Contract Pilot Question Intn'l Issue

Captain

Captain

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
8,002
Location
NOYB
Display Name
Display name:
First Officer
So, I'm flying an owner and his friends from the Bahamas to the US. He has a lot of friends and its going to take three trips over two days. I called Customs for inbound clearance and was informed they automatically have to inform the FAA because its so many flights.

I assume the issue is the FAA being suspicious of unauthorized charter. I also assume someone from the local FSDO will be showing up to ask some questions. Anyone have experience with this? I'm being paid, obviously, but I have no knowledge of any payment being made to the aircraft owner.

If it comes up would they be allowed to pay for anything like fuel / fees? Or does the owner have to eat the entire cost?
 
Captain said:
So, I'm flying an owner and his friends from the Bahamas to the US. He has a lot of friends and its going to take three trips over two days. I called Customs for inbound clearance and was informed they automatically have to inform the FAA because its so many flights.

I assume the issue is the FAA being suspicious of unauthorized charter. I also assume someone from the local FSDO will be showing up to ask some questions. Anyone have experience with this? I'm being paid, obviously, but I have no knowledge of any payment being made to the aircraft owner.

If it comes up would they be allowed to pay for anything like fuel / fees? Or does the owner have to eat the entire cost?
Click to expand...


Geez....

Is there anything easy in your life??:dunno::dunno:....:confused:
 
Captain said:
So, I'm flying an owner and his friends from the Bahamas to the US. He has a lot of friends and its going to take three trips over two days. I called Customs for inbound clearance and was informed they automatically have to inform the FAA because its so many flights.

I assume the issue is the FAA being suspicious of unauthorized charter. I also assume someone from the local FSDO will be showing up to ask some questions. Anyone have experience with this? I'm being paid, obviously, but I have no knowledge of any payment being made to the aircraft owner.

If it comes up would they be allowed to pay for anything like fuel / fees? Or does the owner have to eat the entire cost?
Click to expand...

You hold an ATP and a CFI rating, correct?
 
RotorAndWing said:
You hold an ATP and a CFI rating, correct?
Click to expand...

Yup, I've never claimed to have experience with everything though. In 17 years of flying I've never come across this circumstance. Thought maybe others here have.
 
Last edited:
IMHO....

If you are flying the plane for the owner,,,, and he has alot of friends he needs to reposition....... then you really don't have any issues...:confused:
 
You just need to make sure that you have no knowledge of how much he gets paid. Once the FAA theeatens the pax with 10 years for lying, they'll provide check stubs in a hurry.
 
IF.... And that is a big if, the owner is really flying his friends around for free then there should be no issues. And Captain is just the hired driver.. No issues for him either....:nonod:..

For instance....

We have kazillionairs living here in the hole. Over the last few years a few have had HUGE weddings for their kids....

To get the guests here they actually chartered a Delta 757 to fly around the country picking up people......

Also, a famous movie producer did the same thing with all his guests for his birthday party.....

Boggles the mind to see that kind of money spent..

The question is.... Do all those guests have to report those flights as income or even a paid for perk ??:dunno::dunno::dunno:

That fact that Captains deal is international might throw a wrench in gears though..:confused:
 
Get some official looking documents with fancy borders around them and put some of those little blue and gold ribbons on them and hand them out to anyone that asks questions.
 
Somehow I thought this would generate more traction. This place can generate 10 pages on a slow day debating wethere or not to log PIC or PPLs getting paid to fly. Honestly I thought I was throwing y'all some red meat with this one. Color me surprised...
 
You should probably go ask on a board that has more pilots flying for a living, especially charter/contract types.
 
The FAA is not looking for unauthorized charter, they are probably thinking contraband and will notify their friends on that.

It sounds like a part 91 flight. If you are uncomfortable, ask the boss about it.

Do you normally get paid to fly the boss around? Then it is not different to get paid to fly other people unless the boss is charging them for the flight.

I have never done a legal international flight so I am unsure of that part.
 
Henning said:
The operator, ie the person with dispatch authority.
Click to expand...

Yeah... That is what I was thinking too..

After all Captain, you are just the hired driver and you need to protect your ass.. God forbid one of the owners "friends" decides to smuggle some contraban back in on the plane you are piloting. You need to be able to divest yourself of that bone headed move... The owner needs to think this all the way though too cause he very well could have his plane seized... Altho, that could be a good thing as some of us POA guys/gals would be able to pool our money and bid on a sweet Piaggio... And we will need to you fly it for us..:yesnod:
 
I was also thinking the owner is running some interesting risks completely beyond the scope of the question that he may be unaware of, but otherwise staying out of it.

His airplane, his risks. He certainly knows there are larger professional organizations who fly airplanes for people who retain lawyers to cover their ass(et)s and his. And he didn't hire them.

In Cap's shoes, it'd be an interesting conversation to say to him, "This is outside my area of expertise so I asked an Internet forum what they think about it."

