Can my boss pay my flying (PPL)?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can my boss pay my flying (PPL)?
Interesting thing came up this week at work.
I've got a (CAA issued) JAA PPL, no other ratings. I fly in the Netherlands, member of a flying club. My work is completely non-aviation related (IT to be more precise) and I work in a department consisting of about nine people.
We've had a good first quarter and upper management has decided that each department gets a sum of money to celebrate. Suggestion from my boss on how to spend that money was for me to take everyone flying, have lunch at the destination airfield, then fly back. There are a few practical considerations (do we go in separate groups or do I organize some friends (who may be CPL/FI) to fly us all together) but I was wondering about the legality of this.
Obviously, as a PPL, I'm not allowed to fly "for renumeration". But my job description does not include flying, so although this little celebration is going to take place on a working day, I don't think it can be considered "work" in the CAA sense. And I remember having seen case studies where the CAA found that if a PPL holder flew to a business meeting himself (with or without collegues), but the flying was only incidental to the meeting (it could have been done by car, public transport or commercial air as well), the company could reimburse the direct costs of the flight without a problem. On the other hand, in this case, the flying is not incidental to the celebration - it is a fair part of the celebration.
Apart from the practical issues, finances and so forth, what do people think of the legalities of this? Is there any case material supporting either the view that this would be legal or illegal? Or is this one of those things where you need to ask the CAA nicely to get a one-time permission?
Truth be told, we're probably going to do something else anyway, because of other practical issues, (un)predictably of weather being one. But I'm still interested in opinions, references, case studies and other forms of good advice wth regards to the legal status of this.
I've got a (CAA issued) JAA PPL, no other ratings. I fly in the Netherlands, member of a flying club. My work is completely non-aviation related (IT to be more precise) and I work in a department consisting of about nine people.
We've had a good first quarter and upper management has decided that each department gets a sum of money to celebrate. Suggestion from my boss on how to spend that money was for me to take everyone flying, have lunch at the destination airfield, then fly back. There are a few practical considerations (do we go in separate groups or do I organize some friends (who may be CPL/FI) to fly us all together) but I was wondering about the legality of this.
Obviously, as a PPL, I'm not allowed to fly "for renumeration". But my job description does not include flying, so although this little celebration is going to take place on a working day, I don't think it can be considered "work" in the CAA sense. And I remember having seen case studies where the CAA found that if a PPL holder flew to a business meeting himself (with or without collegues), but the flying was only incidental to the meeting (it could have been done by car, public transport or commercial air as well), the company could reimburse the direct costs of the flight without a problem. On the other hand, in this case, the flying is not incidental to the celebration - it is a fair part of the celebration.
Apart from the practical issues, finances and so forth, what do people think of the legalities of this? Is there any case material supporting either the view that this would be legal or illegal? Or is this one of those things where you need to ask the CAA nicely to get a one-time permission?
Truth be told, we're probably going to do something else anyway, because of other practical issues, (un)predictably of weather being one. But I'm still interested in opinions, references, case studies and other forms of good advice wth regards to the legal status of this.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use my aircraft and claim expenses back as if I would for a car. It is perfectly legal to do so. i also work in I.T. There are plenty of us about who do it.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take would be:
You receive money from your company which is reward for work well done which you pay into your bank account. If you decide to take some friends and colleagues flying at your expense, then that is your business. Provided that the bill for the aircraft is not paid for by the company accounts, then it should be legal. It is a private flight.
Of cours, you may as an aside be liable for income tax as a taxable benefit on the sum paid into your account in the first place, and you cannot deduct the cost of the (private) flight from it...
You receive money from your company which is reward for work well done which you pay into your bank account. If you decide to take some friends and colleagues flying at your expense, then that is your business. Provided that the bill for the aircraft is not paid for by the company accounts, then it should be legal. It is a private flight.
Of cours, you may as an aside be liable for income tax as a taxable benefit on the sum paid into your account in the first place, and you cannot deduct the cost of the (private) flight from it...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey gcolyer,
Lucky your comapny said yes, mine blew their top, said I was stupid to ask and not to be silly and said that its was "unsafe" and I wasn't insured by them. I not I'm insured by me , much the same as any employee using their car for business they have to have business insurance.
Its not as unsafe as letting the bloke who is afraid of flying drive to Paris every time!
Goes to show its the impression that counts and not the data!!!
So well done you!
Lucky your comapny said yes, mine blew their top, said I was stupid to ask and not to be silly and said that its was "unsafe" and I wasn't insured by them. I not I'm insured by me , much the same as any employee using their car for business they have to have business insurance.
Its not as unsafe as letting the bloke who is afraid of flying drive to Paris every time!
