Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
I got that email too. So I downloaded the app and booked a flight Dallas-Houston one-way next Sunday I think it said $2500. Not bad. Didn't enter my cc info, lol
Blackbird = Common Carriage
- Thread starter AggieMike88
- Start date
dtuuri
Final Approach
Would lack of a credit card make you less financially responsible for the positioning costs if a qualified air taxi shows up and you're a no-show?
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
No. They are talking only about private carriage. It's not that Oart 135 is private carriage, it's that private carriage is covered by Part 135.
Private carriage in aircraft over 20 seats/6000 lbs are covered by Part 125. Smaller private carriage is covered by Part 135. Here's a piece of the chart available in FSIMS.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
We're good. I asked the FSDO ops inspector to make an appearance on my behalf.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Still doesn't make sense. Are you saying they're saying all small aircraft private carriage is governed by Part 135?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Here's a flow chart:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Thank you. I can see where a time-sharing arrangement for large aircraft that allows charges for certain itemized expenses can be considered "private carriage". Other than a member of NBAA who has applied for NBAA's special FAA exemption to operate their small aircraft under the large aircraft time-sharing rules, I can't think of a legal example of how to operate a small airplane for compensation as private carriage without a 135 operating certificate.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I hope they do.
When I was first learning how to fly I thought it was crazy I could not fly someone from A-B in a 182 or something after my CPL without needing enough paperwork and pain in the butt factor to almost make it not worth it.
Congress should make them do a basic 135 type thing, if you own the plane have a CPL/IFR and say basic 135 pilot mins, it seats under X people you can take a online course, to make the masses feel “safe”, do like a twice annual BFR/IFR ride with a CFI and go about your little business in one plane, or something like that.
I think if the FAA had their way,only the big airlines would be allowed to fly in their sky
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes. Actually Part 119. That's the starting point to whether your operation requires any operating certificate. But unless the operation is one of the Part 91 exceptions in 119.1, it brings yo to Part 135 and that's what it comes down to. That's what that section of FSIMs says. There is a Part 135 Private Carriage certificate. It only applies to non-Part 125 aircraft. It's the whole reason I, as a commercial pilot, can't rent an airplane to take my cousin Joe and his family on their vacation trip with Joe paying for the rental and me.
That's why I rant a bit on that old, out-of-date AC. It leads everyone who reads it to think private carriage is automatically Part 91. Sadly, this whole area is insanely complicated.
dtuuri
Final Approach
So, can you give an example of private carriage in a small aircraft other than under NBAA's exemption to use the time-sharing rules for large aircraft?
Or, for that matter, of large/turbine aircraft other than under the time-sharing/interchange rules?
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
How about my Cousin Joe, who I mentioned? I rent an airplane. He pays for it and me to boot. Fill out whatever detail you need to to make it clear I never held out and I'm only doing it because he's my cousin. I have absolutely zero reason to go there other than to bring him and his family to their vacation. Oce there, I am going to refule and go back home. I'll return the following week solely to pick them up. He didn't even know whether I could do it or not when he asked. It's private carriage and its something I cannot do because it requires a Part 135 operating certificate.
Or, check out a few of the Chief Counsel letters on "flight department companies." I mentioned them in the Alaska Lodge thread. That's a situation in which Company A sets up Company B as a wholly-owned subsidiary to handle its flight operations. Even though Company B's one and only "customer" is its owner (Company A), Company B needs a Part 135 private carriage or Part 125 certificate. Here's one of them. It also discusses the difference from the 91.501 large aircraft allowance (NBAA Exemption for smaller aircraft).
dtuuri
Final Approach
Well, I meant private carriage you CAN do.
The FAA normal course is to go after whoever they can harm the most in the way that causes the most harm.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Clip4
Final Approach
Nice hat doc.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,499
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
I will guarantee your insurance company would put the kibosh on that.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,724
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
it wouldn't be ironic in the least if that was his actual picture.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
it wouldn't be ironic in the least if that was his actual picture.
Coming from you, and your inane diatribes? That’s rich!
Doc Holliday
En-Route
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Without an operating certificate or the Part 125 or 91 Subpart F exceptions? If we are defining "carriage" as transporting persons or property for compensation, other than the exception for shared flights in 61.113, I think we are technically limited to the list in FAR 119.1(e), which involve transportation of people or property, subject to its limitations. That pretty much comes down to aerial photography, firefighting, and sightseeing, and two of those don't technically require a passenger.
I'm sure far more than that actually takes place. Unless we are talking about the world of big corporate aviation, most private carriage is, well, private and flies under the radar. I'm sure there's also an element of "who cares" in terms of enforcement priority. And with the long history of people thinking the 30+ year old AC 120-12A authorizes plain vanilla Part 91 "private carriage"*, there are probably a good number of folks who think they are in compliance anyway.
[*It actually doesn't. AC 120-12A says "Private carriage may be conducted under FAR Parts 125 or 91, Subpart D." (which is now SubPart F)]
dtuuri
Final Approach
Exactly. That and the other ones enumerated in Parts 61 & 119. I thought maybe there is some way I never knew for conducting transportation by air without a 135 certificate. "Sight-seeing" isn't "air transportation" to my way of thinking. You get off the plane right where you got on it. You aren't transported anywhere. Ok, 33 years ago TODAY the Voyager flew around the world non-stop. I'll give that one private carriage status (there was a passenger).
Unless it rises to the levels per Part 136.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
No. We have agreed from the beginning that there wasn't.
BTW, if sightseeing isn't transportation, I guess neither is aerial photography since it also requires that departure and destination be the same. So we are down to one. At least I assume it's OK with the FAA to drop firefighters off were the fire is.
AvWeb post about this on or about the 23rd.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Classic regulatory capture by the big players in the field.