Is Commercial License Required for Banner Towing
Mike Schumann
using my own airplane, and the store (a Sub Chapter S Corp of which we are
the only stockholders) pays for the aircraft operating expenses, but does
not pay me for flying the aircraft, do I need to have a commercial pilots
license, or can I do this with a private pilots license?
Thanks,
--
Mike Schumann
Jim
commercial license. If you just flew a banner telling your wife you loved
her you could do it with a private ticket.
Jim Burns III
"Mike Schumann" <mike-...@traditions-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3f610425$0$1098$6536...@news.bitstream.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message
news:z7OcnYjrd76...@wctc.net...
>
> Towing a banner "In the furtherance of a business" would require a
> commercial license. If you just flew a banner telling your wife you loved
> her you could do it with a private ticket.
>
If I fly myself to meet a client I'm flying "in the furtherance of a
business." Why doesn't that require a commercial license?
Dan Moos
> business." Why doesn't that require a commercial license?
Thats commuting. His banner towing would be doing work for his business.
And before you respond to quickly, I know in the real world, my reply
doesn't make sense. This is the FAA we're talking about.
Jim
Good question. I'm just thinking out loud here and will check the FAQ's in
a minute but would it be because the business would not benefit just because
you flew rather than drove, as long as you made the meeting? If you fly an
advertising banner, the business benefits directly because flying is a
required part of that type advertising. Whether you drive or fly to the
business meeting would not matter to the financial well being of the
business, just as long as you made it to the meeting.
Jim
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:I588b.8822$PE6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jack
opinion. Its officially worth more than my opinion. And I have a
commercial rating. When you call them, make sure that if they say its ok,
get the name and ext. number of the person that gave you the answer. That
way, you have retribution. Also time and date.
IMHO
Jack
"Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message
news:9L-dnTWUmLP...@wctc.net...
Jim
explanation related to incidental business transportation:
The provision of § 61.113(b)(1) ". . . The flight is only incidental to that
business or employment . . ." has been interpreted as meaning an infrequent,
non-reoccurring flight where the flight is clearly (emphasis added CLEARLY)
incidental to that business or employment. Some private pilot certificate
holders would like the FAA to make a very liberal interpretation on §
61.113(b)(1). But the FAA in all its past policy statements and legal
interpretations have always taken a very strict interpretation on §
61.113(b)(1). Previous examples that have been offered to explain what is
meant by ". . . The flight is only incidental to that business or employment
. . .", [i.e., § 61.113(b)(1)] would be where the holder of private pilot
certificate uses the company aircraft for transportation on an infrequent,
non-reoccurring basis, and some of the other company personnel elect to go
along to attend a meeting. The flight has nothing to do with that business
or employment and is just a means of transportation. Nor may the aircraft
be the purpose for the meeting (directly or indirectly). Totally
incidental!
The case of a advertising banner tow would be a pre-meditated venture
designed purely to benefit the business and not incidental to that business
or employment. They may also take issue with the defined employ duties of
the pilot, even though it is a Sub-S corporation, the pilot must be named
and have a documented job description as "corporate pilot" or some such
title. Even with a commercial license.
Jim
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:I588b.8822$PE6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
Steven P. McNicoll
"Dan Moos" <dan....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vb88b.41473$ae6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> Thats commuting. His banner towing would be doing work for his business.
>
Commuting is not business travel, it's travel to a fixed place of business.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
>
> Good question. I'm just thinking out loud here and will check the FAQ's
in
> a minute but would it be because the business would not benefit just
because
> you flew rather than drove, as long as you made the meeting? If you fly
an
> advertising banner, the business benefits directly because flying is a
> required part of that type advertising. Whether you drive or fly to the
> business meeting would not matter to the financial well being of the
> business, just as long as you made it to the meeting.
>
But flying may very well be required to conduct the business. I may be able
to meet with three or four clients in different locations by flying in the
same time I could only meet with one or two by driving.
Steven P. McNicoll
Hmmmm....... Infrequent, non-reoccurring. So the first time I fly myself
to meet a client in Podunk I can do so on my private, the next time I have
to fly to Podunk to meet him will require me to get a commercial.
