Getting paid with FAA PPL on "N" jet.

[jetopa]

... and the high-performance / conplex aircraft sign-off, RVSM training etc.!

There's a bunch of things to consider, but if your employer is absolutely serious that he wants you and nobody but you, the he'll fork the money over and send you to a TRTO that takes care of both your type rating and the training to obtain your commercial ME land with instrument privileges. This shouldn't take more that 14 days for the LJ-course + another 14 days for the license. Maybe less, but I wouldn't count on it.
And the he will send you to recurrent training at least once a year.

Then we're talking serious and professional bevaviour in business aviation. Best of luck!

[negativefx]

or give me your job

[act700]

Getting an SIC rating on a Lear is not hard at all. Formality, almost.

However, if you, or your employer, do fork over cash for a real course, then do yourself a favor and get a PIC type rating, not just an SIC rating.

That would be dumb.

[sycamore]

Purely out of interest,how many hours/what types do you have experience on at the moment ?

[glawkshuter]

If airlines can figure a way to put 200 hour pilots in 747s, biz operators can figure out a way to put a PPL in a jet...one way is to simply give him another title and pay him as such 'consultant' 'corporate massage therapist' 'sales' 'marketing' ect The fact is...while others want to see you stoned for trying to figure out a way into a jet without paying your dues...half the guys in here got thier airline jobs by kissing some serious butt and getting hired way under qualified. That's life. Where there is a will there is a way... It's evil, it sucks, but your all a party to it.

[Flintstone]

Originally Posted by glawkshuter

half the guys in here got thier airline jobs by kissing some serious butt and getting hired way under qualified. That's life. Where there is a will there is a way... It's evil, it sucks, but your all a party to it.

Please don't feed the troll ladies and gentlemen

glawks. This is the Bizjet forum so very few people have ever worked for an airline much less arse-kissed their way in. Do us all a favour and lay your bait elsewhere.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

The FAA are very uneasy about this, the new york FSDO have always been the the first port of call for such applications since 2006 when the requirement for an "issued" type. Since then the Feds have been policing this because up until recently insurers were not.

Expect to get blown off in NY even after speaking to somebody there and you setting off with your paperwork in order, to even have a remote chance of success you will need to have evidence of groundschool, an oral and paperwork demonstrating that you have done an internal course at an operator of this type (to include night circling approaches in a lear............!!)

Even then they might send you away emptyhanded. None of this is in the 61.55 regs, the days of wandering over to a flightschool and selecting the guy with the shiniest shoes to do three followed thru touch and go's are over.

Within the last 12 months insurers in the EU area are asking for evidence of simulator training within the last 12 months for P1 and 24months for P2. I dont think extra premiums would get you anywhere.

In terms of would you get away with it then the answer is yes .....probably the FAA if they happened to be on the same ramp as you could revoke your license and ground the aircraft but the odds are in yuor favour - your choice

You need to do the CPL & IR exams and 5 hours minimum training for each ride. You then could approach a 135 operator in the US with your new ticket and use their internal training program for the SIC at a cost. Yuo could probably then get it issued at a local FSDO with less questions

[SNS3Guppy]

He stated that he held a JAR ATPLf . This is basically a CPL with the written exams for the ATP, he will have around 200 hrs.

So no ATP at all...just a title to wear around that's spelled roughly like "ATP." Got it.

If indeed he's just got 200 hours, then he hasn't even enough to qualify for a wet-in FAA commercial. Somewhat of a leap to operate at learjet speeds while thinking at private pilot C-172 velocity. This indeed sounds like a case of attempting to sprint before one learns to crawl, and do it through a non-existent loophole.

You need to do the CPL & IR exams and 5 hours minimum training for each ride. You then could approach a 135 operator in the US with your new ticket and use their internal training program for the SIC at a cost. Yuo could probably then get it issued at a local FSDO with less questions

In order to enter a training program for a 135 operator, you'll have to be an employee of that operator. In order to do that, you'll need the right to work in the US and to be employed under Part 135...which will include the full background check, visa, enter the drug screening program, and the works. Since most 135 operators today are required under their insurance to obtain training through an approved simulator center, all the certificate holder would do is refer you to a Part 142 training center such as Flight Safety International, or Simuflite. This is really where you should be going in the first place.

If you intend to jump into a learjet as a completely inexperienced pilot, you're essentially reducing the airplane to a single pilot operation. That's really not the way to do business. Setting aside the issue of paying dues...which is irrelevant...the airplane is certificated for two pilots for a reason. It should be flown and operated as such.

If airlines can figure a way to put 200 hour pilots in 747s, biz operators can figure out a way to put a PPL in a jet...

Troll is certainly right...I'm beginning to think he's our long lost banned poster from the tech forum.

Clearly he doesn't have airline experience or experience in a corporate aviation setting. We have published minimums of 4,000 hours for our 747's...but the competitive minimums are closer to 8,000 to 12,000 hours, and we're seeing a lot of applicants lately in the 20,000 hour range. We don't see any resumes from 200 hour pilots, and wouldn't entertain one at less than 4,000 hours anyway.

A corporate operator has no need to go cheap. Generally the passengers on a corporate aircraft are worth more financially than several full airline loads, and typically look for more experienced pilots to fly them. They can afford to.

half the guys in here got thier airline jobs by kissing some serious butt and getting hired way under qualified. That's life.

You got the "airline jobs" part wrong, as this is a corporate forum, general aviation forum, ag forum. You got the "kissing some serious butt" part wrong, too. I've never had a job yet personally based on someone I knew, and my first airline position came well past five thousand hours. I was more than qualified when I hired on. I don't know anyone personally who did as you describe...and as you're clearly not in the know, you don't either.

one way is to simply give him another title and pay him as such 'consultant' 'corporate massage therapist' 'sales' 'marketing' ect

Not according to the FAA. That's a very transparent way to earn a certificate violation and become the subject of enforcement action.

