Common carriage scenario

I

Icekeyboardtw

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
7
Display Name
Display name:
Icekeyboardtw
Commercial check ride coming up, I have a few question about private carriage and common carriage scenarios
I held commercial pilot license with valid first class medical without operation license

1) If my flight plan is for evacuating from hurricane with 2 passenger on board, and get paid by my employer. Is it legal?
2) if both the passenger pays you as well, is it legal?
3) after evacuation, passenger want to visit someone, and they will pay you, legal?
---------------------------------Different scenario----------------------------------------------------------
4) If my friend want me to take him for aerial photography using my own aircraft and he pays, legal?
5) If i rent aircraft from my flight school for $130 per hour, a friend ask me to pay rental plus $50 for aerial photography, is it legal?
6) If landed somewhere else, is it legal?
7) If you start a business and start advertising at FBO, making money by aerial photography with own aircraft, is it legal?

This is so complicated, I will try to give my own answer but please correct me if i am wrong.

1) If my flight plan is for evacuating from hurricane with 2 passenger on board, and get paid by my employer. Is it legal?

Evacuating from hurricane is considered a ferry flight, ferry flight carrying passenger will requires a special flight permit from FSDO, so if I have the special flight permit, i can do the ferry flight with passenger for hire.
Wrong

2) if both the passenger pays you as well, is it legal?

Falls under Part 135 air carrier, not legal.

3) after evacuation, passenger want to visit someone, and they will pay you, legal?

Not hanging out, only if you have the purpose to go to that place and they pay less than pro rata share, or it's considered a common carriage, and will falls under Part 135 air carrier and not legal.

4) If my friend want me to take him for aerial photography using my own aircraft and he pays, legal?

Aerial photography, according to Part 119.1(e), it's considered a Part 91 operation. So it's legal.

5) If i rent aircraft from my flight school for $130 per hour, a friend ask me to pay rental plus $50 for aerial photography, is it legal?

It's exception of Part 119, So it's also legal.

6) If landed somewhere else, is it legal?

Transporting from A to B, falls under Part 135 air carrier, not legal.

7) If you start a business and start advertising at FBO, making money by aerial photography with own aircraft, is it legal?

Very grey, but i supposed to be legal, like advertising to be a flight instructor.

Conclusion
Part 91 need to meet the requirements
Part 119 requires commercial operator certificate,
Part 135 requires Air carrier certificate or Operating certificate

Difference of aerial photography and air tour,
  • "Aerial photography" is a separate activity from "sightseeing", main purpose have to be aerial photography or it falls to air tour and have 25 SM radius restriction
 
Last edited:
Evacuating from hurricane is considered a ferry flight, ferry flight carrying passenger will requires a special flight permit from FSDO, so if I have the special flight permit, i can do the ferry flight with passenger for hire.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with this?
 
Icekeyboardtw said:
Commercial check ride coming up, I have a few question about private carriage and common carriage scenarios
I held commercial pilot license with valid first class medical without operation license

1) If my flight plan is for evacuating from hurricane with 2 passenger on board, and get paid by my employer. Is it legal?
2) if both the passenger pays you as well, is it legal?
3) after evacuation, passenger want to visit someone, and they will pay you, legal?
---------------------------------Different scenario----------------------------------------------------------
4) If my friend want me to take him for aerial photography using my own aircraft and he pays, legal?
5) If i rent aircraft from my flight school for $130 per hour, a friend ask me to pay rental plus $50 for aerial photography, is it legal?
6) If landed somewhere else, is it legal?
7) If you start a business and start advertising at FBO, making money by aerial photography with own aircraft, is it legal?

This is so complicated, I will try to give my own answer but please correct me if i am wrong.

1) If my flight plan is for evacuating from hurricane with 2 passenger on board, and get paid by my employer. Is it legal?

Evacuating from hurricane is considered a ferry flight, ferry flight carrying passenger will requires a special flight permit from FSDO, so if I have the special flight permit, i can do the ferry flight with passenger for hire.

2) if both the passenger pays you as well, is it legal?

Falls under Part 135 air carrier, not legal.

3) after evacuation, passenger want to visit someone, and they will pay you, legal?

Not hanging out, only if you have the purpose to go to that place and they pay less than pro rata share, or it's considered a common carriage, and will falls under Part 135 air carrier and not legal.

4) If my friend want me to take him for aerial photography using my own aircraft and he pays, legal?

