Commercial Pilot question

[slowjoe]

A friend of mine (student pilot) asked me (Private Pilot) the following question, the answer seems to be less than obvious. What do you all think?

You are a Commercial Pilot. However, you do not have an Instrument rating. Per 61.133(b)(1) you have the following limitation on your Commercial Pilot Certificate:

"The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited."

Most of that is pretty clear: you cannot take paying passengers more than 50nm from the departure airport, and only during daylight VFR conditions. You can, however, do things like fly cargo, ferry airplanes, etc, day or night, cross-country if you want, as long as you're flying VFR.

But here's the odd question - You have been hired to ferry an aircraft to a destination several hours away. A friend (pilot or not, doesn't matter for this situation) asks to fly along with you.

Is that legal? They are not a "passenger for hire", absolutely no compensation from this individual, they just want to go along for the ride. For sake of argument, you're picking up a plane to return home, or there's a car waiting or whatever, but both of you will be able to return at no additional cost or change to the arrangements.

Thoughts?

 

[taters]

A friend of mine (student pilot) asked me (Private Pilot) the following question, the answer seems to be less than obvious. What do you all think?

You are a Commercial Pilot. However, you do not have an Instrument rating. Per 61.133(b)(1) you have the following limitation on your Commercial Pilot Certificate:

"The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited."

Most of that is pretty clear: you cannot take paying passengers more than 50nm from the departure airport, and only during daylight VFR conditions. You can, however, do things like fly cargo, ferry airplanes, etc, day or night, cross-country if you want, as long as you're flying VFR.

But here's the odd question - You have been hired to ferry an aircraft to a destination several hours away. A friend (pilot or not, doesn't matter for this situation) asks to fly along with you.

Is that legal? They are not a "passenger for hire", absolutely no compensation from this individual, they just want to go along for the ride. For sake of argument, you're picking up a plane to return home, or there's a car waiting or whatever, but both of you will be able to return at no additional cost or change to the arrangements.

Thoughts?

I remember some question close to this in my ATP study guide...I think its only Kosher in the FAA's eyes if they "are necessary for the safe operation of the flight" etc...like watching haz. cargo in the back or running camera equip.. something of that nature.

Its all ridiculous anyway..

 

[gismo]

A friend of mine (student pilot) asked me (Private Pilot) the following question, the answer seems to be less than obvious. What do you all think?

You are a Commercial Pilot. However, you do not have an Instrument rating. Per 61.133(b)(1) you have the following limitation on your Commercial Pilot Certificate:

"The carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited."

Most of that is pretty clear: you cannot take paying passengers more than 50nm from the departure airport, and only during daylight VFR conditions. You can, however, do things like fly cargo, ferry airplanes, etc, day or night, cross-country if you want, as long as you're flying VFR.

But here's the odd question - You have been hired to ferry an aircraft to a destination several hours away. A friend (pilot or not, doesn't matter for this situation) asks to fly along with you.

Is that legal? They are not a "passenger for hire", absolutely no compensation from this individual, they just want to go along for the ride. For sake of argument, you're picking up a plane to return home, or there's a car waiting or whatever, but both of you will be able to return at no additional cost or change to the arrangements.

Thoughts?

As long as you're not charging the passenger for the ride and the compensation for ferrying the plane is clearly unrelated to the pax, I can't see how it could be considered "carriage of passengers for hire".

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree that this does not appear to be a violation of the FAR's, but I can however, see the person who hired you to move his plane getting very upset about this for legal liability reasons.

 

[nosehair]

I think its only Kosher in the FAA's eyes if they "are necessary for the safe operation of the flight" etc...like watching haz. cargo in the back or running camera equip.. something of that nature.

That's if you are operating on a "ferry permit", which I don't think the OP is talking about. If it is fully airworthy and is just moving the airplane from one place to another, it is ok to take pax like any other 91 flight, by FAR, but maybe not by the owner/insurer.

 

[taters]

That's if you are operating on a "ferry permit", which I don't think the OP is talking about. If it is fully airworthy and is just moving the airplane from one place to another, it is ok to take pax like any other 91 flight, by FAR, but maybe not by the owner/insurer.

Thats it!...I was too lazy to look it up but I clearly remembering a question close to this....given this I agree no harm no foul over a pax as far as the Fed's are concerned

 

[xaminmo]

If the flight were operated for the pilot's employer or a friend, the flight would be "Private Carriage for Hire" and would operate under part 91.

If the flight were organized because of an ad in the newspaper, or a friend of a friend, then that would be "holding out to the public" and the flight would need to be operated under part 135 and would be "Common Carriage for Hire".

Either way, this is a commercial operation requiring a commercial certificate because there is compensation.

As such, the passenger would never be considered to be there for "common purpose" unless the passenger were a required crewmember.

As such, the passenger would be a non-paying passenger on a commercial flight. The commercial pilot would either require an instrument rating, or the ferry operation would need to be performed in 50nm day vfr flights.

Granted, maybe "no one would ever know", or maybe a ramp check gets a lenient FAA Inspector.

However, violations could involve certificate action including, but not limited to 180d suspension. If something bad happened, then the pilot's insurance might refuse to pay up due to the operation being outside the pilot's license restrictions.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the flight were operated for the pilot's employer or a friend, the flight would be "Private Carriage for Hire" and would operate under part 91.

Operated by the pilot's employer or a friend, yes, but "for"? It gets complicated, and the question of who provided the plane and how and under what circumstances becomes relevant even if no "holding out" was involved, and it might still have to be Part 135.

 

[slowjoe]

If the flight were operated for the pilot's employer or a friend, the flight would be "Private Carriage for Hire" and would operate under part 91.