What follows will be some FAA legal interpretations detailing the Administrator's policy on acting for compensation or hire.

March 25, 1997

David Grau, Esq.
212 Mohawk Galleries
733 SW Second Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-3116

Dear Mr. Grau:

This is in reply to your letter of March 17, 1997, to Ms. Lori Brand, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Hillsboro, Oregon. You ask for an opinion regarding certain operations proposed by your client, Air Surveillance Corporation (ACS), an Oregon Company. Based on the information which you have provided, we are of the opinion that pilots conducting aerial surveillance duties for ACS must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate.

You indicate that ACS proposes to offer a unique civilian aerial surveillance and security service, using light, general aviation aircraft, and ground vehicles equipped with radios, night vision devices, and other high-tech electronic systems. The company would provide crime prevention services in rural areas. Apparently, aviation operations would only be conducted under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and would be in compliance with the minimum safe altitude requirements of FAR 91.119.

FAR 61.118 states, in part, that a private pilot may not act as a pilot-in-command of an aircraft for compensation or hire except that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

The proposed business of ASC is surveillance, including aerial surveillance. In our opinion, flight operations would be conducted as an integral part of the commercial endeavor of the company and would not be merely incidental to that business. Therefore, persons who receive compensation for acting as pilot-in-command of ACS flights must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate.

Additionally, the FAA has previously determined that the receipt of flight time to build flying hours is considered compensatory in nature and would require that the recipient hold a commercial pilot certificate.


We hope that this opinion satisfactorily responds to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can provide any additional information.

Sincerely,

John J. Callahan
Deputy Regional Counsel

July 27, 1990
Mr. Melvin J. Huber
2113 West St. Joseph Street Perryville, MO 63775

Dear Mr. Huber:

Re: Request for Legal Opinion

The St. Louis Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO) forwarded your request for a rule interpretation to this office. You frame your inquiry in very general terms, which necessitates a like reply.

In the fact situation you have presented, Corporation A owns an aircraft, which it leases back to an FBO, which in turn uses it as a Part 135 aircraft. You state that Corporation B proposes leasing this aircraft for business purposes, providing its own pilot. You say the pilot is qualified to fly commercially for Part 91 operations. The lease would be on an as-needed basis, with the owner and local FBO retaining control of the aircraft.

You ask if the above may be conducted under FAR Part 91 rules without infringing on Part 135 operations. Also, you ask if the lease would be from the owner or the FBO.

For purposes of this opinion, we must assume that Corporation B's use of this airplane on an as-needed basis is closely related to any hourly type rental. Corporation B rents this plane and provides an employee/pilot to fly it for corporate purposes. Corporation B's use of the plane with its staff pilot for corporate purposes is a Part 91 operation.

You were, however, unclear as to the actual status of the pilot provided by Corporation B. If, as assumed above, the pilot is a corporate employee, we clearly have a Part 91 operation. We also have a 91 operation if B hires a commercially certificated pilot on an as-needed basis from a third party source.

The line between Part 91 and Part 135 is crossed, however, if the pilot also comes from the same source as the airplane. Renting or leasing a plane and pilot constitutes a 135 operation on the part of the lessor and pilot. Even if the parties couch the arrangement in terms such as a separate rental of plane and pilot, the 135 line is crossed. To remain squarely within Part 91 rules under your example, the pilot must either be a corporate employee or an independent contractor from a source removed from the lessor of the airplane.

We cannot address your second question on whether the lease is from the actual owner of the plane or the FBO. The answer to that will vary depending on the terms of the lease or rental agreement, the leaseback arrangement between the owner and FBO and perhaps the operations specifications for the 135 operation at the FBO; to name a few variables. Issues of this nature are best handled by your personal attorney as they may affect civil liability.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this question. If you desire further clarification you may present more detailed facts to your local FSDO.

Sincerely,
Timothy C. Titus Assistant Chief Counsel

November 6, 1990

Ms. Judy Lincoln
President, Soaring Society of America
P.O. Box E
Hobbs, NM 88241-1308

Dear Ms. Lincoln:
This is in further response to your letter dated July 19, 1990, and follows the August 14, 1990, interim response of Mr. George Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Northwest Mountain Region. You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders.

Based on your letter and a memorandum to our office from Mr. Thompson, we understand that in the specific circumstances applicable to the Soaring Society of America (SSA), no money is paid to the private pilot. However, the glider pilot does pay a tow fee to the glider club, which provides the tow aircraft without charge to the tow pilot.

The opinions at issue are:
1. Letter dated February 11, 1978, from Clark Onstad, Chief Counsel, to Mr. Forrest Blossom of SSA.

2. Memo dated February 22, 1978, from Jonathan Howe, Acting Chief Counsel, to AEA-

3. Letter dated April 5, 1978, from Edward Faberman, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Mr. Leonard E. Samuelson, Jr.

4. Letter dated June 26, 1980, from William Sacrey, Chief, Operations Branch, to Ms. Loretta Belter.
5. Memo dated April 28, 1982, from Joseph Budro, Chief, Flight Standards Branch, to Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division.

6. Memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division.

Your concern, as outlined in your letter and the attached commentary, is that the 1978 opinions (Documents 1, 2 and 3 above) appear to support the position that the tow pilot under the circumstances described need not have a commercial pilot certificate, while Document No. 6 says that such operations would require a commercial pilot certificate. I believe that these two lines of opinions can be explained by reference to the specific sections of §61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), to which they apply.
§61.118 provides, in relevant part:

Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

* * * * *

In this paragraph from §61.118 there are two distinct prohibitions that apply to a private pilot. The first prong of §61.118 says a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. As the question arises in the glider context, the first issue to be addressed is whether an aircraft towing a glider is "carrying passengers or property."

Document No. 1, the Onstad letter, concluded (in paragraph 5) that "a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them." From this premise, it followed that a tow pilot with only a private pilot certificate would not be violating the first prong of §61.118. Once it was decided that the glider and its occupants were not property or passengers, the issue of compensation or hire became irrelevant to the first prong of 61.118.