Or the more professional way to put it, "What does your aviation attorney think of the liability of flying a bunch of guests to a foreign country in your aircraft?"

Doesn't even have to be multiple trips or any notice that anyone is "notifying" anyone about it, to make sure he understands the implications of our country's law enforcement tendencies to seize and hold large assets like aircraft if even tiny amounts of drugs somehow find their way on board. Just as one of many possible scenarios.
 
If the owner if footing the bill, there is no risk or problem. The FAA is not looking for drug smuggling, it's not their job, and they don't have the manpower to do their own job right now.
 
Last edited:
I had this experience several times flying from Florida to the Bahamas over the years when I was flying for a development company. Yes, they are looking for illegal charters, and not just for the FAA. Charters have different customs and notification requirement than private, part 91 flights. As long as it really is a part 91 flight and you are just hired to fly under part 91 you are OK. If the owner is charging for the flights and you even get a hint of it you need to immediately bail out and consider filing your own report to the FAA and CBP as a CYA measure. Let your employer know about this requirement ASAP, it could save him some hassle and big dollars. The CBP has a lot bigger teeth than the FAA when they get riled up!

I had this come up at West Palm Beach and Opa Locka.

Jim Hiatt
 
Captain said:
Somehow I thought this would generate more traction. This place can generate 10 pages on a slow day debating wethere or not to log PIC or PPLs getting paid to fly. Honestly I thought I was throwing y'all some red meat with this one. Color me surprised...
Click to expand...

So in other words you are a troll.
 
Maybe this will create more traction in the "Is Captain a jerk thread"?:rofl:
 
weilke said:
So in other words you are a troll.
Click to expand...

No, those are your words and not accurate in my opinion. I keep my eyes open for what I think are thought provoking situations and post here when I find something. In this case I was hopeful I might even learn something.

To the other poster above, I'll give locations in a few days after the trip is complete.
 
Captain said:
No, those are your words and not accurate in my opinion. I keep my eyes open for what I think are thought provoking situations and post here when I find something. In this case I was hopeful I might even learn something.

To the other poster above, I'll give locations in a few days after the trip is complete.
Click to expand...


Good luck Captain... We are counting on you,:D
 
Captain, I have been in your exact position. Technically if money changes hands you are in violation. I actually aggravated my boss somewhat by pointing this out to him. Like most wealthy people, his position is, "his airplane and he will d*** well do with it as he pleases". He did agree to make sure I knew nothing about the passengers except immediate family in the future. I have made several trips for him that I suspect the passengers were paying for the kerosene and may even been paying for me:dunno:
Bottom line is it would be a violation but, I suspect it is done so much as to not really concern the FAA as long as it was legitimate close friends, business associates or family. I have no advice for you.;)
 
Captain said:
No, those are your words and not accurate in my opinion. I keep my eyes open for what I think are thought provoking situations and post here when I find something. In this case I was hopeful I might even learn something.
Click to expand...

In the post I responded to you expressed disappointment that you had failed to create a 10 page thread with the 'red meat' you had thrown in here.

You knew the answers to your supposed question before you posted. You started the thread in the hopes of getting people all riled up, pretty much the definition of trolling.
 
Captain may have meant it as a troll as weike alluded. However, this is a legitimate problem faced by most contract pilots. In fact corporate pilots in general have to deal with this. Unlike some have said it IS the pilot that is responsible for verifying the legality of any flight, period. A part 135 or 121 is a little different in that it is known money is changing hands. Even in the 135, and 121 world where you have director of maintenance, perhaps dispatcher, chief pilot and so on the pilot is still responsible for the legality of the flight. There may be shared responsibility but, the pilot will be in the middle of any action.

In the case of 91 ops the pilot by regulation is the primary responsible person. The fact that the flight is international is of little consequence except for perhaps closer scrutiny. Most owners I have dealt with simply do not understand the difference in loaning their car to a friend in which the friend fills up the tank before returning the car and loaning his plane the same way. But, the FAR's are VERY clear on this.

Captain, I have always taken the position that if I could honestly say that I had no knowledge of money changing hands that the FAA MIGHT consider that as mitigating circumstances. I would bet money in the event of a smoking hole somewhere that the trial lawyers would make this a big deal. You have to do what you have to do to make a living.

Again, a legitimate question, don't know the answer.
 
weilke said:
In the post I responded to you expressed disappointment that you had failed to create a 10 page thread with the 'red meat' you had thrown in here.

You knew the answers to your supposed question before you posted. You started the thread in the hopes of getting people all riled up, pretty much the definition of trolling.
Click to expand...

