grey area (in my knowledge at least!)

[fritz_2001]

Just a quick question. If I had a PPL could I use it for business travel? I’m thinking of replacing the normal airline/eurostar trips to Paris or Brussels that I do with something a bit more fun. Obviously the company would be paying for the costs (i.e. as an business expense, and I wouldn’t be flying for reward), but I’m not sure whether this is allowed with a PPL, or whether a CPL would be needed.

Thanks

Fritz

[Whirlygig]

Depends on whether you're an employee, a director of your own company or self-employed.

If you can persuade your employer (and you're not a director) that it's more cost effective for you to fly rather than drive and they reimburse your costs (say SFH at £100 per hour), then the worst that can happen is that you pay tax on this £100 through your P11D.

If you're a director or self-employed, then it gets a little more sticky and depends on a number of factors e.g. is your business aviation, does it work out to be cost effective etc?

Cheers

Whirls

[QDMQDMQDM]

Time to spare, Fritz, go by air.

Don't do this unless you are really passionate and fired by flying. It will be enormous hassle and expensive to set yourself up to do this safely in a fashion that will mostly allow you to beat the North European weather.

It's a major commitment which risks killing you if you don't take it very seriously indeed.

Of course, it's fun too, but only after a lot of expensive, hasslesome hard graft.

[IO540]

If you can persuade your employer (and you're not a director) that it's more cost effective for you to fly rather than drive and they reimburse your costs (say SFH at £100 per hour), then the worst that can happen is that you pay tax on this £100 through your P11D.

Do you have a reference for the above in the tax legislation, Whirlygig?

There is no requirement for anybody to travel using the most cost effective route. if there was, we would all have to hitch-hike, and nobody could travel first class, etc. The exceptions to this are the ludicrous e.g. travelling to a customer using a hot-air baloon.

A PPL can fly on the business of his employer. The pilot can have the entire cost of the plane+flight reimbursed by the employer (not just "direct costs" - that is the CAA PPL Cost Sharing concession from Aerial Work and is not relevant here) and that is OK with both the ANO and HMRC.

If the PPL owns the plane personally, he is entitled to claim from his employer the pro-rata cost of business flying, of the total cost. Let's say the plane cost him £10,000 in the year and 30% of his airborne time was on business flights, then he can claim £3,000 from his employer.

Many pilots opt for the simpler route of claiming 60p/mile or some such figure; occassionally some have agreed a higher rate. I know of one who IIRC was claiming an agreed rate of £1.50/mile. This was on a spamcan; obviously a TBM850 would be more.

If the pilot doesn't own the plane, the company can provide the plane (owns it, rents it in, etc) and provide it to the pilot free of charge (he pays nothing).

In the above case, especially where the company has bought the plane, the crucial thing is that the pilot doesn't have access to the plane for private flying; if he has access (even if he doesn't actually do any private flying) then he is exposed to Benefit in Kind and that can be a killer. Various defences to BIK do exist but if your local HMRC inspector is a b*stard and decides to make your life a misery then all you can do is take it to General Commissioners (with a tax barrister costing some £10,000) or throw them a similar sum to make them move on to their next easy target (I have just done the latter; this is how HMRC prefer to operate these days, with anything involving yachts, planes, and racehorses). The whole area of BIK is complicated and lots of people have done private deals with their local inspector (e.g. 75% business flying) which they obviously won't advertise on pprune...

IMHO the only "sure" defence against BIK is to (a) have an employment contract which bans the use of the plane for private flying and (b) not actually do any private flying. That is how it works in a typical big corporate operator, otherwise everybody including the tea lady would get done for BIK.

As a result, the best way IMHO of flying on business is one of

(a) The firm owns the plane and all flying is 100% business (with careful logs kept of course), OR

(b) The pilot owns the plane himself and charges his employer as described above (pro rata or mileage based

A requirement in the ANO is that the pilot is not contractually required to fly. He must have the option of taking a train, etc. Otherwise, he needs a CPL.

As cjboy says, an IR is a must for general business flying around Europe - unless you just visit "friendly" customers who don't really care when you turn up, e.g. your own European distributors.

