Another thing to keep in mind. Virtually all non-accident FSDO investigations are started because someone complained.
Keep your friends, relatives, and airport neighbors happy and the odds of ever being investigated for something like this is about nil.
In furtherance of a business....
Moderator: drseti
-
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:49 pm
Re: In furtherance of a business....
PP-ASEL, Flight Design CTSW owner.
Re: In furtherance of a business....
I had a fairly new FAA inspector stand up and talk at a flight instructor clinic. He said "We are here to violate you for anything you do wrong". At least that is what I remember. I think his attitude was softened a little by someone who was above him at the FSDO.
Re: In furtherance of a business....
......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: In furtherance of a business....
Or given a promotion.CTLSi wrote:That guy should be drummed out of the FAA.
![Crying or Very sad :cry:](./images/smilies/icon_cry.gif)
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Re: In furtherance of a business....
It's my understanding that the first thing that happens when you get a job with the FAA is they send you to school to learn how to be a ______, well you know what I mean.drseti wrote:Or given a promotion.CTLSi wrote:That guy should be drummed out of the FAA.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Re: In furtherance of a business....
......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: In furtherance of a business....
CTLSi, you have been advocating pushing the limits of the FARs to your advantage. Fine. Now you are suggesting responding with belligerence to the very FAA officials who hold the power to ground you over such action, should it be discovered. I think we all know how well that's going to work for you.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Re: In furtherance of a business....
......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm
Re: In furtherance of a business....
Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1380
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
- Location: Prescott AZ
- Contact:
Re: In furtherance of a business....
" No bad experiences for me, I might be inclined to answer questions?"
I like how this is stated because it points out we have a choice in how to respond to queries from inspectors. I've experienced one investigation - which ended almost before it began - and on the advice of AOPA's Legal Services attorney, I too opted to confess all. (Lost engine power over a SC barrier island not connected to the mainland and uninhabited. Did a simple fix to the throttle cable before the tide finished coming in, and was able to fly it off but was reported since the fix wasn't signed off by a licensed A&P/IA). But despite that 'positive' experience - a no-brainer to the investigator - I will not automatically opt to answer all Q's and operate out of a sense of 'felt guilt' if I choose not to do so. To expand on Paul's point, not all investigators are the same, even within the same FSDO. My choice would be to first understand my legal & procedural circumstances, as explained to me by an aviation law expert working for me. And I get that for a mere $33/year from AOPA.
I like how this is stated because it points out we have a choice in how to respond to queries from inspectors. I've experienced one investigation - which ended almost before it began - and on the advice of AOPA's Legal Services attorney, I too opted to confess all. (Lost engine power over a SC barrier island not connected to the mainland and uninhabited. Did a simple fix to the throttle cable before the tide finished coming in, and was able to fly it off but was reported since the fix wasn't signed off by a licensed A&P/IA). But despite that 'positive' experience - a no-brainer to the investigator - I will not automatically opt to answer all Q's and operate out of a sense of 'felt guilt' if I choose not to do so. To expand on Paul's point, not all investigators are the same, even within the same FSDO. My choice would be to first understand my legal & procedural circumstances, as explained to me by an aviation law expert working for me. And I get that for a mere $33/year from AOPA.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Re: In furtherance of a business....
..but I have fun flying for any purpose so I guess I don't ever need my medicalIf the flight is for work, you need a PP and a medical. If it's just for fun, you don't. Period.
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Seriously, I don't believe the clarification really clarified anything. There is still significant gray area that may interpreted multiple ways. AOPA legal or another aviation attorney might be the best source for more educated opinions on specific scenarios.
For instance, I live in Dallas but my business unit in based in Nashville. I have offices in Nashville, Dallas and Chicago. In general, I spend a week in each office monthly with no specific business driver dictating which office I use. If I were to fly myself to Nashville or Chicago, I would leave on Sunday which allows me to cancel (and go commercial the following day) if conditions are not conducive to a safe flight.
My parents live in Tulsa and I visit periodically over a weekend. My return trip is typically on Sunday to Dallas. I delay if the weather doesn't cooperate.
Now then, how is my trip back from Tulsa to Dallas any different than a trip from Dallas to/from Nashville? In each instance, I'm working the following day from my 'normal' office.
My personal view is that the travel is allowed under both SP and PP regs. I also know there are those define the reg more narrowly (just like 'reference to ground'
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
In my case, I reduce risk by flying as a PP with a medical.
dave
-
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:23 pm
Re: In furtherance of a business....
I hate to bump an old thread but I have a question.
I assumed that this regulation implied that any commuting that could be written off as a business expense would be off limits.
