BUSINESS TRAVEL BY PRIVATE AIRCRAFT David S. Touretzky, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA May 1995 For many years my employer, Carnegie Mellon University, permitted business travel by private aircraft but had no formal policy. Then, in 1990, a senior administrator got nervous about the potential liability, and banned use of GA aircraft for business travel. This didn't sit too well with the CMU pilot community, and I personally resolved to do whatever it took to change CMU's mind. Fortunately, this administrator left the university immediately after the policy was issued, and his replacement proved to be a reasonable person. So it took me a year of hard work, but CMU ended up with a prudent and fair aviation policy, and we have been using GA aircraft for business travel and getting reimbursed at a reasonable rate for a number of years now. I kept a bunch of files of material relating to this, and I will append them to this message. As to strategy: I found the most effective tactic was to first convince the university that it HAD to have aviation insurance coverage even if it banned travel by small plane. I pointed out to them that 2/3 of the business trips I take in my Seneca are reimbursed by third parties, not by them. For example, if I give a seminar at another university I'm reimbursed by them; when I attend a meeting in Washington my airfare is paid by NSF. So I'm going to fly (and get paid for it) whether they like it or not. And I am still representing CMU and am considered to be traveling on CMU business, so if I crash, the university is going to get sued. The administration immediately realized that since they can't completely prevent people from using small planes for business travel, they'd better get insurance coverage for it. Once we were over that hill, the remaining issue was whether the university should take a more permissive attitude and agree to actually reimburse people for use of a private plane. This took a year to work out and required some additional minor insurance changes, but in the end everybody was satisfied. One of the things I did to try to sway the administration was put together a list of other institutions with similar policies. Ohio State and the Univerity of Tennessee are two good examples of state schools that support GA travel. Several local businesses here in Pittsburgh do as well, such as Westinghouse and ALCOA. But another big help was that the highest level official on the committee studying the problem, the Associate Provost, has a husband who is a private pilot. As soon as she showed up, there was no danger of our getting into one of those "small planes are deathtraps and GA pilots are lunatics" debates. The ironic thing is that, while her husband had occasionally flown her on CMU-related business in the past, the final policy we came up with does not permit this, because he's not a CMU employee. Sigh. Here is some material I think you'll find useful: * the first memo I wrote to the Vice President about GA flight * my summary of aviation policies at other places * a humorous memo on the drawbacks of airline travel compared with GA * a serious memo on the risks of GA flight * a copy of the aviation policy we finally came up with * the CMU pilot registration form we now use * some answers to questions people raised about our policy * some remarks specific to universities and risk assessment Good luck everyone else who is working to ensure the continued viability of GA travel. -- Dave Touretzky, CFI-AIM, Seneca N8147E ................................................................ USE OF PRIVATE AIRCRAFT AT CMU DAVID S. TOURETZKY AUGUST, 1990 1. Introduction CMU students and employees have long used private aircraft for business travel. I personally have been doing so since 1983. Such activities fall under the heading of ``general aviation,'' as distinct from ``scheduled air carriers'' (the airlines.) In January 1990, questions were raised about the University's risk of liability in connection with general aviation flights, and the Assistant Treasurer, Mike Herron, began looking into the possibility of obtaining insurance coverage. In March 1990, Mike distributed to CMU pilots a questionnaire supplied by the University's insurance company to gather some data on flying activities. The questionnaires were transmitted to the insurance company in July, and a response is expected shortly. In May 1990, the University's travel policy was amended to ban all use of private aircraft. It is my sincere hope that this is only a temporary measure, pending the acquisition of insurance coverage. I, and my fellow pilots at CMU, have invested a great deal of time and money in order to be able to use our aircraft for transportation. We have two major concerns: - We want to be sure the University has an accurate understanding of the advantages of general aviation, so that policy decisions are well-informed. The recent summary ban