[Whirlygig]

No I don't have a reference have for it; I have experience.

Most employers (not the tax man necessarily) may well react along the lines "No Way Jose" when asked if they would reimburse the cost of Self Fly Hire; mine did when I tried it!! That is why I said cost-effective - to the employer, the boss, the head honcho, the one who writes the cheque!

I am not arguing with you again.

Cheers

Whirls

[S-Works]

It is not that difficult. The detractors are usually the DAY/VFR only flyers with a map and stop watch.

I manage to amass a lot of hours each year doing just that. I claim expenses for the flight in the form of milage and landing fees just the same as I would claim for driving and parking.

VFR you will be very limited but even then I managed 80% of my trips. With an IR I manage 95% of my planned trips and at worst have to delay a few days before doing them.

You would need a properly equipped aircraft with GOOD avionics not the flying school hacks that nothing works in. You need to be very current and confident in your ability (not over confident!). The sort of level I refer to is getting in the aircraft and flying anywhere with same sense of ease as doing the trip by car. There are many of us on here who use our aicraft in this way. IO, CJBoy, Timothy etc.

[IO540]

Whirlygig - Yes, but what the employer thinks of it is a separate issue. Lots of big companies ban private flying on company business, for insurance/liability reasons.

Arguing with me again? I thought we discussed it pretty amicably last time :) I think I got done for BIK rather more recently than you, and I am happy to pass on what I learnt so others can benefit.

Bose-x - I agree 100% but I think your 80% figure is possible because you are a competent instrument pilot, so you automatically fly as if IFR all the time. An instrument-capable pilot can fly "VFR" an awful lot more than a basic PPL.

[dublinpilot]

Bose-x - I agree 100% but I think your 80% figure is possible because you are a competent instrument pilot, so you automatically fly as if IFR all the time. An instrument-capable pilot can fly "VFR" an awful lot more than a basic PPL.

I think you're spot on there!

A VFR only pilot will not be happy flying at the extremes of VFR privlidiges. They just don't have the experience to do so.

An IFR pilot will probably be happy to fly VFR in the more marginal weather, knowing that they have the skills and options to safe themselves if needed.

dp

[fritz_2001]

Thanks for all the replies guys.

It looks like it's legally possible at least (i.e. within the restrictions of the PPL), but yes I do accept the advice about needing to be highly confident to regularly do such a trip, and probably with an IR of some kind. :ok:

Actually, would this only cover me to be in the plane? or would passengers be allowed? maybe that's pushing it too far?

Yes the tax implications are a good point but it really would be a genuine alternative (cost wise) to taking a regular flight for these shorter European routes. I work for a company and I'm not a director so I was hoping it would be the same as just paying for a rental car, or booking a flight etc. I certainly wouldn't be doing any extra "private" flying and hence I don't see it as a BIK, although I guess this would have to be agreed with the tax man first.

Fritz

[S-Works]

Good point. The point I was making is that it is perfectly possible to do if you have the right experiance and aircraft.

[scooter boy]

An IR is a must for serious business use. I have flown to/from work every day this week.

Yesterday evening I left work at 7.00pm in Gloucester.
7.23pm I was sitting in my Mooney with the engine running.
7.29pm I was retracting the gear climbing out into the dark.
37 mins and 2 light snow showers later (-9C at FL60 but little ice accumulation) I was on final approach to Plymouth.
Mooney safely in the hangar I had a 6 minute trip home in my R44.
PCL activated at 3.5 miles lighting up the helipad like a christmas tree and R44 back into hangar/barn for the night.

I reckon on 90-95% success rate for business use fixed wing with a deiced A/C and an IR.

The helicopter is far more versatile at getting you to the exact point you want to be at (and much more tolerant of strong winds) but slower and more limited by poor weather/night.

Yes, it costs a fortune but... I can't think of anything better to spend my money on.


SB;)

[Whirlygig]

but slower and more limited by poor weather/night.
Slower granted but limited by poor weather? Helicopters can fly in lower visibility than fixed wing!

WR, you're quite right for car mileage; those are the rates but I remain to be convinced that HMR&C would accept those rates for an aircraft! I don't know; I've never tried it!