The Documents cited above are consistent in supporting this conclusion. See, in addition Document No. 1, No. 2 (paragraphs 3 and 4), and No. 3 (paragraph 3).

The second prong of §61.118 says that a private pilot may not, "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft". There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting "for compensation or hire”. With regard to this second prong of §61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under §61.118.

Only one of the documents you enclosed with your letter squarely addresses this issue. In Document No. 6, paragraph 4, Bernard Geier noted

that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act, within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for compensation or hire.

In summary we are left with two conclusions that may seem contradictory as applied to the tow plane situation. On the one hand, there is the Onstad letter (Document No. 1) and others holding that since a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them, a private pilot may tow a glider without running afoul of the first prong of §61.118.

On the other hand, there is the conclusion of the Geier letter (Document No. 6) that building flight time by towing gliders is considered to be an operation for compensation or hire; thus a private pilot towing a glider would run afoul of the second prong of §61.118.

One explanation is that Mr. Onstad and the others who reached the same conclusion simply did not address the second prong of §61.118. It appears that Mr. Onstad skirted the issue when he noted that the tow plane pilot does not "receive any remuneration other than the eligibility of flying the tow plane." It is unclear what "eligibility" means in this context, but in any event Mr. Onstad did not directly address the question of building flight time in this letter. In the sixth paragraph of his letter, he took at face value SSA's statement that the pilot received no remuneration for his service, and did not consider whether building flight time was considered "compensation or hire."



4

That means the Onstad letter is correct as far as it goes, but is an incomplete analysis of the issues. To the extent that it was intended to address the second prong, or can be reasonably read to address the second prong, this opinion, not the Onstad letter, now controls.

It could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved. The FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot's motives or intentions are on each flight.

One solution to this problem would be for private tow plane pilots not to log their time, a practice which I understand the Palouse Soaring Society (PSS) pilots have already adopted (according to Mr. Thompson's August 14, 1990 letter to SSA). I gather that this is not a hardship, since, as you note in your commentary:

In the case of the PSS, each private rated tow pilot has already logged flight time in excess of the commercial pilot minimums noted in 61.129(b), and thus has no motive to 'build flight time' towing gliders. If compensation, hire, gain or advantage were desired, any of these pilots could readily obtain his commercial pilot rating and find a more efficient means to 'build flight time'....

Another alternative would be for the PSS pilots to obtain their commercial pilot ratings, which would resolve the §61.118 prohibitions concerning private pilots.

This interpretation has been coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Office of Flight Standards at FAA Headquarters. We hope that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division

[SNS3Guppy]

August 5, 1992
John W. Cox
Northwest Aviation Enterprises P.O. Box 2407
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-0093

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter dated June 30, 1992, to Inspector Steven Albert of the Portland-Hillsboro Flight Standards District Office, in which you described several scenarios involving balloon operations. You asked if the operations by the referenced certificate holders would be allowed under the "compensation or hire" provisions of Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

We address each of the scenarios in your letter in the order you raised them. You referred to "Commercial Ballooning Services" (your capitalization) several times in your letter; we assumed that none of the referenced persons publicize using that type of reference. Also, please note that we are not expressing a finding that the referenced individuals have operated in the manner you described.

Bookkeeping services

We interpreted your reference to Mr. Turel's activities as follows: Mr. Turel holds a Private Pilot Certificate; he offers the operation of his balloon to the public for no payment; his balloon is affixed with the logo for his business, "Columbia Bookkeeping Services"; during the time that he operates his balloon, it does not carry any other advertising (or passengers or property); and Mr. Turel requires the permission of those who solicit the operation of his balloon, to operate his balloon in the manner and at the location in which he operates (i.e., without their permission, he would be a trespasser). In addition, we assumed by your reference to Mr. Turel's advise on the tax code, that his profession is that of bookkeeper.

Section 61.118 of the FAR would apply here. The relevant provisions read:

Except as provided in paragraph[] a...of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command [PIC] of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(a) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Therefore, in answering your inquiry, the first issue is whether Mr. Turel's operation of the balloon would be for compensation or hire. We would conclude that he would be receiving compensation, because he would be afforded the opportunity to advertise at the permitted location and at the permitted time, to the audience gathered or attracted by those who solicit his balloon, and he would not be legally entitled to do so without the solicitors' permission.

The next issue would be whether Mr. Turel's operation would fall within the exception stated in sub-section (a) of § 61.118. Under the circumstances you described, we would be of the opinion that Mr. Turel would not be in violation of FAR § 61.118. Because Mr. Turel would be advertising his own business and because his pilot operations are secondary to his professional role as bookkeeper, his flights would be incidental to his business and employment.

Student pilot

With respect to Ms. Frame's operation of Mr. Turel's balloon, you stated that she holds a Student Pilot Certificate, that she uses the time she operates his balloon to pursue her Private and Commercial Certificates, that he allows her the use of the balloon at no cost, and that he instructs her to operate the balloon in high visibility areas for the purpose of advertising "Columbia Bookkeeping Services."

Section 61.89 of the FAR would apply here. The relevant provisions read:

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft...
(3) For compensation or hire.
(4) In furtherance of a business.

Given what you described, we would be of the opinion that this operation would be in violation of sub-section (a)(3) of FAR
§ 61.89. The FAA has historically taken the position that building-up flight time is a form of receiving compensation when the pilot does not have to pay the cost, or pays a reduced cost, of operation. We would also be of the opinion that Ms. Frame's operation would violate sub-section (a)(4), in that the advertising function of her operation furthers Mr. Turel's business.

Balloon corporation

We interpreted your references to P & R Balloons as follows: Mr. Russo holds a Private Pilot Certificate; when he operates a P & R balloon with the Buckmaster Coffee banner attached, P & R balloon is compensated; Mr. Russo and Mr. Zuments operate P & R Balloons as a commercial company, including selling balloons; and Mr. Russo does not pay himself compensation.