on general aviation flying is disturbing to us because pilots were not given an adequate opportunity to discuss the situation and suggest alternatives. Back in February, a number of us did speak briefly with Mike Herron, but he was not the instigator of the ban. - Even if the University harbors no prejudice of its own against general aviation, we fear that if the insurance company's response is unhelpful, the issue may be allowed to die. We don't want to see that happen. Instead of permitting an insurance company to in effect dictate University policy in this area, we would like the University to develop a supportive policy of its own and require the insurance company to cooperate. It is consistent with the University's overall mission to try to preserve personal freedoms wherever possible; we believe this can be done without compromising the University's legitimate concerns about liability. We request the University to form a committee on general aviation policy. The committee would set minimum standards for pilots and equipment to be used for business travel, establish a fair reimbursement formula, and actively negotiate with the university's insurer to have this policy accepted at little or no additional cost. Section 2 of this document discusses reasons why the University should support general aviation. Section 3 is a draft aviation policy which could be used as a starting point for the proposed aviation committee. Note: the ban on use of private aircraft may have some unintended consequences. The University has in the past accepted occasional free trips on aircraft owned by friendly Pittsburgh corporations. These privately-owned aircraft operate under the same rules for general aviation as smaller planes. Under the new travel policy, the University is now unable to accept such free trips. 2. Reasons the University Should Support General Aviation 2.1. More flexible and convenient travel. For trips within 500 miles of Pittsburgh, use of private aircraft is often more convenient than airline travel. Below are some of the major advantages, with personal examples: - Access to regions ill-served by the airlines. In January 1990, I and three colleagues needed to visit a site in Cumberland, MD, as part of a Robotics Institute research project. There are no direct flights to there from Pittsburgh. Airline travel would have required us to fly from Greater Pitt all the way to Baltimore, then backtrack on a commuter flight from Baltimore to Cumberland. The return would have been equally cumbersome. Using a private plane, we were able to fly direct from Pittsburgh to Cumberland, conduct our business, and return to Pittsburgh on our own schedule, not the airline's. General aviation offers similar advantages for travel to places like Amherst, MA, Durham, NH, and Princeton, NJ, where there is no scheduled airline service, and it is a substantial drive to the nearest commercial airport. All these cities have private airports within a few miles of their respective universities. - Avoiding crowded urban airports. All major metropolitan centers have satellite general aviation airports -- inaccessible to the airlines -- that offer better access to the city and are far less crowded. Example: this past July, I and several CMU colleagues attended a conference in Boston. I used a private plane; they took the airlines. Thunderstorms in New England earlier in the day had made complete havoc of the orderly flow of planes into Logan. My colleagues were held on the ground for more than an hour in Philadelphia due to air traffic congestion. They arrived in Boston late, frazzled, and fuming, and then had to cope with a traffic jam to get from Logan to the city. I, on the other hand, enjoyed a pleasant flight to Hanscom Field in Bedford, MA, experiencing no delays enroute, and hopped into a waiting cab for a quick ride to the conference site. I enjoy similar advantages on trips to College Park by using Gaithersburg Airport instead of BWI, Toronto using Toronto Island Airport instead of Toronto International, and the New York/New Jersey area using Linden Airport instead of Newark. In Pittsburgh, the Allegheny County Airport is only 1.5 miles from my home, and just 20 minutes from CMU. - Special cargo handling. Sometimes it is necesary to tranport delicate scientific equipment by air. The following example is provided by Mike Blackwell, who works for Takeo Kanade in Robotics: ``We had to fly out to Ann Arbor to pick up a custom built scanning laser range finder, a bulky, heavy piece of very fragile optical equipment. The trip [in a general aviation airplane piloted by one of Kanade's graduate students] saved us a lot of time and money, not to mention shipping grief.'' - Better quality of service. People who travel by private aircraft never race to the airport, because the plane certainly won't be leaving without them. They don't get bumped due to overbooking. They can take as many carry-on bags as they like, and their luggage never gets lost enroute. They never miss a connecting flight. And they don't get stuck for hours in crowded airline terminals, surrounded by cigarrette smoke and screaming children, waiting for boarding calls. In quality of service, private aircraft are as superior to the airlines as private cars are to public buses. 