Aerial photography, according to Part 119.1(e), it's considered a Part 91 operation. So it's legal.

5) If i rent aircraft from my flight school for $130 per hour, a friend ask me to pay rental plus $50 for aerial photography, is it legal?

It's exception of Part 119, So it's also legal.

6) If landed somewhere else, is it legal?

Transporting from A to B, falls under Part 135 air carrier, not legal.

7) If you start a business and start advertising at FBO, making money by aerial photography with own aircraft, is it legal?

Very grey, but i supposed to be legal, like advertising to be a flight instructor.

Conclusion
Part 91 need to meet the requirements
Part 119 requires commercial operator certificate,
Part 135 requires Air carrier certificate or Operating certificate

Difference of aerial photography and air tour,
  • "Aerial photography" is a separate activity from "sightseeing", main purpose have to be aerial photography or it falls to air tour and have 25 SM radius restriction
Click to expand...
There's a lot wrong here. I'm on my phone and my thumbs can't handle it. I'm going to check back in in a couple hours and take a stab at it if no one else has corrected you.

But first: cite your sources for how you got to your conclusions.
 
Icekeyboardtw said:
My friend who just took commercial check ride



I saw it from here written by an attorney
but im not allowed to post a link yet.

The following is not all inclusive (refer to 14 CFR Part 21.197), but lists the most common request for Special Flight Permits.
1.) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of salvage.
2.) Flying an aircraft whose annual inspection has expired to a base where an annual inspection can be accomplished.
3.) Flying an amateur built aircraft whose condition inspection has expired to a base where the condition inspection can be accomplished.
4.) Delivering or exporting the aircraft.
5.) Production flight testing of new production aircraft.
6.) Evacuating aircraft from areas of impending danger.
7.) Conducting customer demonstration flights in a new production aircraft that have satisfactory completed production flight tests.
8.) To authorize the operation of an aircraft at a weight in excess of its maximum certificated takeoff weight.

But if it wasn't carrying passenger, it will just be "relocating" the aircraft, and doesn't requires special flight permit.
Click to expand...

You missed the first part of the regulation:

§ 21.197 Special flight permits.
(a) A special flight permit may be issued for an aircraft that may not currently meet applicable airworthiness requirements but is capable of safe flight, for the following purposes:

(1) Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage.

(2) Delivering or exporting the aircraft.

(3) Production flight testing new production aircraft.

(4) Evacuating aircraft from areas of impending danger.

(5) Conducting customer demonstration flights in new production aircraftthat have satisfactorily completed production flight tests.

(b) A special flight permit may also be issued to authorize the operation of an aircraft at a weight in excess of its maximum certificated takeoff weight for flight beyond the normal range over water, or over land areas where adequate landing facilities or appropriate fuel is not available. The excess weight that may be authorized under this paragraph is limited to the additional fuel, fuel-carrying facilities, and navigation equipment necessary for the flight.

(c) Upon application, as prescribed in §§ 91.1017 or 119.51 of this chapter, a special flight permit with a continuing authorization may be issued for aircraft that may not meet applicable airworthiness requirements, but are capable of safe flight for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base where maintenance or alterations are to be performed. The permit issued under this paragraph is an authorization, including conditions and limitations for flight, which is set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. The permit issued under this paragraph may be issued to -

(1) Certificate holders authorized to conduct operations under part 119of this chapter, that have an approved program for continuing flight authorization; or

(2) Management specification holders authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K of this chapter for those aircraft they operate and maintain under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program prescribed by § 91.1411 of this chapter.

[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14570, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-21, 33 FR 6859, May 7, 1968; Amdt. 21-51, 45 FR 60170, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 21-54, 46 FR 37878, July 23, 1981; Amdt. 21-79, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 21-84, 68 FR 54559, Sept. 17, 2003; Amdt. 21-87, 71 FR 536, Jan. 4, 2006; Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53389, Oct. 16, 2009]
 
Whether you have a special flight permit or not means SQUAT to whether it is private or common carriage. An evacuation isn't necessarily a "ferry" anything

You can't answer the first couple of questions without knowing where the how the airplane was obtained from and who these people are.

Your answer to question 6 is incomplete. There's nothing that says aerial photography missions need to originate and return to the same airport. The question is are you really doing an (exclusive) air photo mission or are you transporting a person between locations.

