Commercial Flight

[Aztec Driver]

I am a commercially rated multi engine pilot, and, as such, can be paid for services in a multi-engine airplane, However, I cannot hold out for said work, unless I hold a 135 certificate and comply with all those regs as well. However, what if a parent of one of my sixth grade students asks me to transport her parents on a monthly basis to and from their home for visiting? I would have to rent a Cougar to do this. I realize that, by saying yes to them, I seem to say I am willing to transport anyone for hire, but since I don't really have the time for much of anything else, and no one else is asking, does it really quack like a duck? Also, would rental insurance policies generally prohibit this type of activity? Can you get a non-owner policy to cover this type of activity?

 

[tonycondon]

i think the simple answer is no. basically if the pilot rents the airplane and gets payed for the flight more than even share, its an illegal 135 op. if the passengers rent the plane and then pay you to fly it, its legal. pilot can not have any affiliation with renting agency for this to work.

 

[gismo]

I am a commercially rated multi engine pilot, and, as such, can be paid for services in a multi-engine airplane, However, I cannot hold out for said work, unless I hold a 135 certificate and comply with all those regs as well. However, what if a parent of one of my sixth grade students asks me to transport her parents on a monthly basis to and from their home for visiting? I would have to rent a Cougar to do this. I realize that, by saying yes to them, I seem to say I am willing to transport anyone for hire, but since I don't really have the time for much of anything else, and no one else is asking, does it really quack like a duck? Also, would rental insurance policies generally prohibit this type of activity? Can you get a non-owner policy to cover this type of activity?

Since you'd be supplying the plane (you are the one renting) it's part 135. If your student's parent could supply the plane then it's part 91 provided no one pays for the flight. And having them rent the plane, pay for the rental etc. won't work if you have any involvement with the rental (like being the one the FBO is really releasing the plane to).

BTW, part 135 isn't about "holding out", it's about transportation of people or cargo for a fee.

 

[infotango]

#deleted

 

[Len Lanetti]

Google FAA v Harold Davis.

Len

 

[jason]

(Google's cached link)
FAA v. HAROLD L DAVIS

 

[gismo]

#deleted

Dang! You must have deleted your post between the time I opened it and when I hit the "reply" button. I take it you were convinced of the folly of your idea already.

 

[infotango]

Yep!
Went back and reread it....

 

[EdFred]

Hmmmm, but in this situation the pilot initiated everything, and had the billing set to his address. I would call that a single transaction as well.

If someone comes out of nowhere and asks me to fly them in a plane that is not my own, I'm going to do it. Of course, I don't really rent anywhere that I would have a prior relationship with them.

 

[Len Lanetti]

If someone comes out of nowhere and asks me to fly them in a plane that is not my own, I'm going to do it.

The reality is that the average person doesn't know anything about general aviation, wouldn't know where to go to get a plane, wouldn't know what kind of plane to ask for and couldn't get the "keys" to the plane unless they involved the pilot.

Len

 

[TangoWhiskey]

(Google's cached link)
FAA v. HAROLD L DAVIS

I went to read the FAR's Mr. Davis allegedly violated. The first one cited is 135.5, which I can't find; it goes from CFR135.4 to CFR135.7. Anybody know what used to be in 135.5?

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr135_main_02.tpl

Is there any such thing as single-pilot Part 135 flying? 135.4 says "two-pilot crew" is mandatory. I didn't know that (I've not read much if anything about 135 requirements).

 

[EdFred]

On second thought, I'll just 1099 them for $1, and take them on the company plane as an employee. LOL

 

[Everskyward]

Is there any such thing as single-pilot Part 135 flying? 135.4 says "two-pilot crew" is mandatory. I didn't know that (I've not read much if anything about 135 requirements).

Yes, you can fly single-pilot 135 if it's cargo only; with passengers in VFR; or with passengers in IFR if the airplane has an approved autopilot and the pilot has been trained and checked with it. There are some other little qualifiers but that's basically the way it is.

135.4 refers to "eligible on-demand operations" which are different than run-of-the-mill on-demand operations. If you qualify as an eligible on-demand operation using 135.4 you get to use a few less restrictive rules with regard to things like runway length and required weather reporting than other operators do.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I went to read the FAR's Mr. Davis allegedly violated. The first one cited is 135.5, which I can't find; it goes from CFR135.4 to CFR135.7. Anybody know what used to be in 135.5?