2.2. Cost savings to the University. The University cannot lose money when private aircraft are used, because the reimbursement amount is never more than the airline coach fare, no matter what the actual cost. In some cases, use of private aircraft has resulted in substantial savings. For example, the trip to Cumberland mentioned previously would have cost $1656 (at $414 per person) if we had taken the airlines. Using a private plane, the cost was only $452 -- a savings of over $1200. 2.3. Personal freedom. Those CMU pilots who we propose should be allowed to fly on business possess an exceptional commitment to aviation. All of them hold an instrument rating, widely acknowledged to be the ``Ph.D.'' of flying. Each has invested hundreds of hours and more than $10,000 to acquire the exceptional skills and judgement necessary to earn this rating. The University can take pride in their accomplishments. Their freedom to use their flying skills for business travel should not be curtailed without first seeking alternative solutions. I am confident that insurers knowledgeable about general aviation will not treat the use of private aircraft as a significant risk in the context of the University's overall liability picture, provided the University demonstrates at the outset its determination to support its pilot employees. 2.4. Effective liability protection for the University. The University can better protect itself from liability by obtaining coverage for the use of private aircraft, rather than instituting a ban on their use. A ban can be only partially effective, due to certain gray areas detailed below. In the event of an accident, such gray areas would certainly be exploited by plaintiffs' attorneys. A major gray area is travel that is requested by and reimbursed by third parties. In my own case, the majority of my travel falls in this category. When I am invited to give seminars at other universities, present invited papers at conferences, or serve on government panels, my travel expenses are covered by those institutions. To some extent, I am representing the University during my voluntary participation in these events, but the University does not bear the cost of the trip and will never see an expense report in connection with it. Therefore, while my activities may be of some benefit to the University, I feel the actual travel is being conducted on my own time, and the University's travel policies do not apply. As a practical matter, with third-party reimbursement the University's policies are unenforceable. In the event of a lawsuit, though, plaintiffs' lawyers are likely to try to involve the University anyway, due to its "deep pockets". The following is a summary of all my actual or planned business trips using private aircraft from November '89 through November '90. Of these 13 trips, only 3 generated CMU travel expense reports. The other 10 were or will be reimbursed by third parties. Nov New Jersey. Colloquium talks at Princeton and at Bellcore. Nov SUNY Albany. Colloquium talk. Jan Holmdel, NJ. Bell Labs. Snowbird program committee meeting. Jan Cumberland, MD. Site visit for Robotics research project. Mar Boston. MIT colloquium talk (natural language group). Apr University of New Hampshire, Durham. Workshop. Apr University of Maryland, College Park. Invited lecture. Jun Washington, DC. National Science Foundation panel. Jul Boston. Attend Cognitive Science and AAAI conferences. Sep Columbus, OH. Colloquium talk at Ohio State. Oct Knoxville, TN. Invited address at ISMIS conference. Oct Toronto, Canada. IJCAI program committee meeting. Nov Boston. MIT colloquium talk (vision group). Other examples of gray areas: (1) a colleague of mine in the School of Computer Science who consults for a major corporation in New Jersey, which also funds some of his research at CMU. When he flies to New Jersey for consulting purposes, his trips are outside the purview of the University's travel policy, although he may discuss University business during his visit. In the event of an accident, though, it will be up to the University to establish that this trip was unrelated to its dealings with this research sponsor. (2) A Computer Science graduate student who is planning to travel by private plane to give job talks at various places in New England and attend a conference there. His expenses will be paid by the institutions at which he interviews, but he will be representing the University at the conference. 