If the flight were organized because of an ad in the newspaper, or a friend of a friend, then that would be "holding out to the public" and the flight would need to be operated under part 135 and would be "Common Carriage for Hire".

Either way, this is a commercial operation requiring a commercial certificate because there is compensation.

As such, the passenger would never be considered to be there for "common purpose" unless the passenger were a required crewmember.

As such, the passenger would be a non-paying passenger on a commercial flight. The commercial pilot would either require an instrument rating, or the ferry operation would need to be performed in 50nm day vfr flights.

Granted, maybe "no one would ever know", or maybe a ramp check gets a lenient FAA Inspector.

However, violations could involve certificate action including, but not limited to 180d suspension. If something bad happened, then the pilot's insurance might refuse to pay up due to the operation being outside the pilot's license restrictions.

Huh? How are you going to run a plane under part 135 that has say 200hrs since last annual? 135 requires 100hr checks, doesn't it?

It is my understanding that Common Carrier for Hire is defined as "...for the transportation of goods over a definite route and according to a regular schedule." Ferrying a plane is anything but regular schedule.

Please elaborate.

 

[nosehair]

They're just really paranoid.

 

[slowjoe]

I did some searching. Title 14 of the US Code of Federal Regulations does not appear to define "passenger for hire". However, Title 46 does:

CFR 46 90.10-29(b) The term passenger for hire means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed as a condition of carriage on the vessel, whether directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, charterer, operator, agent, or any other person having an interest in the vessel.
​

Getting back to my original question, which is bound by CFR 14, 61.133(b):

Limitations. (1) A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, “The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited.” The limitation may be removed when the person satisfactorily accomplishes the requirements listed in §61.65 of this part for an instrument rating in the same category and class of aircraft listed on the person's commercial pilot certificate.
​

Being that there is only one definition in the US Code for "passenger for hire", albeit not in the same Title but that should be irrelevant, it appears that carrying a non-paying friend as a passenger on an flight that is otherwise bound by CFR 14 61.133(b) is perfectly legal.

I'd like to hear an attorney's take on this.

 

[poadeleted20]

Being that there is only one definition in the US Code for "passenger for hire", albeit not in the same Title but that should be irrelevant, it appears that carrying a non-paying friend as a passenger on an flight that is otherwise bound by CFR 14 61.133(b) is perfectly legal.

You can carry anyone you want as long as the passage of your passenger is not paid for by anyone, and a Private ticket is good enough for that. The issues arise when someone is paying to have someone transported by air, and then, even a commercial pilot certificate is not sufficient for legality. See Parts 119 and 135 for the law on point.

 

[RotorAndWing]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2010/Wagner.pdf

 

[slowjoe]

You can carry anyone you want as long as the passage of your passenger is not paid for by anyone, and a Private ticket is good enough for that. The issues arise when someone is paying to have someone transported by air, and then, even a commercial pilot certificate is not sufficient for legality. See Parts 119 and 135 for the law on point.

Correct, but that wasn't my question. The passenger isn't paying, or being paid for. The non-IFR Commercial Pilot is being paid to transport an aircraft cross country and the passenger is going along for the ride.

Are you saying that if you are carrying passengers for hire you must part 135? That's not correct, lots of businesses fly people under part 91.

 

[slowjoe]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2010/Wagner.pdf

That isn't relevant to the question at hand. It's a completely different scenario. The reason this does fall under common carriage is because it is scheduled: 2x a night, Mon - Fri. Can't get much more scheduled that than. Ferrying aircraft is far from scheduled, it's very adhoc.

 

[poadeleted20]

Correct, but that wasn't my question. The passenger isn't paying, or being paid for. The non-IFR Commercial Pilot is being paid to transport an aircraft cross country and the passenger is going along for the ride.

Then nobody is paying for transportation of the passenger, and there's no FAA issue (insurance and the contracting party's liability concerns notwithstanding, which is why I'd never take along a hitchiker on an aircraft ferry mission).

Are you saying that if you are carrying passengers for hire you must part 135? That's not correct, lots of businesses fly people under part 91.

Corporate aircraft are not "carrying passengers for hire," since the carriage is not being paid for by either the passenger or a third party. Corporations which want to sell empty seats or rent out use of their plane when not in company use have to get 135 certificates.

 

[slowjoe]

Then nobody is paying for transportation of the passenger, and there's no FAA issue (insurance and the contracting party's liability concerns notwithstanding, which is why I'd never take along a hitchiker on an aircraft ferry mission).

Corporate aircraft are not "carrying passengers for hire," since the carriage is not being paid for by either the passenger or a third party. Corporations which want to sell empty seats or rent out use of their plane when not in company use have to get 135 certificates.

I wasn't referring to corporate aircraft. There is passenger for hire out there that operates under Part 91: many skydiving aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

I wasn't referring to corporate aircraft. There is passenger for hire out there that operates under Part 91: many skydiving aircraft.

Skydiving is not "passengers for hire" either, as they don't provide "air transportation" (Point A to Point B ). It's "aerial work" as defined in Part 119.

 

[taters]

Corporations which want to sell empty seats or rent out use of their plane when not in company use have to get 135 certificates.

Or join NBAA and use the small aircraft exemption..to a point

 

[gprellwitz]

Corporate aircraft are not "carrying passengers for hire," since the carriage is not being paid for by either the passenger or a third party. Corporations which want to sell empty seats or rent out use of their plane when not in company use have to get 135 certificates.

They can, however, give them away, as with Corporate Angel Network, right?

 

[poadeleted20]

They can, however, give them away, as with Corporate Angel Network, right?

Sure. They can take anyone they want for any reason they want as long as nobody else is paying for the flight and they aren't receiving any nonmonetary compensation as a quid pro quo.