Under the circumstances you described, we would be of the opinion that Mr. Russo would be in violation of § 61.118. The exception cited in sub-section (a) of § 61.118 is for a private pilot to act as PIC in connection with a business where the flight is only incidental to that business. Because P & R Balloon is not in the coffee business, its operation of the coffee company banner flights would not be incidental to that business. Furthermore, because the compensation goes to P & R Balloon, and Mr. Russo is a proprietor of that company, we would be of the opinion that he is acting as PIC for compensation or hire.

Because they hold Commercial Pilot Certificates, Mr. Zuments' and Mr. Hull's current operations would not violate Part 61.

Gas company

We interpreted your references to Northwest Natural Gas as follows: Northwest Natural Gas functions as a public utility, the sole function of which is for other than aviation purposes; Northwest has organized a "flight department" using employees who hold Private Pilot Certificates; the pilots serve as full-time, salaried marketing personnel; the pilots are not required to hold pilot certificates as a condition of their jobs and do not fly as a primary duty of their employment; the pilots receive no monetary compensation for flying; the pilots do receive compensatory time for flying; and the pilots operate balloons with Northwest Natural Gas' logo affixed, for the purpose of company promotion.

Under the circumstances you described, we would be of the opinion that the pilots' operation would not be in violation of § 61.118 of the FAR. Because the gas company's advertising would be incidental to a non-aviation business, and because the pilots' operation of the balloons would not be a primary condition for their employment (but, merely, a secondary duty), the exception in § 61.118(a) would apply.

Adventures corporation

We interpreted your references to Vista Balloon Adventures, Inc., as follows: Mr. Locatell is an owner and proprietor of Vista Balloon Adventures; he holds a Private Pilot Certificate; Vista Balloon Adventures operates balloons carrying passengers for compensation or hire; Mr. Locatell does not conduct the passenger-carrying operations, but he does conduct balloon operations in the Vista balloon; and his operations promote Vista Balloon Adventures, because the balloon is affixed with the Vista Balloon Adventures banner. We assumed that your reference to Mr. Locatell's operation of the Vista balloon at the Taste of Beaverton 1992 meant that Mr. Locatell was granted permission to operate and advertise there by the event organizers; therefore, we assumed that his operations are for compensation, for the reason stated above with respect to Mr. Turel's operations.

As described above with respect to Mr. Turel and the Northwest Natural Gas flight department, the exception in § 61.118(a) applies where a private pilot is conducting operations to advertise the pilot's company and the pilot's primary duties with the company do not involve operating aircraft. We assume that Mr. Locatell serves as a manager of Vista Balloon Adventures as his primary function, and that he flies the balloon only sparingly. Based on that assumption, we would be of the opinion that his operation would not be in violation of § 61.118.

I Note that we did not express an opinion as to the other P & R Balloons operations you described. We are unsure of what you meant by "for pay" tethers and "for pay" free flights.


Your ballooning community's belief

Let me reiterate the FAA's position regarding a private pilot's accumulation of flight time. If that pilot accumulates flight time, the FAA considers free or reduced cost provision of the aircraft to be compensation, and the pilot is, thus, acting as PIC for compensation. This applies to all aircraft operations, including glider towing and lighter-than-air and hot-air balloon operations. Therefore, those operations would be prohibited unless they fall within the exception in FAR § 61.118(a).

Balloon rallies and competitions

You cited prize money, motel costs, meal costs, propane costs, travel costs, and present memorabilia as items that may be given to private pilots at balloon rallies and competitions. In general, the FAA would consider operations involving the giving of those items to be operations for compensation.

However, there would be two exceptions to the general rule. If an item is something the pilot effectively buys with their entrance fee, or if the item is something that is given to all individuals regardless of whether they are a pilot or not, the FAA would not consider the subsequent operation to be a for compensation.

The "present memorabilia" to which you referred might provide examples of both. We would assume that most memorabilia would be of nominal value, e.g., an emblazoned t-shirt or coffee mug, the cost of which would be covered by the entrance fee. Effectively, the pilot would buy the memorabilia with the entrance fee; therefore, the pilot is not being compensated. To the extent that any of the other items are bought by the pilots' entrance fees, the pilots would not be considered to be receiving compensation. Furthermore, if an item were to be given to all who are at the event---pilots, spectators, members of the general public, etc.---the FAA would not consider any subsequent operation to be for compensation, because the pilot could receive the item without operating the aircraft.

We would define prize money as something other than "appearance" money. We assume that, in the usual context, prize money is only paid to those pilots who win the competition, and that the prize money pool bears some relation to the amount of the entrance fees. The pilot pays the entrance fee and, in exchange, is made whole by

the opportunity to compete; the competition organizers need not give the pilot anything more to satisfy the pilot's expectations. A pilot does not expect to receive a return of prize money on the "investment" of the entrance fee, but merely hopes to receive prize money based on flying skill. 2

Therefore, this situation is akin to the pilot buying an item, and the FAA would not consider that type of competitive flying for prize money as operating for compensation. Note that the establishment of a large prize money pool, where the pool is noticeably larger than the total of the entrance fees, could be construed differently. In that case, each pilot would be receiving more than what their entrance fee is worth, an opportunity to win a relatively high prize as compared to their "investment"; the FAA would consider that type of flying for prize money as operating for compensation.

Sincerely,

CAREY. TERASAKI
General Attorney


2 In this context, it is irrelevant to what degree the pilot's confidence in their competitive flying ability instills confidence that they will win. Ultimately, the pilot will receive prize money only if they perform at a certain level.

February 4, 1992

Mr. Robert W. Knee
9919 North Midway Portland, OR 97203

Dear Mr. Knee

This letter is written is response to your letter of January 22, 1992, in which you have requested a legal opinion on seven inquiries you identified pertaining to 14 CFR Section 61.118. Each of your inquiries is addressed separately below.