But even if the law does say that flying to work is wrong, what if you are a government employee and don't work for a private business? Obviously it won't let you fly commercially (even governments can have commercial activity) but flying TO work when you could just as easily drive (because flying is fun) doesn't sound like it would apply. At least not unless you're doing a business flight.
If I fly weekly to a city so I can get groceries and supplies and my work is in that city, it seems absurd that for that day of the week, I have to fly there to get my stuff but instead of going to work I have to (unnecessarily) fly back then drive to work as if the act of getting in the car absolves me of any legal sin I committed.
I assumed that this regulation implied that any commuting that could be written off as a business expense would be off limits.
But even if the law does say that flying to work is wrong, what if you are a government employee and don't work for a private business? Obviously it won't let you fly commercially (even governments can have commercial activity) but flying TO work when you could just as easily drive (because flying is fun) doesn't sound like it would apply. At least not unless you're doing a business flight.
If I fly weekly to a city so I can get groceries and supplies and my work is in that city, it seems absurd that for that day of the week, I have to fly there to get my stuff but instead of going to work I have to (unnecessarily) fly back then drive to work as if the act of getting in the car absolves me of any legal sin I committed.
-
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:23 pm
Re: In furtherance of a business....
Also I read the legal interpretation by the FAA and this is the part that everyone's talking about right?
There was another legal interpretation I read (2011 Gilbert Legal Interpretation) about someone who was flying out to visit juveniles as required by his work but that ALSO seems more clear-cut for business purposes than simply flying to your workplace.
So the question becomes is "flying to a business meeting" (what the FAA gave interpretation of) and "flying to work" legally the same thing. Maybe I should ask a lawyer.
"Transportation provided for a business purpose" does NOT sound like it's talking about commuting to work. Yes maybe flying to a meeting but not just going to work. I think we're all reading too much into this. Unless I'm reading a different website then what I'm seeing sounds ONLY like it's talking about business flights like delivering a company item from point A to point B, or meeting a client, or photographing a site.To further explain this limitation, the Interpretation notes that “flights in which transportation is provided for a business purpose, ‘even if incidental to your employment or the business you intend to conduct, and not required by your business or employment, would be considered in furtherance of a business.'” Thus, if a flight is conducted for a business purpose, even if it is only incidental to that purpose, then the flight would be considered to be “in furtherance of a business” and could not be conducted by a sport pilot.
There was another legal interpretation I read (2011 Gilbert Legal Interpretation) about someone who was flying out to visit juveniles as required by his work but that ALSO seems more clear-cut for business purposes than simply flying to your workplace.
So the question becomes is "flying to a business meeting" (what the FAA gave interpretation of) and "flying to work" legally the same thing. Maybe I should ask a lawyer.
Last edited by fatsportpilot on Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: In furtherance of a business....
To understand the interpretation of any rule, one must consider the rationale behind it. Every pilot (Sport Pilots included) is required to carefully assess the condition of the aircraft, route, weather, and self prior to every flight. Any external pressures should be instantly disqualifying. Flying to work certainly counts as an external pressure.
Now, specifically regarding Sport Pilots, the rules allow one the privilege of flight, strictly for pleasure and recreation, with a few very reasonable restrictions. The "in pursuit of any business activity" rule is one such restriction. It still gives you a lot of freedom (which you certainly wouldn't want to jeopardize, would you?)
Now, specifically regarding Sport Pilots, the rules allow one the privilege of flight, strictly for pleasure and recreation, with a few very reasonable restrictions. The "in pursuit of any business activity" rule is one such restriction. It still gives you a lot of freedom (which you certainly wouldn't want to jeopardize, would you?)
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
-
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:23 pm
Re: In furtherance of a business....
I could live somewhere where I couldn't get supplies I needed (food etc) easily except by plane and that would be an external pressure but it would still be legal (but very foolish). None of those two interpretations sounds to me like they are clear about flying to your place of employment just about performing flights that are part of your work like flying to meet clients or flying to meet people who your job pays you to check up on (like in the 2011 interpretation).drseti wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:29 pm To understand the interpretation of any rule, one must consider the rationale behind it. Every pilot (Sport Pilots included) is required to carefully assess the condition of the aircraft, route, weather, and self prior to every flight. Any external pressures should be instantly disqualifying. Flying to work certainly counts as an external pressure.
Now, specifically regarding Sport Pilots, the rules allow one the privilege of flight, strictly for pleasure and recreation, with a few very reasonable restrictions. The "in pursuit of any business activity" rule is one such restriction. It still gives you a lot of freedom (which you certainly wouldn't want to jeopardize, would you?)