Cheers

Whirls

[IO540]

would this only cover me to be in the plane? or would passengers be allowed?

I am not aware of any problem carrying goods or passengers on a PPL so long as all belong to your company. This is routinely done on a PPL, on both G-reg and N-reg.

The grey area is when you take up people not employed by your company, or goods in the same category. I don't know where the line would be drawn. Obviously you will always carry something not made by your company (e.g. your underpants) but if you started carrying a plane load of crates for an unconnected firm (even free of charge) then it might be illegal but I will leave it to better brains than me to work out the likely bits of the ANO.

There have been many prosecutions over the years but they tend to be over the carriage of paying passengers, which (for a PPL) is illegal for a whole bunch of reasons, and some cases were pretty provocative.

maybe that's pushing it too far?

Everything not expressly prohibited is 100% legal :)

I think you will be taxed as a BIK on anything over 40p/mile for the first 10,000 miles and then on anything over 25p/mile (IIRC) thereafter

Please supply a reference. Those figures are no more than HMRC business concessions for business travel in private cars which, if utilised, don't need to be declared on the tax return. If this were the end of it, nothing bigger than a microlight could ever be used for business flying.

I know for a fact that this is not the case; you can claim the full cost of the trip in the plane, just like you can claim the full cost of a 1st class ticket on a 747, or indeed the full cost of chartering a bizjet for the trip.

What you can't do is make a profit. This is illegal for a PPL, and HMRC would tax you on it anyway.

I know for a fact that there are several practicing accountants reading this forum and you bet I will be jumped on (with references) if I write some rubbish.

[Islander2]

A PPL can fly on the business of his employer. The pilot can have the entire cost of the plane+flight reimbursed by the employer (not just "direct costs" - that is the CAA PPL Cost Sharing concession from Aerial Work and is not relevant here) and that is OK with both the ANO and HMRC.Untrue, it's the 'recovery of direct costs' exception that's relevant, IO540. Article 161 of the ANO makes it clear (as does the April 2005 CAA paper 'Summary of the meaning of public transport and aerial work') that if the employer reimburses more than the direct costs in these circumstances, the flight is aerial work ... with all the attendant ramifications for licensing and airworthiness.

[Bandit650]

Yes, it costs a fortune but... I can't think of anything better to spend my money on.
SB;)

how about charity?

[stickandrudderman]

how about charity?


How about me?:ok:

[dublinpilot]

was hoping it would be the same as just paying for a rental car, or booking a flight etc.

One thing to bear in mind is your access to an aircraft.

If you purchase an aircraft yourself you obviously have all the access that you need, though the tax situation might be a little more complicated. The costs will also be higher, particularly if you aren't flying it much.

If you are renting the aircraft, you will likely need to book the aircraft well in advance (do you know well in advance when you are traveling?). Also, if you are traveling and staying there for a number of days, a rental organisation will likely require a minimum number of hours to be flown (or at least billed to you!). So renting early on a Monday morning, flying 2 hours into France, parking up on the ramp until Friday evening when you fly 2 hours back home again isn't likely to be acceptable to anyone renting an aircraft. You'd need to purchase one if that is your requirement.

dp

[S-Works]

Blimey all the taxation experts!

I charge £1 per mile in expenses for my air travel. I charge the landing fees and parking fees as direct costs. I have not been a company director for quite awhile since selling my company. I am employed directly by a VERY large financial institution who pay my expenses and it was they who agreed the rates. When I fly to the USA which is every month I get a first class ticket, I get picked up from home in an S Class and returned home in the same way when I get back. When I fly around Europe commercial I get a business class ticket. When I drive my car I get the Revenue recomended rates.

As a "Senior Executive" I receive expenses according to my level. Flying my own aircraft for these trips should not be any different.

Bandit: As far as giving to charity over 50% of my income seems to go that way........