Acquisition of Passengers

Under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and FAA Advisory Circular 120-12A, a private pilot may not hold him or herself out to the public to provide air transportation. Any scheme whereby the private pilot offers a service to the general public in which any individual seeking a ride may partake in the offer is prohibited.

Allowable Expenses

The operating expenses which may be shared are the direct costs associated with the subject flight. More specifically, these expenses include any cost which would not have been incurred by the private pilot, "but for" the occurrence of the subject flight. Direct expenses typically include such items as fuel and oil consumed on the flight, landing or customs fees, ramp or tie down fees at the destination airport only, and non-routine maintenance costs, i.e., emergency maintenance. Direct or nonrecurring expenses exclude such items as insurance, routine maintenance or capital costs.

Further, in this regard, operating expenses may also include rental costs, provided that all costs associated with the rental are evenly distributed among all occupants of the airplane, including the pilot.

Hypothetical Number 1

This situation is permitted under the regulation.

2

Hypothetical Number 2

This situation is permitted under the regulation, provided that the member who provided the information to you is not an agent whose function or purpose was to procure passenger traffic from the general public.

Hypothetical Number 3

This situation is not permitted under the regulation. The "club-organization service" in which you refer to in your letter is an agency with a stated purpose of procuring passenger traffic from the general public and collecting them into groups to be carried by the private pilot. This type of conduct constitutes "holding out" under advisory circular 120-12A. Although the group members are a sub-group of the general public, the service is offered to any member who desires to partake in any proposed flight.

In addition, where a private pilot develops a reputation that he or she is willing to serve anyone from the general public, then the actions or conduct utilized by the individual to develop this reputation would constitute "holding out.” Actions or conduct which rise to this level would be prohibited solicitation, and hence, operating expense sharing would be inappropriate.

We hope that the above information adequately addresses your concerns.

With Best Regards,

Philip G.Pompilio
Staff Attorney

§ 61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire.

A private pilot is prohibited from acting as PIC, or SIC, for compensation or hire. Even the logging of flight time is considered compensation. Even if one is being compensated under a different title than "Pilot", one is still being compensated, and when one is employed by the same company for which one is serving as pilot...one is receiving compensation by that employer no matter how one slices it. Good luck convincing an Inspector that simply because your title isn't "Pilot," the fact that your boss is paying you and you're flying with the boss...you're not really being paid to be a pilot. It's not going to fly.

[SNS3Guppy]

Even when operating for charity in a flight in which the pilot accepts no pay...it still won't wash:

March 8, 1993

The Honorable Phil Gramm

This is in further response to your letter on behalf of your constituent Mr. Robert Bean concerning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) interpretation of Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

Section 61.118 states, in pertinent part, that a private pilot may not act as a pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may a private pilot, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft, even when the transportation of passengers or property is not involved. The NTSB has held that compensation or hire exists where a private pilot receives reimbursement of expenses or takes a tax deduction for voluntarily carrying persons or property on flights. The NTSB ruled such flights to be in violation of Section 61.118. The FAA argued for this interpretation and agrees with the NTSB decision.

Private pilots making volunteer air flights involving the carriage of persons or property are in violation of Section 61.118 if they receive any reimbursement of expenses or take any tax deductions for those flights. In addition, if the operator of the aircraft does not have an FAA operating certificate, carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire is also a violation of Part 121 or 135 of the FAR. On the other hand, if the flights conducted by Angel Flight do not involve compensation or hire, as that phrase has been interpreted by the FAA and the NTSB, then neither Angel Flight nor the pilots involved would be in violation of Section 61.118, Part 121, or Part 135.

In the past, the FAA has issued exemptions from Section 61.118 to allow for reimbursement of fuel, oil, and maintenance costs when incurred in the performance of official search activities. Under these exemptions, official search activities cannot include the carriage of persons or property, which would require an exemption from Part 121 or 135. Angel Flight may qualify for an exemption from Section 61.118, and thus its members could be reimbursed for fuel, oil, and maintenance costs for official search activities.

Such an exemption would not permit the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, since Angel Flight would have to have the appropriate air carrier operating certificate or commercial operating certificate. Parts 135 and 121 govern the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire. People or entities that hold themselves out to the public to provide transportation by air of persons or property for compensation or hire are considered "air carriers." If they do not advertise or otherwise hold themselves out to the public, they are considered commercial operators. It has never been the policy of the FAA to allow people to act as air carriers or commercial operators without an FAA air carrier operating certificate or FAA commercial operating certificate. In order to obtain such a certificate, one must meet the additional safety requirements in Parts 121 or 135.

I hope the above information will assist you in responding to your constituent.
Sincerely,
John H. Cassady
Acting Chief Counsel

Even the federal government is subject to the provisions of limitations regarding compensation and hire...even when operating public use aircraft, carrying public personnel. This is an important point to consider when remembering that public use aircraft are exempt from most of the regulation...and even they are not exempt from compensation issues. How much chance do you think a private pilot accepting compensation as a commercial corporate pilot has? (Hint: zero).

February 1, 1995

John R. Prukop Chief Pilot
Oregon Department of Forestry
2600 State Street Salem, OR 97310

Dear Mr. Prukop:

This is in response to your letter of January 3, 1995, requesting an opinion with respect to operation of public aircraft. You state that the Oregon State Department of Forestry owns and operates two twin-engine aircraft in support of its agency mission. It also makes the aircraft available to other state agencies for personnel transportation, such as the State Police, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Justice, and Department of Transportation. These agencies are billed at the same hourly rate, which the Forestry Department users pay internally. Funds are electronically transferred to Forestry's receivable account. You question whether this arrangement might jeopardize the "public aircraft" character of the aircraft.