2.5. Conclusion Private aircraft currently play a much larger transportation role at CMU than is evident from looking at travel expense reports. Most general aviation activity is invisible to the University, and will remain so unless the University takes steps to legitimize and support this mode of transportation. The CMU pilot community is eager to work with the administration to create a program for responsible use of private aircraft, including reasonable standards for pilot qualifications and experience, and a fair reimbursement policy. We feel that such a program can greatly strengthen the University's hand when negotiating with insurance companies for liability coverage. 3. Initial Proposal for an Aviation Policy << I've deleted this part. The final policy we adopted appears later in this file. --dst >> ................................................................ OTHER INSTITUTIONS' FLYING POLICIES DAVID S. TOURETZKY SEPTEMBER, 1990 1. Introduction Many corporations and universities permit the use of private aircraft for business travel, although they are still in the minority nationwide. These institutions' progressive policies reflect well-informed cost/benefit analyses of general aviation flying. Outright bans on use of private aircraft are generally a result of policy makers' unfamiliarity with general aviation. Their fears are typically fueled by sensationalistic coverage of aircraft accidents in the national media, which may attract viewers or sell newspapers, but gives the general public a hopelessly distorted picture of aviation. Here is a partial list of institutions that permit employees to fly themselves on business trips: IBM Hewlett-Packard Digital Equipment Corp. Alcoa Westinghouse Stanford University Ohio State University University of Tennessee University of North Dakota The follow section summarizes key aspects of some of these institutions' flying policies. 2. Excerpts from Others' Policies 2.1. Pilot Requirements There is considerable variation in minimum pilot requirements in the above institution's policies. Most institutions require just a private pilot license. IBM considers it a personal matter and sets no requirements at all. Hewlett Packard requires either an instrument rating, or 200 hours flight time in the last three years. 2.2. Carriage of Others Digital prohibits their people from carrying other employees or customers on private aircraft. IBM allows carriage of other employees, but not customers, as that would be considered a charter operation. The University of Tennessee actually offers a higher expense reimbursement rate if more than one person travels on the same private plane. Ohio State permits carriage of other persons if the pilot holds a commercial license and instrument rating. 2.3. Reimbursement Policy Ohio State reimburses pilots either at the coach rate, or at a fixed hourly rate based on aircraft type. (Their rate sheet accurately reflects commercial rental prices for small planes.) Westinghouse normally pays coach airfare, but they will pay double the coach airfare if two or more people travel together, or if the use of a private plane was at Westinghouse's suggestion. HP pays the actual cost of the flight plus an additional $50 per flight hour, up to 20 hours/year. The University of Tennessee pays $0.55 per mile for the first 600 miles, and $.40 for each additional mile. The rates are increased by an additional $.35 per mile if more than one person travels in the same plane. Digital pays the lesser of actual cost or the amount that would have been spent if other transportation means had been used -- including any extra lodging and meal costs that would have been incurred. 2.4. Insurance Requirements Stanford provides insurance coverage as an employee benefit. HP requires its pilots to carry $1 million combined single-limit liability coverage. Digital requires $1 million coverage, must be listed as a named insured on the employee's policy, and requires a waiver of the insurer's subrogation rights against Digital. Westinghouse requires employees to carry $2 million coverage. ................................................................ TOP TEN REASONS WHY EVERYONE HATES THE AIRLINES DAVE TOURETZKY 1. Inflexible schedules. Airline service, being a form of mass transportation, operates under the philosophy ``You go when we say, or you go another way.'' Bus service follows the same rule -- which is why most adults own cars. 2. Can't get there from here. As of 1988, the US had 12,950 airports. Only 646 had any kind of airline service at all. Only 389 (just 3 percent!) offered regularly-scheduled flights. 3. Limits on carry-on bags. Federal regulations permit at most two carry-on items per passenger. Good luck trying to cram your stuff into those tiny overhead compartments. And bulky items must be checked. 4. Lost or damaged luggage. Experienced airline travelers know better than to check any item that is delicate, valuable, or alive. 