[IO540]

Islander2

There are several cases to consider:

a) The business owns the plane, or rents/leases it in. In this case there is no doubt that a PPL can fly on the company's business, free of charge, so long as not contractually required to fly. IOW the company simply provides the plane to the pilot to fly, if he so chooses. This one has been done to death many times. It is also common practice, both G-reg and N-reg.

b) The pilot rents/leases the plane from somebody, and flies in it on his employer's business. In this case, the "direct costs" is exactly 100% of what he is paying to the school/club/whatever, and every penny he is paying is recoverable from his employer. This is also clear, on G- reg and N-reg.

c) The pilot owns the plane. This one could be debated. As far as HMRC go, the owner/pilot can recover the business-flying proportion of his total costs as I mentioned above, without a hit on BIK. As far as the ANO goes, one would need to unravel article 161 and all its cross-references to other places, plus you'd need to understand the whole context of the ANO. I recall this being done somewhere recently and it turned out to be OK. It may also be OK in an N-reg. It is certainly common practice.

An important point here is that "direct costs" has never to my knowledge been defined. I have written to the CAA (saying that the expression should logically include everything that is proportional to airborne time, e.g. 50hr & 150hr checks, engine fund, prop fund) and while they avoided giving me a direct affirmative they did say that the cost of the Annual is excluded (which I agree with). Now, an element of the depreciation of the plane is also hours-related, and (unless you are flying something totally decrepit) this could amount to a sum which dwarfs some of the other costs and very effectively prevents the CAA arguing that the amount recovered exceeded the "direct costs"! If the ANO defined "direct costs" as say just fuel and landing fees (which so many forum inhabitants seem to think is the case) that would be something else, but it doesn't.

I am not aware of any recent prosecution (e.g. see this (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosecutions.pdf)) on this subject, other than cases of arguably blatent public transport where (presumably) a nearby AOC holder got mightily miffed and reported the PPL to the CAA. I know that doesn't confirm legality but we could spend so much time debating why something "should be illegal"....

[sternone]

An IR is a must for serious business use. I have flown to/from work every day this week.

Yesterday evening I left work at 7.00pm in Gloucester.
7.23pm I was sitting in my Mooney with the engine running.
7.29pm I was retracting the gear climbing out into the dark.
37 mins and 2 light snow showers later (-9C at FL60 but little ice accumulation) I was on final approach to Plymouth.
Mooney safely in the hangar I had a 6 minute trip home in my R44.
PCL activated at 3.5 miles lighting up the helipad like a christmas tree and R44 back into hangar/barn for the night.

I reckon on 90-95% success rate for business use fixed wing with a deiced A/C and an IR.

The helicopter is far more versatile at getting you to the exact point you want to be at (and much more tolerant of strong winds) but slower and more limited by poor weather/night.
SB;)

I did not knew you also flew a R44!!! You are my hero!! :-)

[Islander2]

c) The pilot owns the plane. This one could be debated. As far as HMRC go, the owner/pilot can recover the business-flying proportion of his total costs as I mentioned above, without a hit on BIK. As far as the ANO goes, one would need to unravel article 161 and all its cross-references to other places, plus you'd need to understand the whole context of the ANO. I recall this being done somewhere recently and it turned out to be OK.Whilst I agree with your interpretation on cases a) and b), I'm sorry to be blunt when I say you're flat wrong on the situation where the aeroplane is owned by the pilot. There's no need to unravel Article 161, it's clear and unambiguous as to whether or not you can be reimbursed by your employer for a portion of the annual costs ... and you cannot! This is also confirmed in black and white terms in the CAA's guidance note I referenced (clause 5.4, which relates to a PPL holder's recovery from an employer of the costs of running their own aeroplane when flying themselves on business), quote: "an exception has now been established permitting a PPL holder to recover the direct costs (but not the annual costs)" - my emboldening. Direct costs are defined - see Article 155 - just not spelled out item by item so there is some room to debate what they do and don't include. Taken in conjunction with the definition of annual costs, however, the direct cost definition leaves only limited scope for legal debate.

[stray10level]

Article 161 is as clear and unambiguous as Tony Blair's reasons for going to do war in Iraq and the NHS and the reason Dr Kelly alegedly topped himself!!!!!!! If i were a contractor and i happened to own a Jet Ranger can i fly myself out to the rigs to work? Lets see you unravel 161 on that one! and there are plenty more examples of if, but and maybe of that type! Cheers.