Bob Gardner
into a hurricane...you could call five FSDOs and get six answerss, all
different.
Bob Gardner
"Jack" <tot...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Ly88b.341$u07...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
G.R. Patterson III
Jim wrote:
>
> .... an infrequent, non-reoccurring flight ....
Well, if it doesn't reoccur, it's certainly going to be infrequent. Sounds
like Lynch has a bit of a screw loose.
George Patterson
Having to go to war without France is sort of like having to go deer
hunting without an accordion.
Ross Perot
Steven P. McNicoll
"Bob Gardner" <bob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Zt98b.321230$Oz4.109735@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Calling the FSDO would have the approximate impact of yelling out the
window
> into a hurricane...you could call five FSDOs and get six answerss, all
> different.
>
So preserve the details of the answer that suits you and forget the others.
Sven
news:3f610425$0$1098$6536...@news.bitstream.net...
As others have said, it depends on what interpretation the FSDO(s) give you.
You could do sky writing instead, which I don't think requires a commercial
ticket.
Jim
> Hmmmm....... Infrequent, non-reoccurring. So the first time I fly myself
> to meet a client in Podunk I can do so on my private, the next time I have
> to fly to Podunk to meet him will require me to get a commercial.
>
>
Ok, here's a different twist to our case. Maybe instead of arguing
"incidental" we should be arguing "compensation"? 61.113(b) says 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: 1, the flight is
only incidental to that business or employment. 2, does not carry passengers
or property for compensation or hire.
If no "compensation" was received I would assume that a commercial license
wouldn't be required. So if you visited 3 or 4 clients and no new business
or no additional business came from those meetings maybe no compensation was
received? Or would "good-will" be considered compensation? The same
argument could be made for the banner advertisement. If no new or
additional business was created by the advertisement, was compensation
received? Or was compensation received through community support, good
will, name recognition etc? The FAA's definition of compensation get's
pretty nit picky also, right down to including flight time if it's counted
for an additional rating IIRC.
Or, (back to incidental) does incidental mean "not purposeful". Like if you
visited your clients while on a multi leg cross country pleasure trip that
took you near their towns. I'd say no problem, private pilot all the way.
If compensation through additional sales or increased sales occurred after
the trip, this would be incidental to the trip because the main purpose of
the trip was pleasure, not business. However if the sole or main purpose of
the flight was to repeatedly visit clients, solicit their business, or
secure the business relationship further, then it would be purposeful and
non-incidental. The pilot would expect that compensation through additional
or repeated sales or revenue would be received. Acting as PIC repeatedly in
this role would require a commercial license.
Definitely gets one's brain working, but I'd err on the side of safety.
Jim
>
> Hmmmm....... Infrequent, non-reoccurring. So the first time I fly myself
> to meet a client in Podunk I can do so on my private, the next time I have
> to fly to Podunk to meet him will require me to get a commercial.
That may be where the compensation part comes in. If you normally do not
fly to visit clients then the occasional flight is incidental. You are not
being compensated to be the PIC. You are being compensated to go to Podunk
and meet with the customer.
Jim
much better definition at Websters Law Dictionary:
incidental
adj 1: (sometimes followed by `to') minor or casual or subordinate in
significance or nature or occurring as a chance concomitant or consequence;
"incidental expenses"; "the road will bring other incidental advantages";
"extra duties incidental to the job"; "labor problems incidental to a rapid
expansion"; "confusion incident to a quick change" [syn: incident] [ant:
basic] 2: following as a consequence; "an excessive growth of bureaucracy,
with related problems"; "snags incidental to the changeover in management"
[syn: accompanying, attendant, concomitant, incidental to(p)] 3: not of
prime or central importance; "nonessential to the integral meanings of
poetry"- Pubs.MLA [syn: nonessential] n 1: (frequently plural) an expense
not budgeted or not specified; "he requested reimbursement of $7 for
incidental expenses" [syn: incidental expense, minor expense] 2: an item
that is incidental
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F612849...@comcast.net...