5. Intolerable delays. The nation's busiest airports, such as O'Hare, Kennedy, Atlanta, and Logan, are now so overtaxed that any minor disturbance in their frantic routine -- landing delays due to weather, for example -- causes a major disruption in service. The results are late flights, missed connections, gate holds, and seriously inconvenienced passengers. 6. Absurd pricing policies. Airfares make no sense. From Pittsburgh you can fly to the West Coast more cheaply than to middle America. You can get tremendous discounts on some flights, but only if you're willing to stay over a Saturday night, as this proves you're not a ``business'' traveler who must be soaked by the airlines. 7. Airline terminals are dangerous, unpleasant places. Choose your favorite annoyance: (1) smokers desperately trying to raise pre-boarding blood nicotine levels; (2) screaming infants; (3) outrageous $6 hamburgers and $2 cokes; (4) married, middle-aged businessmen crawling out of the airport bar and hitting on you if you're female; (5) bomb scares (what do you think those x-ray machines are for?); (6) thieves. Do not ever leave bags unattended at a large airport, even for a minute. Carry them into the toilet with you if necessary. 8. Overbooking. Overbooking is a standard and perfectly legal airline practice. If you get bumped, tough. They're not liable. 9. Traffic jams from the airport to the city. Logan Airport is famous for the horrendous traffic between the airport and Boston. BWI in Baltimore, likewise. Small airports used by private planes are generally closer and offer more convenient access to the city. 10. Who's flying this thing, anyway? Does your pilot have a drug or alcohol problem? How recently was he checked out on this model of airplane? Is he having a bad day due to a head cold, insufficient sleep, or personal difficulties? You'll never know. ................................................................ BASIC FACTS ABOUT GENERAL AVIATION DAVID S. TOURETZKY SEPTEMBER, 1990 Unless otherwise indicated, all figures cited here are taken from the AOPA 1990 Aviation Fact Card, a copy of which is attached. - The term ``general aviation'' refers to all non-airline, non-military aviation activities. This includes private aircraft used by individuals and corporations for personal transportation, air taxi and charter operations, flight instruction, helicopter EMS services, and various commercial operations such as crop dusting, banner towing, and pipeline patrol. - General aviation has 37 times as many aircraft as all US airlines combined. In 1988 there were 210,266 active general aviation aircraft; there were 5,660 air carrier (airline) aircraft. - Four out of every five flights flown in the US are made by general aviation aircraft. GA aircraft made 48.1 million flights in 1988; the airlines made 10.3 million. - 99.99515 percent of general aviation flights end without accident, as do 99.99857 percent of airline flights. There is less than 4/10,000ths of a percentage point difference in the safety of general aviation vs. the airlines, using a base of fatal accidents to number of flights. (Calculation based on 1988 data showing 438 GA accidents in 48.1 million flights vs. 33 airline accidents in 10.3 million flights.) - General aviation accident rates and airline accident rates are both extremely low. GA aircraft experience 9 fatal accidents per million flights; the airline rate is 3 fatal accidents per million flights. Although the GA accident rate appears somewhat higher, these figures include several types of activities which cannot be compared with airline travel. Such activities include flight in amateur-built aircraft, flight by student pilots and non-instrument rated private pilots, airshow performances, and aerobatics. Ordinary business travel by instrument-rated pilots in standard airplanes is considerably safer than any of these activities. - General aviation accidents are far less likely to result in injuries to non-passengers than are automobile accidents. For the period 1983-1987, an average of just under 3% of general aviation fatalities were persons outside the aircraft, e.g., persons on the ground or in another aircraft. (Source: the National Transportation Safety Board's Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data for 1987.) In contrast, 15% of automobile fatalities were non-occupants, meaning pedestrians or cyclists. (Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Accident Sampling System 1986.) And another 40% of automobile fatalities were occupants injured in multi-vehicle crashes (source: NHTSA Fatal Accident Reporting System for 1988.) Clearly, an employer's risk of legal liability for injury to third parties is far greater for automobile accidents than for aviation accidents. ................................................................ CMU's OFFICIAL POLICY ON BUSINESS TRAVEL BY PRIVATE AIRCRAFT 1. Operating Requirements - Justification: For reasons of cost savings, scheduling flexibility, convenience, or specialized transportation needs, CMU employees may utilize private aircraft for business travel, subject to the conditions detailed below. - Pilot Qualifications: The pilot must be a CMU employee holding at least a Private pilot license with appropriate instrument rating, and at least a Third Class medical certificate with no night restriction. Students are not considered to be employees. - Pilot Registration: A current CMU Pilot Registration Form for the pilot must be on file with the Treasurer's office prior to the beginning of the flight. - Pilot Experience: The pilot must meet the recency of experience requirements of FAR 61.67(e) for IFR flight. In addition, the pilot must have logged at least 10 hours of flight time in the make and model of aircraft to be used. In the case of complex, high performance, or multiengine aircraft, the pilot must also have logged at least 5 hours of flight time in the specific aircraft to be used. - Minimum equipment: The aircraft used must have a Standard airworthiness certificate, be equipped for IFR flight in accordance with FAR 91.203(d), and have a current annual inspection. - Insurance: The pilot must maintain personal insurance for his or her flying activities, in an amount not less than $2 million combined single-limit liability coverage, with the University as a named insured. - Access to alternative transportation: No person may be required to travel on a private aircraft. Travelers shall always have the option of using alternate means of transportation if they prefer. 2. Reimbursement - Reimbursable expenses: Travelers may be reimbursed for the actual aircraft rental cost, or in the case of owned aircraft, the product of actual flight hours times the owner's estimated hourly operating costs, subject to the limits below. Landing fees and tiedown fees are also reimbursable, with receipts. - Reimbursement limit: If the cost of airline coach fare is less than the actual cost of using a private aircraft, reimbursement will be limited to the airline coach fare. - Reimbursement for multiple travelers: If more than one CMU employee travels in the same aircraft, the reimbursement limit is raised to twice the airline coach fare. In order to qualify for the higher limit, the employee's supervisor must certify that the presence of the additional travelers was justified for University business. ................................................................ CMU PILOT REGISTRATION FORM This form must be completed once per year by CMU employees wishing to use private aircraft for business travel. A copy of this form must be on file with the Treasurer's Office prior to beginning the trip. Name: Date: Dept: Extension: Checklist: A copy of my pilot's license is attached. A copy of my airman's medical certificate is attached. A copy of my certificate of insurance, with not less than $2,000,000 combined single-limit liability coverage, is attached. My pilot's license was issued within the last 24 calendar months, or A copy of my Biennial Flight Review endorsement is attached. Certifications (initial each one): I certify that my pilot's license and medical certificates have not been suspended or revoked. I certify that I have read the CMU policy on use of private aircraft for business travel (reprinted on the back of this form), and will conduct all flights in accordance with this policy. Signature: ................................................................ From a local bboard post I made at CMU on 2/7/91: Here are answers to some common questions about the University's new policy on travel in general aviation aircraft. Q: Why the requirement for $2 million of insurance? A: Although we realize this will be an added expense for most pilots, who typically purchase coverage of $1 million or less, the University was advised by its insurance agent that $2 million should be the minimum acceptable coverage level. We tried in the task force meetings to find some way to lower the requirement, but were not successful. Q: Am I covered if I'm injured while flying in a private aircraft? A: The University-provided health insurance and long-term disability policies do cover travel by private aircraft. The University has modified, at its own expense, the $100,000 travel accident insurance policy so that it too includes travel by private aircraft. However, any extra insurance protection purchased by employees (I believe through a payroll deduction) may still exclude private aircraft; check your policy. Q: Why doesn't the policy permit flying by CMU students? A: For various legal and tax reasons, CMU students are not considered employees, even if they are graduate students with research assistantships. Since the university's insurance policies (liability, travel accident, etc.) only cover employees, it was not possible to include students in the aviation policy. Q: What effect will this have on CMU students who are pilots? A: If your trip is being reimbursed by a third party (e.g., you are invited to give a talk