[scooter boy]

Bandit: As far as giving to charity over 50% of my income seems to go that way........[/quote]

Gordon Brown takes as large cut of my profits too. I also work (some of the time) for one of the largest charities in the world... the NHS ...I have also made several charitable medical trips to developing countries etc... but I reserve the right to spend my hard earned cash on myself and my family ... my conscience is clear.

Sternone: Yes, you need an R44 as well as a Mooney for those shorter trips or to get you from home to the airport where your plane is - it's an absolute must!;)

Whirlygig: I take your point about helos being legal in lower viz than F/W and also I like the ability to put the helo down in a field if it all gets too horrible but try crossing a warm front or occlusion in a sub $1m chopper with no autopilot - it just isn't a good idea, we have all hopped over hedges and electricity pylons on the odd occasion but making a habit of it will surely lead to a more rapid exit from the gene pool.

SB

[IO540]

Islander2 - I don't think you read what I wrote. I said I agreed that the cost of the ANNUAL should not be in "direct costs".

I also think you may be confusing costs recovery for flying oneself around on company business (with no unconnected passengers or merchandise) with costs recovery for the purpose of PPL Cost Sharing (carrying unconnected paying passengers, where the obvious intention of the CAA is to prevent the pilot ever recovering anywhere near 100% of what it cost him to do the flight).

Keeping a lid on "illegal" AOC work is what all this is about really.

I would leave 161 to some better brains than mine.

[Islander2]

Islander2 - I don't think you read what I wrote. I said I agreed that the cost of the ANNUAL should not be in "direct costs".The confusion I think is yours!

The term 'annual costs' as used in the ANO and defined in Article 155 is NOT merely the cost of the ANNUAL! It is much, much broader.

Article 161 doesn't need a Mensa member to interpret. It is the only article that provides an exemption in respect of recovery of costs from a pilot's employer and it specifically, clearly and unambiguously only provides that exemption in respect of the recovery of some or all of the direct costs. It does not provide an exemption for recovery of any of the annual costs; ergo if a pilot uses his part- or wholly- owned aeroplane on business and recovers any of the annual costs (as distinct from the direct costs) from his employer, it will NOT be a private flight in respect of licencing and airworthiness.

[GroundBound]

You say "if I had a PPL" - so I assume you don't and are not yet fully conversant with PPL flying - apologies if wrong.

You also speak of replacing the London-Paris/Brussels train by PPL flying.
Putting the two together, you should be aware that you will NOT be flying (at a reaonsble cost [landing fees would be as high as the train fare], and definitley not VFR) between the MAJOR airports of these cities. You will have to find alternative nearby airport/airfields which will accept smaller (VFR) aircraft. Unfortunately, these nearby airports (or fields - sic!) do not usually have the best of access facilities once on the ground. If its an airport it won't be nearby, and if its an airfield it might be nearby but probably won't have the ground infrastructure - or at least, the ground infrastructure will take you almost as long as the flight over.

Weather-wise, you really need an IR, and an aeroplane that is suitablly equipped and rated for instrument conditions (icing?) - these get expensive. You cannot plan to fly VFR several days in advance and rely on the weather being good enough for the trip (and back!).

Others might disagree of course, but I suspect they are more experienced and have suitable aircraft.
GB

[fritz_2001]

You say "if I had a PPL" - so I assume you don't and are not yet fully conversant with PPL flying - apologies if wrong.
You also speak of replacing the London-Paris/Brussels train by PPL flying.
Putting the two together, you should be aware that you will NOT be flying (at a reaonsble cost [landing fees would be as high as the train fare], and definitley not VFR) between the MAJOR airports of these cities. You will have to find alternative nearby airport/airfields which will accept smaller (VFR) aircraft. Unfortunately, these nearby airports (or fields - sic!) do not usually have the best of access facilities once on the ground. If its an airport it won't be nearby, and if its an airfield it might be nearby but probably won't have the ground infrastructure - or at least, the ground infrastructure will take you almost as long as the flight over.
Weather-wise, you really need an IR, and an aeroplane that is suitablly equipped and rated for instrument conditions (icing?) - these get expensive. You cannot plan to fly VFR several days in advance and rely on the weather being good enough for the trip (and back!).
Others might disagree of course, but I suspect they are more experienced and have suitable aircraft.
GB