Goes to show its the impression that counts and not the data!!!
So well done you!
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You no need to be sensible on when you choose to fly for business. For instance, If i was going to Newcastle for 2 days work it is cheaper to get an easyjet flight from Bristol and spend one night in a hotel, which means one evening meal and one breakfast.
Now if I go to Lille for 2 days work here are the choices:
1) Driver to Lille which is 7 hours travelling at 40p per mile plus the tunnel at £150, and drive back from Lille which is 7 hours travelling at 40p per mile. So that is 4 days out of the office of which only 2 are productive to the business. It also means 3 nights hotel, 3 evening meals and 3 breakfasts. So you are instantly talking a minimum of £500 expenses plus 2 lost days of productivity for travel.
2) Fly myself in a spamcan to Lille. 2 hours flight their lets say the aircraft costs £60 per hour dry. Fly myself back from Lille another 2 hours at £60 dry. Fuel cost is about £250 (max) and landing and parking fee is 31 euros (i done this last week). So I travel on the day I want to be in Lille and travel back as soon as i have finished. Which means one night in a hotel, one evening meal and one breakfast. Ok the expenses are still the same, but the business has not lost 2 days of productivty from me travelling.
It is false economy for any business to look at purely expenses.
Now if I go to Lille for 2 days work here are the choices:
1) Driver to Lille which is 7 hours travelling at 40p per mile plus the tunnel at £150, and drive back from Lille which is 7 hours travelling at 40p per mile. So that is 4 days out of the office of which only 2 are productive to the business. It also means 3 nights hotel, 3 evening meals and 3 breakfasts. So you are instantly talking a minimum of £500 expenses plus 2 lost days of productivity for travel.
2) Fly myself in a spamcan to Lille. 2 hours flight their lets say the aircraft costs £60 per hour dry. Fly myself back from Lille another 2 hours at £60 dry. Fuel cost is about £250 (max) and landing and parking fee is 31 euros (i done this last week). So I travel on the day I want to be in Lille and travel back as soon as i have finished. Which means one night in a hotel, one evening meal and one breakfast. Ok the expenses are still the same, but the business has not lost 2 days of productivty from me travelling.
It is false economy for any business to look at purely expenses.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly myself in a spamcan to Lille. 2 hours flight their lets say the aircraft costs £60 per hour dry. Fly myself back from Lille another 2 hours at £60 dry. Fuel cost is about £250 (max) and landing and parking fee is 31 euros (i done this last week)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I tortured myself and checked the ANO (IO540 thanks for the link). Here's the relevant article, I think:
This (surprisingly, as I'm not a lawyer) is clear to me. I can fly the plane and get my costs reimbursed as long as I, nor any of the passengers, are contractually obliged to fly with me, and I only get the direct costs reimbursed.
The two exceptions to this are article 162(3), which deals with group ownership, and 157(3)(c) which, as far as I can tell, deals with flight exams. (But that last article is very vague and I might be wrong.)
Public transport and aerial work—exceptions—recovery of direct costs
161. —(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than—
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c); or
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3);
is the payment of the whole or part of the direct costs otherwise payable by the pilot in command by or on behalf of the employer of the pilot in command, or by or on behalf of a body corporate of which the pilot in command is a director, provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried.
161. —(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than—
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c); or
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3);
is the payment of the whole or part of the direct costs otherwise payable by the pilot in command by or on behalf of the employer of the pilot in command, or by or on behalf of a body corporate of which the pilot in command is a director, provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried.
The two exceptions to this are article 162(3), which deals with group ownership, and 157(3)(c) which, as far as I can tell, deals with flight exams. (But that last article is very vague and I might be wrong.)
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was clear...
I thought that you had to pay your equal share of the flight ? It was immaterial how the other's covered the cost (they can claim it on expenses etc)
So if you claim it on expenses then you are flying for valuable consideration. I.e. you are getting free flying....
So if you claim it on expenses then you are flying for valuable consideration. I.e. you are getting free flying....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and 157(3)(c) which, as far as I can tell, deals with flight exams. (But that last article is very vague and I might be wrong.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Claiming expenses is legal and it has specific provision. The CAA terms this expense "motor mileage", a more readable explanation is here (ignore the title): http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 'public transport summary' flyer states
However, an exception has now been established permitting a PPL holder to recover the direct costs (but not the annual costs) in such a situation the flight being deemed private for all purposes.
but as usual avoids dealing with the definition of "direct costs". This term is not defined anywhere. I have written to the CAA stating that practically everything except the Annual (and including engine fund, prop fund, 50hr 150hr checks and in fact ALL hour-based maintenance) are 'direct costs' and while they refused to make a formal definition, they didn't disagree.