Jim
Jim
"Sven" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:KK98b.420366$Ho3.66600@sccrnsc03...
Mike Schumann
compensation for the flight??? If the pilot flew the aircraft at no charge,
is there compensation? Another situation: You have a company owned plane,
and the pilot flies company employees to a meeting, but the pilot doesn't
get paid. Does the pilot need a comercial ticket?
Mike Schumann
"Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message
news:vj2dnQgmP4E...@wctc.net...
Mike Schumann
Mike Schumann
"Sven" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:KK98b.420366$Ho3.66600@sccrnsc03...
C J Campbell
receiving compensation for flying. The circumstances under which a private
pilot may be compensated are limited to specific cases, such as the pro rata
share of a private flight, carriage of federal election candidates, demoing
aircraft as a salesman, or in furtherance of your own non-aviation business.
The way I read it, you may tow a banner advertising your own business if
doing so is incidental to the operation of your business. You may compensate
yourself for towing the banner. Incidental to your business means that your
business is not banner towing or advertising, where you would be advertising
another business. This is similar to painting a corporate logo on your
airplane advertising your business. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example,
painted his jet black with a Batman logo to promote one of his movies. So,
you can advertise your own business, but you cannot advertise other
businesses. You also generally cannot carry passengers or cargo for hire
while you are towing your banner.
This is similar to aerial photography. You can take all the pictures you
like from your airplane, and sell or publish them as you wish. But you may
not contract to take pictures on behalf of others. An example would be
Barbara Cushman Rowell, who flew her Cessna 206 to Patagonia with her
husband, Galen, and various other passengers. Both Barbara and Galen took
aerial photos and sold them to National Geographic and other publications,
as well as publishing a book about their trip. They even had special aerial
photography modifications made to the airplane. Barbara also flew Galen to
lectures where he promoted his photos and books. But Barbara could not for
hire take other photographers up for photo shoots, nor could she take
herself or Galen up to take pictures for a specific contract such as a real
estate developer who wants pictures of the region. The Cushmans' business
was photography and writing; aviation was incidental to the business.
Judah
a meeting and make a sale, you are being compensated for your sale of your
product or service, not for your flying of the airplane. The fact that you
flew there or drove their or took a train or swam across the ocean is
irrelevant to your sale. Case in point - if you were a VFR pilot and the
weather was bad, you would probably still go to the meeting using some
other transportation method.
That's not to say that flying doesn't benefit you - as you pointed out,
because you can cover more distance in less time by flying, you can make
more meetings when you fly. But the fact that you flew there is not what
you are being compensated for.
The topic of being compensated for flying to your airplane refers more to
the fact that you may have charged the expenses for the flight back to your
company and been reimbursed... Which again, seems to be OK since you were
using the plane as a method to get to an unrelated business meeting.
The fact that you flew a banner advertisement for your company, however,
compensated or not, seems to be very specifically not incidental. If the
banner weren't there, you wouldn't have any reason to fly. And if you were
unable to fly due to weather, you would not have used an alternate means of
transportation to tow your banner. (I suspect an ad banner dragging behind
you as you walked down the beach would just not produce the same effect!)
I personally think banner towing is pretty cut and dry... The only angle
that you might be able to pull off is if your intent was to transport the
banner to some other location. But in that case, you would clearly have to
land somewhere other than where you took off...
"Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in
news:vj2dnQgmP4E...@wctc.net:
Judah
employees? From your description, it seems to me for the period of the
flight, his job description temporarily became "charter pilot".
Did he reimburse the company for his "pro-rata share of expenses" for the
flight? Or was it a covered expense (ie: compensation)?
"Mike Schumann" <mike-...@traditions-nospam.com> wrote in
news:3f6139a9$0$1102$6536...@news.bitstream.net:
Tom S.
news:3f6139a9$0$1102$6536...@news.bitstream.net:
> Is the question of compensation related to whether or not the pilot
> received compensation for the flight??? If the pilot flew the aircraft
> at no charge, is there compensation? Another situation: You have a
> company owned plane, and the pilot flies company employees to a
> meeting, but the pilot doesn't get paid.
pilot ^^
> Does the pilot need a
> comercial ticket?