Question 7 is silly. Why can't flight instructors advertise? Why can't air photo businesses advertise? You're not possibly engaging in common carriage until you transport a person or cargo. Advertising that I can take a photo of your house by the air isn't common carriage. Advertising that you'd fly a person so they could take a photo of their house likely is.
 
Brad Z said:
There's a lot wrong here. I'm on my phone and my thumbs can't handle it. I'm going to check back in in a couple hours and take a stab at it if no one else has corrected you.

But first: cite your sources for how you got to your conclusions.
Click to expand...

According to these 2 regulations
AC 120-42A: Carrying passenger from A to B and get paid is considered common carriage unless it's contracted.
Common carriage can only be conducted under Part 121, 125, or 135

14 CFR Part 119.1(e) Exceptions of Part 119
 
flyingron said:
Whether you have a special flight permit or not means SQUAT to whether it is private or common carriage. An evacuation isn't necessarily a "ferry" anything

You can't answer the first couple of questions without knowing where the how the airplane was obtained from and who these people are.
Click to expand...

So according to which regulation makes how the airplane obtained makes difference? Couldnt find it anywhere...

I know about if the owner of the airplane is the costumer is fine,
How about it's my own airplane, or by rental, or from my company, all will be illegal? which regulation?

flyingron said:
Your answer to question 6 is incomplete. There's nothing that says aerial photography missions need to originate and return to the same airport. The question is are you really doing an (exclusive) air photo mission or are you transporting a person between locations.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it still considers the main purpose of the flight, if it's mainly for air photo then its fine to land somewhere else?

flyingron said:
Question 7 is silly. Why can't flight instructors advertise? Why can't air photo businesses advertise? You're not possibly engaging in common carriage until you transport a person or cargo. Advertising that I can take a photo of your house by the air isn't common carriage. Advertising that you'd fly a person so they could take a photo of their house likely is.
Click to expand...

I never said flight instructor cant advertise. I said its both legal.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty simple. An operator provides both the plane and the pilot to the customer. If a person obtains a plane and gets you to fly it, you're not providing common carriage, you're just being employed as a pilot. There are a few limited times where the airplane and pilot are provided together and it still being private carriage, it all boils down into the relationship between all the parties.

If you provide the plane (either one you own or one you arrange to rent or otherwise get a hold of) then you have common carriage and you're right there in 119.1 where it talks about the applicability of this chapter of the regs.

It's not the "main" purpose, it's the purpose. If the purpose is to take pictures, then you have aviation photography going on. If the purpose is to move a person from A to B, then that's not photography.

I misunderstood your explanation for #7. Yes, it's legal to advertise. The only time advertisement makes a difference is when you offer services to the public (via advertising or whatever), you pretty much eliminate the possibility that it be considered private carriage.
 
flyingron said:
It's pretty simple. An operator provides both the plane and the pilot to the customer. If a person obtains a plane and gets you to fly it, you're not providing common carriage, you're just being employed as a pilot. There are a few limited times where the airplane and pilot are provided together and it still being private carriage, it all boils down into the relationship between all the parties.

If you provide the plane (either one you own or one you arrange to rent or otherwise get a hold of) then you have common carriage and you're right there in 119.1 where it talks about the applicability of this chapter of the regs.

It's not the "main" purpose, it's the purpose. If the purpose is to take pictures, then you have aviation photography going on. If the purpose is to move a person from A to B, then that's not photography.

I misunderstood your explanation for #7. Yes, it's legal to advertise. The only time advertisement makes a difference is when you offer services to the public (via advertising or whatever), you pretty much eliminate the possibility that it be considered private carriage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response and solving my question, it's nice and clear.
How about Question 1? Does evacuation makes difference?
So if the employer provides airplane and ask me to evacuate, even there is passenger, it's still legal, because i am just employed?
And no matter the passenger on board pay me or not?
 
If the employer provides the plane and the people you're flying are other employees or essentially someone with a relationship to the employer, then it's not common carriage.
You keep harping on evacuation. It's entirely irrelevant here. It's no more legal to provide common carriage in an evacuation circumstance than in any other.
 
flyingron said:
If the employer provides the plane and the people you're flying are other employees or essentially someone with a relationship to the employer, then it's not common carriage.
You keep harping on evacuation. It's entirely irrelevant here. It's no more legal to provide common carriage in an evacuation circumstance than in any other.
Click to expand...

Got it! Thanks!
The regulation related to who provides the aircraft is 119.1(b)(4)? And also need to look through dry/wet lease on AC 91-37B?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top