at XYZ Corp., all expenses paid), then you will be applying to them for reimbursement; the University doesn't get involved. In my experience, companies are perfectly happy to reimburse private pilots at the airline coach rate if you enclose an explanatory letter. However, if your trip is to be billed to a CMU center number, such as your advisor's research grant, CMU won't reimburse you for the expense of traveling by private plane. It *will* reimburse a claim for mileage for students who travel by car. If you want to estimate the amount of this reimbursement, the mileage between all major cities in the US can be found in the Rand McNally road atlas or any good almanac. ................................................................ From a post on rec.aviation: I've gotten quite a bit of mail in response to my "Flying on Business" postings. I've written up answers to all the questions people asked, and am posting them here. Thanks to Larry Miller, Bernie Rosen, Moshe Braner, Geoff Peck, G. A. Venkatesh, Rick Auricchio, and Scott Dickson for their feedback. Q: Can I use the stuff you wrote? A: Yes! If you want to try to get your employer to approve GA travel, please feel free to use any of the material I posted. I might someday write an article on my experience for a flying magazine, but I don't have time to do that at the moment. Q: Why are CMU pilots required to be instrument rated? A: This could be the start of a long discussion thread. I'll just list a few factors that contributed to the decision to require an instrument ticket: - The dangers of "get-there-itis" and "get-home-itis" are much more intense with business than with personal flying. Of course, being instrument-rated doesn't guarantee that a pilot won't make a stupid decision to press on into conditions he can't handle, but an IFR pilot has a larger repertoire of skills to help him save his butt if he does screw up. Dan Masys made this point quite eloquently in a recent posting. - Pittsburgh weather is, ummm, "challenging." Our "chance of icing" season lasts seven months (November - May.) In the summer we have thunderstorms. The entire month of August is dedicated to Special VFR. The slopes of the Alleghenies, a few miles east of here, are full of the metallic remains of scud runners who didn't make it. The typical business destinations from here (New York, Washington, Boston) are 250-350 miles away. You just can't travel VFR reliably over those distances if you have a schedule to keep. - If a single CMU pilot crashes, there is a very real danger that the Administration will revoke everybody's flying privileges. I'm not willing to put my flying privileges in the hands of someone who can't be bothered to obtain an IFR ticket and maintain currency. If their only reason for not being IFR rated is low time, then they're not ready to fly on business yet. Note that we have no minimum PIC requirement: they day you get your instrument ticket you can start flying on business, - Unlike some other institutions, CMU allows its pilots to carry passengers on business. Non-aviators don't understand the difference between VFR and IFR. We owe it to them to set reasonable standards to protect them from risk, since they're not equipped to make informed decisions on their own. This line of reasoning explains why Part 135 requirements are so much more stringent that Part 91. Our standards are less stringent than Part 135, but in my opinion, CMU's not requiring an instrument rating would be negligent. Q: Why require 5 hours in the actual aircraft to be flown if that aircraft is complex/high performance/multiengine? A: One obvious answer is that these aircraft have more complicated systems than light fixed-gear singles, with a greater degree of variation from one plane to the next. Recall Rick's story about flying an approach without noticing that his HSI was still connected to the Loran instead of the nav receiver. Complex aircraft also have more variation in fuel systems, deice capabilities, and auxiliary equipment. It's just plain dangerous to fly single-pilot IFR in a plane with unfamiliar systems. Another factor, which applies especially to older aircraft, is that every plane has a unique set of quirks and glitches -- things that aren't exactly "broken", just idiosyncratic. In a complex or multiengine plane, there is a lot more room for this sort of thing, so it's important that the pilot have some familiarity with the specific aircraft before charging off into the soup on a business flight. I don't really think 5 hours is enough time to learn all a complex airplane's quirks, but it's a reasonable compromise. Q: How exactly is "equivalent airline fare" determined? Is this the Y class fare? A: This was deliberately left vague, to avoid getting into a complicated mess with the accounting department. Basically we rely on the individual pilot to determine what the "equivalent airline fare" would have been for his trip. If we