(s) anywhere. Let's change things slightly - he's building flight time to the same location everyday - this is now the purpose of all of his flying. On certain days he takes a package(s) with him as if it were his own or someone asked him to - he makes no profit whatsoever from it, and again, he's not obligated to. With or without a package, he'd still be building flight time.

As far as the Company A - B relationship. There is no specified means of transportation. Company B is not paying Company A to use a specified form of transportation. It could be by car, truck, bicycle, speedboat, or walking. They don't care and neither of these companies are in the aviation industry. Company A is not a courier service.

Would this be legal?

Please share your thoughts.


My thoughts: Again, sticking with issue #1, I think it would be legal and innocent as AngelFlights - those pilots aren't getting paid nor reimbursed, and can choose to volunteer or not. They seem to make it as if they're taking a friend for a free flight. I'd be doing pretty much the same - taking a friend's package for free. I don't see how thier (the volunteer pilots with Angelflight) flight time can be considered as illegal compensation...BUT then maybe any timebuilding program at flight schools could be illegal flight time compensation!.. I don't know - I'm open for correction! :) As West said, I will indeed seek a lawyer and FSDO consultation.

Thanks again everyone.