A recent amendment to Title 49 of the U.S. Code (P.L. 103-411, Section 3) amended the definition of "public aircraft" to exclude government-owned aircraft transporting passengers (other than crewmembers) unless their presence on the aircraft is required to perform, or associated with the performance of a governmental function such as firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management. This amendment, which becomes effective April 25, 1995, would require that the personnel transportation operations conducted by the Department of Forestry, both for itself and for other units of the state government, be conducted under Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

In my opinion, the reimbursement for the use of Forestry aircraft by other state agencies would not constitute a commercial use of the aircraft, which would require that operations be conducted under the provisions of Part 135.

Such use would not be a commercial use because the aircraft could be used by agencies of the same political entity--the State of Oregon--and the funds which are electronically transferred originate with the same source, the state treasury. The state is merely providing transportation services to itself--the electronic funds transfer constituting a reallocation of funds within the same overall state budget.

You also indicate that on other occasions, state fire control personnel are flown on these aircraft to other states for wildfire control on state, federal, and private lands. The aircraft pool internally charges the fire protection division and that division may or may not share the expense for such flights with state or federal agencies involved in a cooperative fire control effort.

While the internal billing of flight operations within the state government of Oregon would not constitute commercial activity, the receipt of payment by the state of Oregon for any share of flight operations from any other governmental entity, local or federal, would constitute a commercial operation, absent a formal timesharing, interchange, or joint ownership agreement under 14 C.F.R. 91.501(b)(6). The provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations allowing for the sharing of flight expenses is limited to that of a private pilot sharing the operating expenses of a flight with his passengers. It would not permit the state of Oregon to accept payment from other governmental agencies for their "share" of the operating costs of the flight under Part 91. This would be true even if the payment were to be received by an agency of the state which did not, itself, provide the air transportation since we would consider the state to be the operator of the aircraft.

A limited exception to this general principle was created in P.L. 103-411, Sec 3. This legislation allows an aircraft to be operated on behalf of another unit of government pursuant to a cost reimbursement agreement if the using agency certifies to the Administrator of the FAA that the particular operation was necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life, property, or natural resources and that no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet the threat.

Sincerely,

George L. Thompson
Assistant Chief Counsel

The FAA's policy regarding foreign pilot certificates, member states, and the EU:

November 14, 2004

Mr. Raymond C. Speciale 3617 Byron Circle Frederick, MD 21704

Re: Application of 14 CFR § 61.3(a)(1) Dear Mr. Speciale:
This letter responds to your August 17, 2004, request for interpretation of 14 CFR § 61.3(a). You present the following facts: A client holds a commercial pilot certificate issued by the Kingdom of Belgium. On the face of the license there is a statement indicating that it is a "Kingdom of Belgium, Joint Aviation Authorities, Flight Crew License." Your client does not hold a U.S.-issued pilot certificate and operates a U.S.-registered civil aircraft in accord with the Federal regulations. The question presented is whether under 14 CFR §61.3(a), the pilot is permitted to operate a U.S.-registered aircraft in any foreign country in which his Belgian/JAA pilot license is recognized. As explained below, the Federal regulations under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and the U.S. obligations under Article 1 of the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention)' do not permit such action.

Section 61.3(a) (1) of the Federal regulations states "when [an] aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used." A strict reading of the rule requires that the country of issuance of the pilot's license match the country in which the aircraft is operated. The FAA, through an interpretation, cannot extend the meaning of "country" under § 61.3 to include JAA member States. Additionally, Article 32a of The Chicago Convention requires that a pilot license match the state of registration of the aircraft, unless a validation is made. The FAA made a



The Chicago Convention is the basic multilateral international convention on civil aviation and was entered into force on April 4, 1947. Convention on International Civil Aviation, December 7, 1944.; 61 Stat. 1180 T.I.A.S. No. 1591, 15 U.N.T.S. 295 (amended several times since enactment).

specific grant of validation respecting the Belgian license whereby a U.S.-registered aircraft may only be flown within Belgium by a Belgian licensed pilot. No JAA agreement can extend that specific validation.
We trust this letter responds to your inquiry. Should you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Rebecca B. MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

While the codification (numerical reference) of the regulation has been altered since the following Legal Interpretation was issued, the ruling is still applicable and defensible; it still holds the same authority and the point remains unchanged:

October 29, 1992


Mr. Jon S. Gorski
First Security Building
911 West Idaho P.O. Box 829
Boise, ID 83701

Dear Mr. Gorski:

This is in response to your letter of September 18, 1992, to the FAA Salt Lake City Flight Standards District Office.

Your letter states that the First Security Bank of Idaho North America (FSB) owns and operates a Cessna 425. The aircraft is used to transport financial documents from FSB Idaho branches to Salt Lake City for processing. On the return trip from Salt Lake City to Boise, Idaho, there is extra cargo space unutilized. FSB would like to use this space to carry the same type of cargo for another financial institution. The other financial institution would share operating expenses on a pro rata basis, and FSB would like to conduct the return flight under Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), specifically using the "cost sharing" authority of Section 61.118 of the FAR's.

In the company's perspective, it obviously makes more economic sense to fly the back haul with a loaded aircraft than with an empty one. Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, however, will not support this objective. That section simply permits a private pilot to share the expenses of a flight with a passenger. It provides no authority for an institution to carry the property of another for any payment.

I have also reviewed the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 Subpart F (which may be applicable to aircraft such as the Cessna 425, under an exemption) to determine whether any of the operations permitted under Section 91.501(b)(1)(9) may cover your client's situation.

Initially, it would appear that 91.501(b)(6) might have some application if a timesharing agreement or interchange agreement for the use of the aircraft existed between the two companies. However, it seems that carriage would have to be limited to people--company officials, employees, and clients--rather than property and, therefore, it would not accomplish your client's objective.

Section 901.501(b)(7), on the other hand, does address the carriage of property. Such carriage, however, is limited to that within the scope of, and incidental to, the company's primary business [where that business is other than transportation by air]. I do not believe that the carriage of another financial company's cargo from Salt Lake City to Boise could fairly be said to fall within the scope of FSB's banking business. Therefore, it appears that this alternative, also, is not applicable.