had pegged reimbursement at the Y class fare, it would have been a real boon for pilots, because that is the most expensive coach fare. You can often get cheaper rates -- even if you're not staying over a Saturday night -- because the airlines typically allocate a bunch of seats on each flight to discount fares. Once those seats are sold, you have to purchase a Y fare. We promised the University that taking a GA flight would never cost more than taking the airlines. What I do for my own trips is make backup reservations on USAir, just in case the Seneca breaks at the last minute. I use the price of this reservation as the equivalent airline fare. If I "luck out" and get a discount fare when I call to make my reservation, then my reimbursement will be less, but so be it. On the other hand, I am not willing to stay over a Saturday night or purchase non-refundable tickets to get a lower rate, because that isn't an "equivalent" fare -- it's a pain in the tush. Q: What if there is no airline service to your destination? A: I just use the cost of a ticket to the nearest airport that the airlines do serve. I don't try to jack up the reimbursement by adding in the cost of a bus or rental car to get from that airport to my destination. The difference would only be a few dollars, and I think it's important not to make things complicated for the folks in accounting. Q: Why is the maximum reimbursement limited to twice the airline fare, even if more than 2 people travel in the same plane? A: We did this to remove any temptation to stuff the airplane in order to generate more dollars for the pilot. Stuffing the airplane (i.e., adding passengers who don't REALLY need to go on this trip) would not only screw the university out of some cash, it might also lead to a weight and balance violation. Q: Why did you point out in your message to CMU students that they could get reimbursed for car mileage? Were you hinting that they should fly on business even though the University's travel policy doesn't permit it, then turn in an expense report claiming car travel, because partial reimbursement is better than none? A: Heavens! It would be irresponsible of me to do such a thing. ................................................................ Here are three more important points to emphasize when talking to a risk-averse employer or university about permitting business travel on GA aircraft: First, the right analogy to use is not "amateur airline" travel, but car travel. Nobody I know of has a policy requiring employees to travel only by bus or taxi. Your employer certainly allows you to use your personal car for business trips, and is happy to reimburse your expenses. Furthermore, if you fly someplace on business, you are allowed to rent a car at your destination, again incurring a risk of liability for your employer should you have an accident. So employers have already accepted the risk associated with personal transportation; the only issue remaining is which KINDS of personal transportation should be allowed. Do they forbid employees from using motorcycles or scooters for business transportation? I'll bet they don't. So why pick on aircraft? The second point is that in order to make a REALISTIC risk assessment, it's important to consider the employer's total risk exposure. If you and your passengers die in a crash, that's no worse than a car accident. But there is some worry on the part of employers that a GA plane might crash into an airliner and cause hundreds of fatalities. The right response to this is that you could also crash your car into a schoolbus and cause a big mess that way. The real question they should be focusing on is: what kinds of fears are *rational* in a risk-laden world? Universities already have an enormous risk exposure. For example, they store and make frequent use of dangerous chemicals and radioactive materials. They also have a large population of undergrads living on campus who enjoy all kinds of risky activities. At CMU for example we have buggy races every spring that I'm sure will kill or maim somebody some day. Even college sports teams pose a significant risk of injury, paralysis, or death. Given that kind of risk environment, the *incremental* exposure from allowing GA travel by well-qualified pilot employees is negligible. Finally, if the university wants to ban GA travel, then you should insist that they ban *all* GA travel. That means university officials from the president on down, and the board of trustees too, should be forbidden to accept rides on corporate aircraft, because these are just as much GA aircraft as your Cessna 172. So the next time some rich potential donor offers to fly your Prez to New York for an important meeting, he'll have to decline and take the airlines instead. See what your administration thinks of that idea. ................................................................ That's it. Hope you found it useful. -- Dave Touretzky