I found the information, in a footnote in another case:

As pertinent, subsection 5 requires an operating
certificate for Part 135 operations, subsection 29(a) requires
that the business' name be on the operating certificate,
subsection 33(a) requires geographic authorization to operate,
subsection 143(a) requires that the aircraft and equipment meet
applicable regulations, subsection 293(b) requires that pilots
pass competency checks, and subsection 343 requires that
crewmembers complete appropriate initial and recurrent training.

Did subsection 5 subsequently get moved (absorbed) into another subsection? I have to believe the operator's certificate is still required for Part 135.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Yes, you can fly single-pilot 135 if it's cargo only; with passengers in VFR; or with passengers in IFR if the airplane has an approved autopilot and the pilot has been trained and checked with it. There are some other little qualifiers but that's basically the way it is.

135.4 refers to "eligible on-demand operations" which are different than run-of-the-mill on-demand operations. If you qualify as an eligible on-demand operation using 135.4 you get to use a few less restrictive rules with regard to things like runway length and required weather reporting than other operators do.

Thank you for the clarification; that makes sense! Anybody seen a good book on how to start a Part 135 operation? It would make interesting reading if nothing else.... it's too hot to go outside and fly right now! (105 in Dallas today).

 

[Everskyward]

Did subsection 5 subsequently get moved (absorbed) into another subsection? I have to believe the operator's certificate is still required for Part 135.

I think what you are looking for is now in Part 119.

 

[gismo]

I went to read the FAR's Mr. Davis allegedly violated. The first one cited is 135.5, which I can't find; it goes from CFR135.4 to CFR135.7. Anybody know what used to be in 135.5?

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf09d9813dda39a37f3248bf00582a5f&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr135_main_02.tpl

Is there any such thing as single-pilot Part 135 flying? 135.4 says "two-pilot crew" is mandatory. I didn't know that (I've not read much if anything about 135 requirements).

Two pilots aren't always required. Many charter outfits allow the client to specify one or two pilots so they can trade cost for perceived (and statistically demonstrated) safety.

The problem you are having with the FAR #s is probably due to a few revisions between the current regs when the decision was rendered and today. Chances are the violated reg had to do with requiring an operator's certificate for the part 135 operation.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the parent owns a plane (or has control of one, say, via a dry lease) and asks you to fly it for pay, you can do that on the strength of your CPL. However, if you rent the plane, it's provision of air transportation for hire rather than just provision of pilot services, and a commercial operator certificate such as a Part 135 air taxi certificate is required.

 

[tdager]

LOL...damn, what is the point of a Commercial license then? Seriously...I have been trying to figure it out.

You spend the time and money to get one, that then if you want to make any money off of it you have to jump through yet MORE hoops!

 

[Len Lanetti]

Two pilots aren't always required. Many charter outfits allow the client to specify one or two pilots so they can trade cost for perceived (and statistically demonstrated) safety.

IIRC and if the rules haven't changed...single pilot part 135 authorization requires a functional autopilot (able to shoot an approach?) and a special check ride for the pilot showing the ability to use the autopilot...may be other requirements as well.

Len

 

[EdFred]

If the parent owns a plane (or has control of one, say, via a dry lease) and asks you to fly it for pay, you can do that on the strength of your CPL. However, if you rent the plane, it's provision of air transportation for hire rather than just provision of pilot services, and a commercial operator certificate such as a Part 135 air taxi certificate is required.

Which brings up an interesting question...if the parent (or anyone else) owns the plane, and you routinely fly their plane for them. Who can you fly in the plane? Only relatives? Their friends? Their co-workers? Anyone they ask you to?

At what point do you stop becoming a "personal pilot" and start becoming a charter pilot? If they aren't advertising, then they aren't holding out. What if it is just word of mouth. "Hey Jack and Diane, have a plane, see if they will let their contracted part 91 pilot fly you somewhere." At which point they say, "He Ed, can you fly our friends to anywhere, oosa?"

 

[Len Lanetti]

Tom,

RE: Point of Commercial License.

It is the first step...you can get time building jobs and work up until you are qualified to fly at better paying jobs. Just like med school graduates don't get to do open heart surgery right out of school.

Len

 

[gismo]

Which brings up an interesting question...if the parent (or anyone else) owns the plane, and you routinely fly their plane for them. Who can you fly in the plane? Only relatives? Their friends? Their co-workers? Anyone they ask you to?

At what point do you stop becoming a "personal pilot" and start becoming a charter pilot? If they aren't advertising, then they aren't holding out. What if it is just word of mouth. "Hey Jack and Diane, have a plane, see if they will let their contracted part 91 pilot fly you somewhere." At which point they say, "He Ed, can you fly our friends to anywhere, oosa?"