I would go further: a reasonable airframe/engine-time-based part of the depreciation is also a direct cost. This could be a huge amount of money, of course, and IMHO would make it impossible to prosecute under this clause except in the most blatent cases where a PPL sets up as some kind of private airline.
If the pilot or the employer rents the plane from outside, the 'direct cost' is clearly the full cost of renting the plane. So, the employer can provide a plane to the employee (for the said business trip) free of charge. The employee merely needs to not be contractually required to fly (can drive, etc).
However, an exception has now been established permitting a PPL holder to recover the direct costs (but not the annual costs) in such a situation the flight being deemed private for all purposes.
but as usual avoids dealing with the definition of "direct costs". This term is not defined anywhere. I have written to the CAA stating that practically everything except the Annual (and including engine fund, prop fund, 50hr 150hr checks and in fact ALL hour-based maintenance) are 'direct costs' and while they refused to make a formal definition, they didn't disagree.
I would go further: a reasonable airframe/engine-time-based part of the depreciation is also a direct cost. This could be a huge amount of money, of course, and IMHO would make it impossible to prosecute under this clause except in the most blatent cases where a PPL sets up as some kind of private airline.
If the pilot or the employer rents the plane from outside, the 'direct cost' is clearly the full cost of renting the plane. So, the employer can provide a plane to the employee (for the said business trip) free of charge. The employee merely needs to not be contractually required to fly (can drive, etc).
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO would make it impossible to prosecute under this clause except in the most blatent cases where a PPL sets up as some kind of private airline.
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
Do you think it makes any difference to the amount reclaimable if the spamcan is a club rental, group owned or your own?
As IO540 has stated just ensure you are not contractualy required to fly for business.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... as usual avoids dealing with the definition of "direct costs". This term is not defined anywhere.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander2
Do you think it makes any difference to the amount reclaimable if the spamcan is a club rental, group owned or your own?
Nope.
Originally Posted by Islander2
Do you think it makes any difference to the amount reclaimable if the spamcan is a club rental, group owned or your own?
Nope.
If you rent the aeroplane, there's little doubt that the entire rental costs (plus landing/nav charges etc) fall within the definition of Direct Costs.
On the other hand, if you sole or group own the aeroplane, there's equally little doubt that the equivalent to those rental costs does NOT all fall within the definition of Direct Costs. IO540 will (justifiably) argue about the exact extent of the difference, but it is absolutely clear, IMHO, that the cost of insurance, parking/hangarage and that part of the maintenance that is not specifically hours related are all Annual Costs and therefore cannot be reimbursed in part on a business related flight in a sole or group owned aeroplane.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the Insurance, parking/hangerage are actually direct costs.
I have always billed either the hourly rate or motor milage in lieu depending on the policy of the company paying the expenses. I fly a vast amount for work, In fact I fly more than I drive, car has 6000 miles on the clock since new October and 300hrs flown since then.
As ever I think we try and get to tied up interpreting the letter of the law as some sort of self torture.
The rules are there to prevent a PPL from running a taxi service or working as a commercial pilot for reward. A PPL who is using an aircraft for business already has another job and is just using the vehicle in the same was a car or train.
No employer is going to pay to fund someone's private fun flying so it all becomes self regulating.
I have always billed either the hourly rate or motor milage in lieu depending on the policy of the company paying the expenses. I fly a vast amount for work, In fact I fly more than I drive, car has 6000 miles on the clock since new October and 300hrs flown since then.
As ever I think we try and get to tied up interpreting the letter of the law as some sort of self torture.
The rules are there to prevent a PPL from running a taxi service or working as a commercial pilot for reward. A PPL who is using an aircraft for business already has another job and is just using the vehicle in the same was a car or train.
No employer is going to pay to fund someone's private fun flying so it all becomes self regulating.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There have certainly been cases of pilots being prosecuted for illegal Ariel or PT work!
List of prosecutions here, no details I'm afraid: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6484
List of prosecutions here, no details I'm afraid: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6484
Blah Blah Blah
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Malmesbury VRP
Age: 49
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see the british justice system handing out uniform fines.
One person gets fined £4000 for no C of A
Another gets fined £400 for no Cof A
One person gets 12month conditional discharge for public transport
Another gets £150 fine for public transport
I like the one about someone trying to ship a hazardess substance to Tehran on a 747. Banged up.
One person gets fined £4000 for no C of A
Another gets fined £400 for no Cof A
One person gets 12month conditional discharge for public transport
Another gets £150 fine for public transport
I like the one about someone trying to ship a hazardess substance to Tehran on a 747. Banged up.