Yes you're right. I don't have it yet. I spent two years with the UAS and accrued around 60 hours there but I haven't pursued the civil route yet as I wanted to financially be in a position to be able to really do it properly rather than the odd hour here or there and never really progressing. Now I'm in a postion to to this I thought I'd find out about a few options. This isn't something that I'll suddenly start doing tomorrow and I'd definitely want to find out the reality off doing this, hence my questions.

My job means that I travel all over Europe and I'm getting increasingly frustrated by public transport, it's limitation and in many cases its cost. As I often only know about a specific trip a couple of days in advance the flights costs can be astronomical (£650 to Toulouse economy class last week, £500 to Rome the week before!). Whilst these longer trips probably wouldn't save a huge amount of money, I was thinking for the more local (e.g. Paris/Brussels) type trips it might be worth investigating if there was an option to fly myself.

Regarding the cost aspect, yes you can get cheap flights but that's only if you book in advance which unfortunately I'm rarely able to do, plus as I live (or will be shortly) down in Southampton when you factor in the travel to a London airport, and more importantly the airport parking (which is absolutely scandelous) then it really isn't so clear about what the best thing to do is. Flying form a small airport/airfield in the UK is what I'm trying to achieve, and to be honest it probably wouldn't be a problem at the other end once I'd worked out a routine for doing it.

Of course the opportunity to fly these sort of trips and hour build effectively for free is also a great incentive.

The IR issue is a relevant one and one that I'd take very seriously. If that's what's required then that's what I'd get. the qualifications would be paid for by me, and whilst our company does own two aircraft (aerial photography) I wouldn't be using them. Rather it would be done via hiring one.

Fritz

[dublinpilot]

I often only know about a specific trip a couple of days in advance


it would be done via hiring one

That part could cause you a serious problem. Hiring for a day or two at short notice can be difficult. The fact that you would want to hire mid week would be on your side, but it still may prove difficult.

[pumper_bob]

The solution to the ground infrastruture, or transport to be more accurate, is a DiBlasi folding scooter!(theres a thread on it somewhere!) You are also right to factor the time involved getting to the major airports for short notice flights. If you live in Southampton, you could be airborne before you would be parking up in Heathrow. Flight time from Southampton to say Tousousse would only be 1.5hrs in an average 4 seater(brakes on/off may be less, but you allways need a bottle of oil or something that wastes a few minutes). So you would be on the ground in Paris before you would have lost all your personal belongings to the Yellow coat wearing Gestapo at Heathrow!:{ :{ Now you get on your folding bike and into town in 30 mins! Buy a dual purpose GPS so it can do streets and airfields and you wont even need to stop and buy a map!
So door to door would be say 4hrs. On the BA option you would be lucky if you were in the que to take off after 4hrs!
But do go to the states and get an American IR, its worth an IMC over here so you are just about covered, unless you find an N'Reg to hire then youre covered all the way!

[mm_flynn]

I think you will find the vast majority of people who undertake missions as you outline them have their own aircraft. And a nice one at that (TB20, Mooney, Bonanza, Aztruck, 310 etc.) and have an IR (typically American) - but as they own their own plane (or a small group) it is on the N reg and they can use the FAA IR.

Unless you are on a SleezyJet route or one very heavily served, short notice flexible travel is expensive and time consuming on commercial aircraft. However, flying yourself you want a lot of currency and a good aircraft to minimise the number of times you have to face the conflict of cancelling or 'chancing it'. This is where corporate flight departments with very clear go no go decision criteria have the advantage over the pilot/'customer' as the same person.

I never plan to fly myself to a critical meeting (unless I go a day or two early) as it is a very easy call to say 'sorry won't be there the airline cancelled' vs. having to say 'I chose not to fly and can't get a seat commercially so will have to cancel'.