Ed it all depends on whether or not Jack and Diane's friends pay for the trip. I suppose there's a small loophole there if Jack is willing to rent/lease his plane to his friend and the friend happens to hire you to fly it, but I think the friend would have to be allowed to chose any qualified pilot or else the plane's owner is retaining operational control. That would likely make it part 135 even if Jack's friend paid you and Jack separately since you certainly have a previous relationship with your dad.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Ed it all depends on whether or not Jack and Diane's friends pay for the trip.

"Pay" is not the right word...there was just a case where good will was determined to be the compensation. In that case the pilot derived the good will but furthering his chances to do business with a resturant owner who asked the pilot to fly some folks to his resturant location.

In this example, the owner of the aircraft would accrue the good will and the pilot would get hung out to dry.

Len

 

[EdFred]

Wasnt that a private pilot however?

 

[Everskyward]

Which brings up an interesting question...if the parent (or anyone else) owns the plane, and you routinely fly their plane for them. Who can you fly in the plane? Only relatives? Their friends? Their co-workers? Anyone they ask you to?

You can fly all of those people. The thing is, the passengers can't be paying for the ride. For example, Jack and Diane own a company. They also own an airplane. They can hire you to be their corporate pilot. You can fly them, their relatives, their employees and their friends. You can be paid by Jack and Diane (or their company). However, the passengers can't be paying either Jack and Diane or you for the ride.

At what point do you stop becoming a "personal pilot" and start becoming a charter pilot?

You start becoming a charter pilot when Jack and Diane start selling rides in their airplane.

 

[EdFred]

You can fly all of those people. The thing is, the passengers can't be paying for the ride. For example, Jack and Diane own a company. They also own an airplane. They can hire you to be their corporate pilot. You can fly them, their relatives, their employees and their friends. You can be paid by Jack and Diane (or their company). However, the passengers can't be paying either Jack and Diane or you for the ride.

You start becoming a charter pilot when Jack and Diane start selling rides in their airplane.

And if Jack and Diane tell me - even signing an affadavit - they are NOT charging, but in fact are, where does that leave me?

 

[Everskyward]

And if Jack and Diane tell me - even signing an affadavit - they are NOT charging, but in fact are, where does that leave me?

Better legal minds than mine need to answer this.

I guess you either trust your employer or not. Use that intuition.

 

[gismo]

And if Jack and Diane tell me - even signing an affadavit - they are NOT charging, but in fact are, where does that leave me?

Hosed. If you can prove (and I think the burden is on you to prove it) that you didn't and couldn't have known that pax were charged then you'd be OK, but I'm fairly certain you'd be offered a chance to sit down with the FAA and it wouldn't be much fun. I suspect that the FAA would reason that you should have been suspicious that your "employer" was giving away transportation and receiving nothing of value in return.

 

[poadeleted20]

LOL...damn, what is the point of a Commercial license then? Seriously...I have been trying to figure it out.

The point is to be permitted to be paid to act as a pilot, and to act as a pilot when someone is paying for air transporation of people or cargo. Accepting payment for air transportation (as opposed to being paid to be a pilot) is a separate issue covered by Part 119.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which brings up an interesting question...if the parent (or anyone else) owns the plane, and you routinely fly their plane for them. Who can you fly in the plane? Only relatives? Their friends? Their co-workers? Anyone they ask you to?

The latter, as long as no passengers are paying or otherwise compensating the parents for the flight. IOW, it's your basic corporate flight operation.

At what point do you stop becoming a "personal pilot" and start becoming a charter pilot?

The instant the parents take a single penny or any other form of compensation from any of the passengers.

If they aren't advertising, then they aren't holding out. What if it is just word of mouth. "Hey Jack and Diane, have a plane, see if they will let their contracted part 91 pilot fly you somewhere." At which point they say, "He Ed, can you fly our friends to anywhere, oosa?"

Holding out is only one issue -- any form of compensation makes it a 135 or 121 op, depending on the specifics, regardless of whether or not there is "holding out."

 

[poadeleted20]

And if Jack and Diane tell me - even signing an affadavit - they are NOT charging, but in fact are, where does that leave me?

In need of a good aviation attorney if the FAA finds out. You might beat the rap. There are cases on file where the pilot didn't know there was payment, and the pilot skated, but only when the pilot was able to show by preponderance of the evidence that s/he did not know about the payment.