I regret that my advice cannot be more encouraging on this issue.

Sincerely,

George L. Thompson
Assistant Chief Counsel

[glawkshuter]

Guppy,Your not listening...if the pilot is not being paid as a 'pilot' but his business card says 'Assistant to the CEO of Marketing' then how will the FAA prove he's getting paid to fly the plane as opposed to just flying the plane and taking him and others on a business trip. (in furtherance of business)???

[SNS3Guppy]

You're not listening.

The pilot doesn't need to be employed as a pilot. His title is irrelevant. If it can be shown that he benefited economically from the flight in any way, then it's for compensation. In fact, even if he benefits in no way at all, but the flight is operated for compensation or hire or benefits economically (business aircraft, remember?)...he's in violation.

The boss may be taking tax benefits. Economic benefit...airplane's being operated for compensation. Boss pays private pilot for some other title, even has a little business card printed up saying so...makes no difference. He's benefiting, the aircraft is benefiting, and it's in furtherance of a business. Furthermore, he wouldn't be in the role of pilot if he weren't being employed as a required crewmember. He isn't simply a private pilot with a Lear type or SIC type who happened to be going along in the same direction. It's not incidental to his employement, and inventing a title, or even holding a title, other than "Pilot" changes that in no way.

As shown previously, not even public use aircraft...aircraft which can be operated without compliance with most regulation...not even those are exempt from the regulations and policies pertaining to issues regarding compensation or hire.

The FAA has bee quite clear...even the logging of flight time is compensation and violates the privileges and limitations of the private pilot certificate. Even if the private pilot accepts no wage at all...even the improvement on his experience of having he flight time counts as compensation...this from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. (There are three standards for authority with respect to the regulation and the FAA: the regulation itself, the Federal Register Preambles, and FAA Chief Legal Counsel Legal Interpretations).

If the employer provides training and a type rating, or SIC type in the airplane, then the employer has provided additional benefits to the employee, which may also be termed as compensation and furthering his qualifications.

This can easly be alleviated by obtaining the necessary certification, and doing it right. Go get the commercial. It's not that big a deal. Go get the type rating. For someone with no flight experience and no high performance experience, no jet experience, and who is about to jump from a small airplane to a fast airplane, do it right. Get some training.

I attended a Simuflite course a few years ago for a Lear. In the class were a number of initial applicants with no lear experience; several of them were there for the first time. I had several years of Lear experience and the course was a refresher. I was a little surprised at how much difficulty some of them had, including two FAA inspectors who were getting typed. All described it as drinking from a firehose. Now, admittedly, the Lear isn't a complicated airplane by any stretch of the imagination. The Lear 31 or 35 is fairly docile (whereas the Lear 20 series are not, especially with the older wings). For a new pilot making the transition, it's not like jumping from a 152 to a 172. It really isn't. I've watched new pilots lose control of the airplane on several occasions, including a dutch roll loss that nearly resulted in an aircraft loss.

Sure, the pilot in question in this thread might have a qualified PIC in the left seat...but let's get realistic. What's he going to do when the PIC has a heart attack or is incapacitated in an explosive decompression at altitude? When reality strikes, is that 200 hour private pilot ready to handle a decompressed unusual attitude at night with no references and 5-15 seconds of useful consciousness to get it all right?

Setting aside the legalities, which alone prevent him from taking this assigment, the notion of not needing the adequate training and qualification (and I'm not talking legal qualification) is ludicruous and intensely stupid.

[CirrusF]

Setting aside the legalities, which alone prevent him from taking this assigment, the notion of not needing the adequate training and qualification (and I'm not talking legal qualification) is ludicruous and intensely stupid.

Just to put the record straight, I was never for one moment expecting to not do a Lear type rating - obviously I would want to do that. And I have a lot more than 200hours - I don't know where that came in. My ATPL is still frozen just because I don't have much time on dual pilot aircraft, not because of lack of total hours. My question was just whether strictly I would have to do an FAA CPL. It seems that I will have to do an FAA CPL from a legal viewpoint, even if from a strictly flying point of view it is a waste of time and money.

[glawkshuter]

First of all, the well known FAA enforcement cases where people put together flight programs to build hours, they sold shares, even provided chartered aircraft for gas and oil, basicaly cost...were stretches. And not considered the rule. I remember in the 80s when twin time was gold, and people concocted all sorts of schemes to build that 300 hours of twin time for some commuter like Horizon. Of course Horizon knew it was crap...the prospective pilot said he burned up 300 hours at his own expense, not in charter, or as a CFII, but his own plane...they hired him anyway...he was benefiting by building hours and offsetting tens of thousands of dollars of twin time rental, by putting other people in the plane, logging the time, paying his gas and oil, and everyone was doing it.
Using your analogy, anyone with a PPL and a plane asked by someone to take them up for fun, see what flying is like, and then is bought lunch...is considered a criminal by the FAA...that the PPL is running a charter outfit, and he is benefiting by free lunches and building hours.. The cases that are prosecuted anymore are the psuedo charter guys...not time builders, as pretty much being the case these days, that if the airlines don't care enough to check the quality and source of flight hours, the FAA doesn't seem to care either. The exception to this rule is when someone is turned in, complains, and or there is an accident. As far as active enforcement in checking Flight hours, the FAA out to lunch. As far as flying a corp plane and trying to figure out if this pilot is being compensated as a sales person or a pilot, is so much of a stretch that you won't find an example off it. Guppy, your just trying to scare the newbes.

[con-pilot]

If we are going to turn this into a poll I am firmly on SNS3Guppy side of this discussion. I have over 40 years of experience in Corporate and General Aviation. I have seen some things that people have attempted to do to sidestep FARs that you would not believe. Sooner or later they all are caught, sadly many times in a senseless tragic accident resulting the deaths of innocent victims.