IIUC, the issue here is _if the pilot being paid as a pilot_, or as
something else (CPA, salesman, manager...) with flying being merely
incidental to his primary job function.
Tom
--
People always say "The government ought to do something"...but they never
says they should do something wise, or intelligent, or....
Jim
dug into the FAR's, the compensation issue raised a few questions in my mind
also, and it's my opinion that the FAA can hold a very free and wide
definition of compensation when examining the issue.
--
Jim Burns III
jbu...@nospamuniontel.net
Remove "nospam" to reply
"Judah" <Ju...@NOSPAM.NET> wrote in message
news:Xns93F41C1AE2BC...@167.206.3.3...
G.R. Patterson III
C J Campbell wrote:
>
> As FAR 61.113 points out, .....
Thanks. Nice job.
G.R. Patterson III
Mike Schumann wrote:
>
> Is the question of compensation related to whether or not the pilot received
> compensation for the flight??? If the pilot flew the aircraft at no charge,
> is there compensation? Another situation: You have a company owned plane,
> and the pilot flies company employees to a meeting, but the pilot doesn't
> get paid. Does the pilot need a comercial ticket?
That hinges entirely on whether he was ordered to attend the meeting or not.
If he has to attend, then the flight was incidental to his job of getting to
the meeting. If the only reason he went was to pilot the other guys, it's
not part of his job, and he needs a commercial certificate. If the flight is
more than 25 miles, he also needs an instrument rating.
George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens
Ron Natalie
"Jim" <jbu...@uniontel.net> wrote in message news:z7OcnYjrd76...@wctc.net...
> Towing a banner "In the furtherance of a business" would require a
> commercial license. If you just flew a banner telling your wife you loved
> her you could do it with a private ticket.
>
that towing anything ot her than a glider requires a waiver from the FAA.
I don't know if they'd issue you one without a commercial certificate.
Jim
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3f61d54e$0$51856$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Ron Rosenfeld
>Calling the FSDO would have the approximate impact of yelling out the window
>into a hurricane...you could call five FSDOs and get six answerss, all
>different.
Yes, but if your local FSDO says it's OK, then is there anyone else you
really have to worry about, in this instance?
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Michael
The problem here is not compensation - it's getting the waiver.
14CFR91.311 Towing: Other than under §91.309.
No pilot of a civil aircraft may tow anything with that aircraft
(other than
under §91.309) except in accordance with the terms of a certificate of
waiver
issued by the Administrator.
What this means in reality is that you need to get your local FSDO to
issue you a waiver to tow a banner. No FSDO will issue such a waiver
to a private pilot.
Michael
"C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vm2muot...@corp.supernews.com>...
Robert M. Gary
I think the word the poster is not finding is "incidental".
Robert M. Gary
> If I tow a banner advertising a retail store that I own with my spouse,
> using my own airplane, and the store (a Sub Chapter S Corp of which we are
> the only stockholders) pays for the aircraft operating expenses, but does
> not pay me for flying the aircraft, do I need to have a commercial pilots
> license, or can I do this with a private pilots license?
1) If you are flying for free, you're being paid. Seems like there are
a couple NTSB reviews that confirmed that.
2) I can't imagine what insurance co you're going to find that would
agree to this.
3) The commerical isn't too hard. Just get with a CFI and do your
commerical.
-Robert
Judah
One clear example I could think of is if your Local FSDO thinks its OK, but
the FSDO where you are flying to doesn't... (ie: Flying across state
boundaries.) Another example is in a FSDO that has more than one person who
works there, since each persons opinion may not represent the actual
majority view of the FSDO...
Ron Rosenfeld <ronros...@nospam.org> wrote in
news:5st3mvghauflp9obp...@4ax.com:
Mike O'Malley
To further complicate things, in addition to the Commercial
certificate question, you need a dedicated pickup and drop area, and
it's becoming harder and harder to get that at public airports.
