[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Airport Compliance issue: definition of "employee"
- To: help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: CAA: Mutual Help List, Airport Compliance issue: definition of "employee"
- From: John Lawson <jlawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:36:47 -0400
- References: <OF58AFE840.BD9FBBCD-ON87256D87.007FDC61-87256D87.00801011@FMTN.ORG>
- Reply-To: help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
The issue of what constitutes an "employee" in regards to an aircraft
owner's ability to self-service his aircraft has raised its head here.
At least one tenant (a flight school) would like to use an off-airport
mech under contract to maintain its aircraft, claiming that giving the
mech a contract and a 1099 for "wages" paid makes him an employee. We
have aircraft owners who I'm sure are doing the same thing (or would
I'm well familiar with the FAA 5190 and I know what it says about
self-service. What I can't find is the regulatory definition, an
interpretation, or other guidance from the FAA as to what constitutes an
"employee" (i.e., someone whose employer pays social security, medicare,
worker's comp) that I can apply to this issue. As is usually the case
with these things, I know I'll get the "prove me wrong" answer when I
bring this up. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Does the
FAA address this somewhere in another document?
As a side note, our airport commercial operating standards allow FBOs to
use the "contract" arrangement as a way to use mechs to work on FBO
customer aircraft. I'm scratching my head about that - any comments?
Does that seem kosher, or are we being inconsistent in allowing the FBOs
to do that?
John Lawson, A.A.E.
Find past Mutual Help topics in the CAA Help Forum