Commercial Privileges Scenario Question

[midlifeflyer]

To get to this level of a scenario for a Commercial student seems a bit extreme. I know if a DPE presented me with the question, I’d tell them ‘not enough information for me to answer and too complex for me to want to find out and recommend the couple seek competent professional advice to determine the legality.”

I wouldn't worry. Commercial checkride questions in this area tend to be simple (from time to time someone mentions the write up I did on this topic several years ago). Most DPEs would not be able to answer this one. Heck, most ASIs probably wouldn't either. They might wonder if there were something wrong but would ask upstream.

 

[Pinecone]

I’d go with “if it’s legal for him to fly himself, it should be legal for her to fly him.”

How do you fighure that? I can fly myself in your airplane. You cannot fly me in your airplane for compensation. Marriage is not a factor.

 

[MauleSkinner]

How do you fighure that? I can fly myself in your airplane. You cannot fly me in your airplane for compensation. Marriage is not a factor.

You’re right in that marriage is not a factor, but you’re wrong in that it has any resemblance to you, me, and my airplane.

He has some form of lease on the airplane that gives him operational control. He can hire whomever he wants to fly it. As long as he’s not flying it 135 or 134.5, she’s be legal to fly it.

 

[noahfong]

The bolded portion of your post is incorrect.

A single source supplying both aircraft and crew to provide transportation to someone else in exchange for any form of compensation requires an operating certificate unless ...

Thanks. That makes sense. I forgot that detail.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks. That makes sense. I forgot that detail.

Glad I could help.

"A single source supplying both aircraft and crew to provide transportation to someone else in exchange for any form of compensation requires an operating certificate unless it's an activity excepted..."

is really the controlling concept for the entire subject. In writing, it might even be called the "topic sentence."

The problem with the subject that both "single source" and the "unless" can get complicated. "Single source" gets us involved in "operational control" analysis and the "unlesses" can be so detailed that two things that look the same can be treated differently based on how structured.

The "flight department company" concept is a good example because it's relatively simple, Two scenarios with one difference.

(1) Very Big Company, Inc. has a flight department. It owns a King Air. The flight department hires pilots, takes care of maintenance and scheduling. If a Very Big Company, Inc officer wants to travel in the King Air on business, they have to call the flight department to make arrangements. The aircraft is only used for Very Big Company Inc travel.

(2) Everything's exactly the same as in (1) except, in order to segregate assets and liabilities and for tax reasons, Very Big Company, Inc. created, VBG Air, LLC to be the flight department and put the King Air in its name. VBG Air, LLC is a single-member LLC; Very Big Company, Inc owns 100% of the membership.

(1) is Part 91. (2) is Part 135.

 

[ateamer]

I understand the letter of the law, but when these kind of interpretations are applied, it’s just pedantry and gatekeeping. God forbid that common sense and the spirit of the law would ever factor in to it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I understand the letter of the law, but when these kind of interpretations are applied, it’s just pedantry and gatekeeping. God forbid that common sense and the spirit of the law would ever factor in to it.

Imagine the perceived loopholes that required these interpretations to be stated.

 

[Pinecone]

You’re right in that marriage is not a factor, but you’re wrong in that it has any resemblance to you, me, and my airplane.

He has some form of lease on the airplane that gives him operational control. He can hire whomever he wants to fly it. As long as he’s not flying it 135 or 134.5, she’s be legal to fly it.

So A owns a plane. Leases it to B. B hires A to fly it. Yeap, that passes the smell test.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I understand the letter of the law, but when these kind of interpretations are applied, it’s just pedantry and gatekeeping. God forbid that common sense and the spirit of the law would ever factor in to it.

The problem is less the FAA than the creativity of people trying to get around the spirit of the law. Arguably, the "spirit" of this whole illegal charter area is two-fold. Protect the public which knows zilch about aviation and protect the investment of the operators that jumped through the hoops, met higher standards, and accepted higher levels of supervision. The FAA is equally creative in interpreting to meet the spirit. In many cases, the reasonableness of the FAA's application is an opinion of the reader.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So A owns a plane. Leases it to B. B hires A to fly it. Yeap, that passes the smell test.

That’s why, as has been stated, this question is far more complicated than can be addressed in an oral exam, and the “operational control” and “unless” issues are going to be the determining factors. We don’t have nearly enough information here.

 

[Clip4]

No one cares, probably least of all the FAA, about how husbands and wives share things. The main FAA issues which jump out in this scenario come down realizing that the husband and wife part might be a red herring. Even the reimbursement being from a third party is probably irrelevant.

(1) Legal ownership of the aircraft is a trust. In most (all?) states, a trust is considered a separate legal entity from the settlors, the trustees, or the beneficiaries. Basically, neither spouse owns the airplane. Common equivalent? Three guys set up an LLC to buy and share an airplane. The LLC owns the airplane, not the three guys.
(2) We don't know at this point how the husband's business is owned, but if it's an LLC or corporation, that's also a separate legal entity from either spouse.

To make this even more complicated, any aircraft revenues from the proposed arrangement should be deposited in the trust.