And what kind of aircraft would you be using for this? The most stock
plane I've seen used was a 180hp Skyhawk, and they are far from ideal,
the most common I've seen on the Jersey Shore were either 150 or 180
horse Super Cubs, and Pawnees. Along with the occasional PA-12 and
J-3 (both with larger engines than stock).
After all that, and don't forget the training too, not so much to tow
(though it takes time to get used to slow flight at 400') but for
pickups and emergencies. You'd probibly be better off contracting
someone to tow the banner for you.
--
Mike O'Malley
momal...@hotmail.com
Robert M. Gary
> Ok, without digging all night, the best I can find is John Lynch's
> explanation related to incidental business transportation:
> business or employment . . ." has been interpreted as meaning an infrequent,
> non-reoccurring flight where the flight is clearly (emphasis added CLEARLY)
> incidental to that business or employment. Some private pilot certificate
> holders would like the FAA to make a very liberal interpretation on §
> 61.113(b)(1). But the FAA in all its past policy statements and legal
> interpretations have always taken a very strict interpretation on §
> 61.113(b)(1). Previous examples that have been offered to explain what is
> . . .", [i.e., § 61.113(b)(1)] would be where the holder of private pilot
> certificate uses the company aircraft for transportation on an infrequent,
> non-reoccurring basis, and some of the other company personnel elect to go
> along to attend a meeting. The flight has nothing to do with that business
> or employment and is just a means of transportation. Nor may the aircraft
> be the purpose for the meeting (directly or indirectly). Totally
> incidental!
This is all silly. We need a FAQ to tell us what incidental means? If
your job (or business) is operating the aircraft, that doesn't sound
incidental. If you simply use the aircraft in a situation where its
not required its incidental.
Dictionary.com tells us "Of a minor, casual, or subordinate nature:
incidental expenses. " Flying a banner tow plane doesn't sound "minor
or casual" for a banner towing business.
-Robert
G.R. Patterson III
Mike O'Malley wrote:
>
> And what kind of aircraft would you be using for this?
A 160 horsepower Maule.
G.R. Patterson III
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> 3) The commerical isn't too hard. Just get with a CFI and do your
> commerical.
Either the CFI or you had better have access to a complex aircraft.
H. Adam Stevens
Of course it was a NEW 150.
;^))))))
H.
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F625C56...@comcast.net...
John Galban
> Exactly my opinion and what I would advise someone that asked me. After I
> dug into the FAR's, the compensation issue raised a few questions in my mind
> also, and it's my opinion that the FAA can hold a very free and wide
> definition of compensation when examining the issue.
You're right, they can. They also do not have to be consistent in
those definitions. For example, the FAA does not mind if you do
aerial photography with a private cert. Their take on that is that
"photography" is the business and that the aerial part is incidental.
If you were forced to do your photography from someone's front yard or
parking lot, I doubt you'd have the same results. If they were
consistent, then banner towing with a private cert. should be OK as
well. After all, you could walk through the streets holding up your
banner.
My advice would be to play it safe. The interpretation of the FARs
seems to be at the whim of whatever FSDO inspector you get. Once they
latch on to you with an enforcement action, the FAA tends to back them
up even though other inspectors might not interpret the reg the same
way.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
John Galban
> The FAA's definition of compensation get's
> pretty nit picky also, right down to including flight time if it's counted
> for an additional rating IIRC.
Agree on the nitpicky. The ruling you refer to above tends to get a
bit muddled here in the newsgroup. Technically, it should be
something like, "Compensation = Flight time THAT IS PAID FOR BY
SOMEONE ELSE in return for piloting services"
The ruling stemmed from a case involving a time building pilot who
was flying skydivers for free in an operator's airplane in return for
the ability to log extra flight time. The pilot's claim was that he
wasn't charging for his services, therefore no commercial cert. was
required. The FAA ruled that he was getting valuable flight time that
he would have otherwise had to pay for by renting. The fact that the
skydivers were paying the operator for the flights also made the
flights "commercial".
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
Matthew P. Cummings
> into a hurricane...you could call five FSDOs and get six answerss, all
> different.
How true, and sad. You can even get 2 conflicting answers from one FSDO, I know this
for a fact as well.