I am in no way questioning your piloting abilities CirrusF, however, if your boss has the money to own a large yacht and a Lear Jet he can afford to send you to school where you can attain an FAA Commercial Pilot License and the Lear Jet type rating at the same time.

Now, if this has been asked please excuse me, what are you going to do about a co-pilot?

[glawkshuter]

The co-pilot will probably be a Pomeranian that walked through Simuflite, got a waiver as a seing eye dog and copilot under some arcane rule. Hey, all to save a buck, right? If this discusion is going to be about how to put the most unqualified, unsafe, barely minimal pilot in the seat of a jet...let's ask the experts at one of those airlines that put 200 hour ab initio pilots in an Airbus.

[SNS3Guppy]

ng your analogy, anyone with a PPL and a plane asked by someone to take them up for fun, see what flying is like, and then is bought lunch...is considered a criminal by the FAA...that the PPL is running a charter outfit, and he is benefiting by free lunches and building hours..

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Here you've invoked multiple, unrelated topics, and you don't seem to know the difference.

A private pilot may share in the expenses for the flight...but must at a minimum pay the pro rata share. This means that if two people are aboard, the private pilot must pay half. If four are aboard, he must pay at least a quarter. Operating expenses will include fuel and oil, etc. If he really wants the job in the learjet and is willing to not get paid for his job, not log the time, AND pay a pro rata share of the operating expenses of the flight, I'm sure something could be worked out.

So far as running a charter outfit, he would have to make the flight more than 25 miles from the point of departure, transport persons or property for compensation or hire (and benefit economically in some way; there is NO such thing as a free lunch), and land at a point other than the point of departure in order to encroach into illegal charter territory. Further, the pilot may not hold out his services as a pilot, which includes even word of mouth, even if he doesn't initiate the word of mouth or advertise. If any of those occur, then yes, he's guilty of violation of the regulation. Further, he is also guilty at that point of failing to be part of an approved drug and alcohol program...another topic and violation of it's own right.

The FAA enforcement of these acts is NOT an old issue from flying "schemes" that occured during the 1980's. The FAA is currently very active in enforcing illegal charter and will take enforcement action against a private pilot exceeding his bounds in a heartbeat. Presently the FAA prosecutes about 3,000 cases of certificate action a year. The FAA just opened an illegal charter hotline, and one would have to be an absolute fool to think for a moment that the Administration doesn't take it very, very seriously.

Apparently you didn't know that.

The cases that are prosecuted anymore are the psuedo charter guys...not time builders, as pretty much being the case these days, that if the airlines don't care enough to check the quality and source of flight hours, the FAA doesn't seem to care either.

Wrong again, glock boy. You're confused between different subjects that you don't understand. Illegal charter, and private pilots acting outside their privileges are entirely different regulations. A private pilot may be performing illegal charter while taking compensation illegally...but again, two entirely different subjects, oth of which are separate violations and issues. The FAA most definitely does actively enforce regulations dealing with private pilots. I've seen it happen.

Part 121 operators, as you're apparently unaware, are required under multiple regulations (some of which cannot be discussed as it constitutes Safety Sensitive Information), to verify the background and employment of every applicant, including flight history, FAA history, driving history, criminal history, etc.

The issue of "quality" of hours is really quite irrelevant and subjective, and an entirely different subject with which you are attempting to cloud the present issue.

The FAA's concern is enforcement of the regulation, and the FAA does that without particular concern to the reason that a pilot violates the regulation. Whether the pilot is "building hours" or flying for some other reason isn't particularly important, nor relevant, should that pilot violate the regulation. He or she is due enforcement action either way, and the FAA does regularly violate pilots, including private pilots, for issues relating to compensation or hire.

Guppy, your just trying to scare the newbes.

I'm not trying to "scare" anyone. I am providing an accurate description and representation of the regulation and Administration policy, which is true, and correct. If that happens to scare you, that's your problem.

It's newbies, incidentally.

It seems that I will have to do an FAA CPL from a legal viewpoint, even if from a strictly flying point of view it is a waste of time and money.

If you feel it's such a waste of time and money, then don't do it. Who's putting the gun to your head and forcing you to gain the qualification?

With such a piss poor attitude, it's little wonder you're a private pilot seeking a job and whining so much. Between your attitude and that of your troll dog shoot the glock, I think any credibility or sensibility in this thread is fully played out. You two do whatever you want. You probably will, anyway. Better yet, keep asking the same questions and whining until someone tells you what you want to hear. Don't complain when it gets you violated...at least one of you has it coming.

[glawkshuter]

So I guess Guppy is what passes in here as an expert on aviation subjects?The sad silly fact remains, if an owner of a jet wants to get a PPL into his corporate jet, there's a way...just like the airlines have figured out how to put 200 hour pilots in thier large jets.

[max.aret]

CirrusF,

If you fulfil the following hour requirements, you might get a FAA ATPL straight away, even if only hold a JAA CPL.

(a) A person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:

(1) 500 hours of cross-country flight time.
(2) 100 hours of night flight time.
(3) 75 hours of instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions:
(i) An applicant may not receive credit for more than a total of 25 hours of simulated instrument time in a flight simulator or flight training device.
(ii) A maximum of 50 hours of training in a flight simulator or flight training device may be credited toward the instrument flight time requirements of paragraph (a)(3) if the training was accomplished in a course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142.
(4) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties and functions of a pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command or any combination thereof, which includes at least:
(i) 100 hours of cross-country flight time ; and
(ii) 25 hours of night flight time.
(5) Not more than 100 hours of the total aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be obtained in a flight simulator or flight training device that represents an airplane, provided this aeronautical experience was obtained in an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142.

[B200Drvr]

Furthermore, if you are doing a sim course on the Lear by a FAA certified training facility, you might as well just do the Comm /ATP checkride as well. It is at no extra expense, and will require you to write just one exam. IMHO the Lear really does require a sim course, and the FAA require you to have at least a Co-Jo rating endorsed on your license, to fly in it as a required crew member.