Part 119 Question

davidgfern

davidgfern

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
130
Location
San Diego, CA
Display Name
Display name:
EE_Pilot
I am trying to understand the clause in Part 119.1(2) that says "When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more."

As an example of "non-common carriage" ----- Joe Schmoe owns a Cessna 206 but doesn't know how to fly it, so he hires me as a pilot to fly it for him and take him from place to place. He always travels alone, so the possibility of having a "paying passenger" is not a factor. Clearly, this scenario falls under Part 91.

Now consider a different scenario ----- Joe Schmoe wins $300 million dollars in the Powerball, and goes out and buys himself a Boeing 737, and hires me and another pilot to fly it for him and take him from place to place. He still always travels alone, so the 737 is empty except for the two pilots and him. This scenario sounds like one that comes under the purview of 119.1 -- am I correct? Does Joe Schmoe need to comply with all of Part 119 in this case just to fly around in his own Boeing 737?
 
Common carriage involves a transportation service. If an entity provides the plane and the pilot, it falls into the category. There are a few "contract carriage" situations that also avoid the common carriage situation.

Your 737 situation is a private operation, but don't forget that large/turbine aircraft fall under their own subpart of the rules.
 
flyingron said:
Common carriage involves a transportation service. If an entity provides the plane and the pilot, it falls into the category. There are a few "contract carriage" situations that also avoid the common carriage situation.

Your 737 situation is a private operation, but don't forget that large/turbine aircraft fall under their own subpart of the rules.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of a "contract carriage" situation that is not "common carriage"? That is the aspect of the rule that I don't understand ---- the way 119.1 is worded it appears as if the FAA is attempting to prevent some kind of "non-common carriage" operation in aircraft with 20 seats or more, or more than 6000 pounds of cargo capacity, without an Air Carrier or Operating Certificate.
 
davidgfern said:
Can you give me an example of a "contract carriage" situation that is not "common carriage"? That is the aspect of the rule that I don't understand ---- the way 119.1 is worded it appears as if the FAA is attempting to prevent some kind of "non-common carriage" operation in aircraft with 20 seats or more, or more than 6000 pounds of cargo capacity, without an Air Carrier or Operating Certificate.
Click to expand...
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 120-12A.pdf
'
 
davidgfern said:
As clear as cement.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Ok.

A couple of useful definitions.

Common Carriage: A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out" to the public, or to a segment of the public.

Holding Out: A carrier is holding out when they represent themselves as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it.

Part 121 and Part 135 are common carriage as they hold themselves out to the general population.

Part 125 operators are not common carriage as they do not hold themselves out to the general public.

Part 125 is then basically operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more that is not common carriage.

There is more to it than that but hopefully that will provide you with at least a basic understanding.
 
Also there have been a large number of people who have tried to skirt 119 and failed.
 
davidgfern said:
Okay ---- reading the AC clears things up considerably. So ---- an example of "non-common carriage" would be a company that owns a fleet of airplanes and provides air transportation on a long-term basis (using their own employees as pilots, or pilots with whom they have contracted) to, say, Coca-Cola Inc., and no other company.
Click to expand...
Good example. That is the difference between the ancient difference between "common" and "private" carriage. Available to any takers vs only to a select few. It's basically where the concept of "holding out" comes into play. "Holding out" marks the difference between public and private.

But, to confuse things, the AC is seriously outdated in the way it at least suggests that "private carriage" does not require an operating certificate. Whether something is private or public carriage may tell use what type of operating certificate it needs, but doesn't automatically tell us it doesn't need one at all.

So it's necessary to understand the distinction between private and public. But it's also necessary to understand that private carriage is also regulated.

The best and most common example is what the FAA refers to as "flight department companies." Since you used it, let's use the hypothetical Coca Cola.

Coca Cola decides for tax, liability, and other reasons, to incorporate a separate entity, Coke Flies, LLC, to own all its corporate airplanes and handle its flight operations. Coke Flies only flies for Coca Cola and Coca Cola own 100% of Coke Flies.

No question Coke Flies is engaged in private carriage. Probably the purest form one can come up with. But Coke Flies needs an operating certificate.
 
Here is a good true example. An upper midwest major retail chain (I won't name) has a fleet of regional jets that it only uses as a corporate shuttle to move its own employees between its main office and its various locations. They operate almost like an airline, except not open to the public.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Here is a good true example. An upper midwest major retail chain (I won't name) has a fleet of regional jets that it only uses as a corporate shuttle to move its own employees between its main office and its various locations. They operate almost like an airline, except not open to the public.
Click to expand...
If the fleet is owned by the chain, as opposed to a separate entity, it's probably not even private carriage.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Here is a good true example. An upper midwest major retail chain (I won't name) has a fleet of regional jets that it only uses as a corporate shuttle to move its own employees between its main office and its various locations. They operate almost like an airline, except not open to the public.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to Menards, they operate under Part 125.
 
SkyDog58 said:
If you are referring to Menards, they operate under Part 125.
Click to expand...
Ah! The "passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more" in the original post!

Perfect!
 
Midlifeflyer had the best explanation of Commercial privelages and all this jazz on an older thread. You can Google it.

Served me well on my Comm checkride.

Although maybe it doesn’t quite cover your original question. Worth checking out though.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Good example. That is the difference between the ancient difference between "common" and "private" carriage. Available to any takers vs only to a select few. It's basically where the concept of "holding out" comes into play. "Holding out" marks the difference between public and private.

But, to confuse things, the AC is seriously outdated in the way it at least suggests that "private carriage" does not require an operating certificate. Whether something is private or public carriage may tell use what type of operating certificate it needs, but doesn't automatically tell us it doesn't need one at all.

So it's necessary to understand the distinction between private and public. But it's also necessary to understand that private carriage is also regulated.

The best and most common example is what the FAA refers to as "flight department companies." Since you used it, let's use the hypothetical Coca Cola.

Coca Cola decides for tax, liability, and other reasons, to incorporate a separate entity, Coke Flies, LLC, to own all its corporate airplanes and handle its flight operations. Coke Flies only flies for Coca Cola and Coca Cola own 100% of Coke Flies.

No question Coke Flies is engaged in private carriage. Probably the purest form one can come up with. But Coke Flies needs an operating certificate.
Click to expand...
That's great Mike! Thanks for the help on that. BTW...... I passed the Commercial written test last Friday, so now it's on to the checkride prep.......
 
davidgfern said:
That's great Mike! Thanks for the help on that. BTW...... I passed the Commercial written test last Friday, so now it's on to the checkride prep.......
Click to expand...
Congratulations! Now for the tougher part!

"Mike" says hi. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top