The discussion forum for Sport Pilots and Light-Sport Aircraft

[Pawlander]

In 61.315 (c)(3), the FAR's prohibit acting as PIC of a light-sport aircraft "In furtherance of a business."

I had always assumed that meant you could not use the plane in a business where the plane was integral to the work being performed, like aerial photography, pipeline patrol, crop dusting, etc., but you could use it for business travel.

But I recently was reviewing the 2008 Nall Report and it included definitions (page 34) attributed to the NTSB that describe personal and business use:

Personal – Flying by individuals in their own or
rented aircraft for pleasure or personal transpor-
tation not in furtherance of their occupation or
company business.

Business – The use of aircraft by pilots (not re-
ceiving direct salary or compensation for piloting)
in connection with their occupation or in the fur-
therance of a private business


Now, my question:

I take business trips by car or airline and my company reimburses me for the costs. Does the cited FAR prohibit a pilot exercising light-sport privileges from taking a similar trip in a light-sport aircraft if the costs of that flight are to be fully reimbursed by the company? Does such a trip constitute 'in furtherance of a business?"
_________________
Randy

Comm/IR Flying Under Sport Pilot Rules
Flight Design CTLS www.N78BZ.com

[rfane]

[FastEddieB]

The latest AOPA magazine has an article on this very subject:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2010/february/counsel.html

You may have to be an AOPA member to view it.

If that's a problem I can scan it and post it, but only with the site owner's permission (copyright issues).
_________________
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com

[Pawlander]

Thanks, Roger and Eddie. Your interpretations are consistent with what has always been my understanding with respect to private pilot privileges. I just assumed the same interpretation applied to sport pilot privileges, but now I am not sure.


The actual FAR language for sport pilot privileges is different than what is specified for private:

61.113 (private pilot) may conduct the flight if "The flight is only incidental to that business or employment."

61.315 (sport pilot) may NOT conduct the flight in a light-sport aircraft if the flight is "In furtherance of a business."


The wording is different. What I am trying to determine is whether the different wordings are just two ways of saying the same thing, or if the limitations for light sport are different from the limitations for private when it comes to flights incidental to a business.

That AOPA article (thanks for the tip, Eddie; I hadn't read that far in the magazine, yet) actually raises even more concern. The 2009 FAA Chief Counsel's interpretation (with respect to private privileges) seems to place a lot of emphasis on the "incidental to" language in justifying company reimbursement for a private pilot, and that language is missing for sport pilot privileges.


Any thoughts on this, Paul?
_________________
Randy

Comm/IR Flying Under Sport Pilot Rules
Flight Design CTLS www.N78BZ.com

[Doss79]

But even so, you can never be fully reimbursed for your travels. It must not be more than 50%, no? So your business can only reimburse you for half of of the expenses.

[Pawlander]

A private pilot can be reimbursed fully under the conditions discussed above and in the AOPA Pilot article.

The only question I have is whether the same applies to sport-pilots and those with higher licenses but exercising the privileges of sport pilots.
_________________
Randy

Comm/IR Flying Under Sport Pilot Rules
Flight Design CTLS www.N78BZ.com

[Paul Hamilton]

as Pawlander stated:
The actual FAR language for sport pilot privileges is different than what is specified for private:

61.113 (private pilot) may conduct the flight if "The flight is only incidental to that business or employment."

61.315 (sport pilot) may NOT conduct the flight in a light-sport aircraft if the flight is "In furtherance of a business."

These are big differences.
If you are a private pilot flyin with your drivers license as a medical that means you are operating as a sport pilot with:
61.315 (sport pilot) may NOT conduct the flight in a light-sport aircraft if the flight is "In furtherance of a business."

If you want to be on the safe side fly as a private with 3rd class medical for anything related to a business.

I would give my interpretation but that is all it would be. I am going to leave this to the AOPA and their legal staff/attorneys who would help us back up their opinion.

Personally, I tend to interpretat the rules to give us more freedom but I am not the final say. This is one of those gray areas.
_________________
Paul is a Sport Pilot CFI/DPE and the expert for ASA who writes the books and produces the DVD's for all pilots flying light sport aircraft.
See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites

[Pawlander]

I found three relevant FAQ's on this subject on EAA's SportPilot.org site, and they back up Paul's advice. They are clearly of the view that you cannot make a business-related flight (meetings, etc.; reimbursed or otherwise) in an LSA if you are a Sport Pilot or if exercising Sport Pilot privileges.

--
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=1649

Question: I live about 100 miles from my company and am interested in purchasing a lsa to travel to work. Can a lsa be written off as a business expense?

Answer: The FAA has no specific restriction, provided you hold at least a private pilot certificate. A sport pilot certificate holder cannot fly in the furtherance of a business. Consult your tax advisor to determine if your use would be a tax-deductible business expense.

--
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=981

Question: I am a PPL w/ current medical. Can my S-corp buy an SLSA as a business expense where I use it not for carrying passengers but for making insurance inspections in other locations.

Answer: There is no specific restriction in the operating limitations of an SLSA that would preclude its use as transportation to a business location so long as the pilot is operating above the sport pilot level. So long as you are not carrying persons or property for compensation or hire you would be OK

--
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=2211

Question: I am a current LSA student pilot. If, when I get my certificate, I were to use an LSA aircraft to go to a business meeting but did not take the aircraft operating costs off as a business expense, would that be in violation of the use of the LSA certificate?

Answer: Yes, sport pilots are not allowed to fly in the furtherance of a business.
_________________
Randy

Comm/IR Flying Under Sport Pilot Rules
Flight Design CTLS www.N78BZ.com

[FastEddieB]

Randy,

My impression has always been that simple commuting is NOT "in furtherance of a business".

Much like you can expense mileage when a car is used in a business, but generally not commuting miles. IOW, flying to see a client would be out - but flying to work would be fine.

But you raise a good point, and I was not aware of the different language between Private and Sport Pilot limitations.

Looks like we need an FAA definition of "in furtherance of a business".
_________________
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com

[drseti]

[Pawlander]

Flight instruction is separately authorized in 61.413, so you are authorized that particular business use under your Sport Pilot Instructor certificate, not under your Sport Pilot certificate.

For those of us who are not instructors, I think the takeaway here is if you are ever asked during a ramp check, or you have an incident of any kind, be sure that the purpose of your flight is "I was flying over to XXX for a $100 hamburger" and not "I was just on my way to a business meeting over in XXX."
_________________
Randy

Comm/IR Flying Under Sport Pilot Rules
Flight Design CTLS www.N78BZ.com