Not quite. I expressed d disappointment that my topic hadn't sparked the interest I thought it would and compared it to other 10 page threads. Slight difference I know.
 
ronnieh said:
Captain may have meant it as a troll as weike alluded. However, this is a legitimate problem faced by most contract pilots. In fact corporate pilots in general have to deal with this. Unlike some have said it IS the pilot that is responsible for verifying the legality of any flight, period. A part 135 or 121 is a little different in that it is known money is changing hands. Even in the 135, and 121 world where you have director of maintenance, perhaps dispatcher, chief pilot and so on the pilot is still responsible for the legality of the flight. There may be shared responsibility but, the pilot will be in the middle of any action.

In the case of 91 ops the pilot by regulation is the primary responsible person. The fact that the flight is international is of little consequence except for perhaps closer scrutiny. Most owners I have dealt with simply do not understand the difference in loaning their car to a friend in which the friend fills up the tank before returning the car and loaning his plane the same way. But, the FAR's are VERY clear on this.

Captain, I have always taken the position that if I could honestly say that I had no knowledge of money changing hands that the FAA MIGHT consider that as mitigating circumstances. I would bet money in the event of a smoking hole somewhere that the trial lawyers would make this a big deal. You have to do what you have to do to make a living.

Again, a legitimate question, don't know the answer.
Click to expand...
My uncle, once upon a time, flew airplanes for a Coal Baron in western Kentucky. He had a contract with said Baron that he was the pilot, but that the Baron was the Operator of the aircraft, legally. The operator is the one that ultimately is the responsible party for ensuring the flight complies with the regs. The pilot has some responsibility for things under his control, but this type of agreement should free the pilot from having to be the charter police.

Of course if the pilot is knowingly participating (collecting the money, etc) in an illegal charter, that's a different thing altogether.

My pilot services agreement (for ferries or instructing or acting as a paid pilot of someone else's aircraft) has similar language. The person contracting with me is the operator. I'm just the monkey paid to fly the airplane or teach the student, etc.
 
Tim, Tim, Tim, for someone who is supposedly in some type of aviation business you should know better. You can have a contract an inch thick but, it will not take precedence over the FAR's. The PIC is responsible for the legality of the flight, period. The FAA may hold others jointly liable but, no contract is going to suspend the FAR's. There is language in 135 ops that talk about the operator or certificate holder but, this has no bearing on 91 ops which is what is being discussed. The PIC has the regulatory responsibility to insure any given flight is legal under 91 ops. Others MAY be found liable, for example a log book showing compliance with an AD, signed by a licensed mechanic which in reality was not done will most likely bring said mechanic into the action. The FAA MAY consider this mitigating circumstances concerning the pilot and not bring action against the pilot. NO contract will absolve the pilot of his regulatory responsibility.
http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Articles/Pilot In Command.shtml
 
Last edited:
ronnieh said:
Captain, I have always taken the position that if I could honestly say that I had no knowledge of money changing hands that the FAA MIGHT consider that as mitigating circumstances.
Click to expand...

They have cut a PP slack for not knowing that money changed hands on the back end when he flew a helo mechanic and some spare parts to Block island to help out a medevac crew. I dont know whether they would give an ATP the same benefit of the doubt.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So...the boss says "fly", and the pilot does EVERYTHING else. Who has "dispatch authority"?
Click to expand...

The owner or whomever has the authority to say, "The plane goes to here, fly it there." I just went through a an CBP cluster**** yesterday and this morning straightening out the owner of this boat's mess he created by not following my instructions a few weeks ago. Luckily CBP is aware that most boat owners are idiots so I was able to square it away rather painlessly with a few laughs with CBP this morning and it only cost the owner a $100 cab ride since I was able to talk CBP out of the $10,000 fine.
 
+1000 Henning.

Weilke, no doubt the FAA can do pretty much as they please. I suspect if it was a first time, and the FAA believed the pilot did not know, (especially a PP) they very well may decide against a pilot action.

I am just talking about the literal application of the regs. Which BTW is what Captain was talking about as far as I can tell. Nothing, absolutely nothing, no contract, no agreement, nothing will supersede the FAR's and the responsibility of the PIC. The pilot always takes the fall.
 
So, Ronnie, are you saying that the pilot has a responsibility to investigate whether his pax have paid for the flight? Or just a responsibility to act if he suspect something isn't kosher? I agree with the second.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
ronnieh said:
+1000 Henning.

Weilke, no doubt the FAA can do pretty much as they please. I suspect if it was a first time, and the FAA believed the pilot did not know, (especially a PP) they very well may decide against a pilot action.

I am just talking about the literal application of the regs. Which BTW is what Captain was talking about as far as I can tell. Nothing, absolutely nothing, no contract, no agreement, nothing will supersede the FAR's and the responsibility of the PIC. The pilot always takes the fall.
Click to expand...

PIC is responsible for making sure the correct paperwork and calls happen. If the PIC flies a PT 91 aircraft for a private owner and has never known the owner to charge a guest for a flight, nor has he collected any money from a guest for that transportation, as long as they have the correct license and medical for the operation (CPL with whatever TR may be required and Second Class medical in this case), then they are not on the hook with FAA or CBP.

Same goes for contraband found in a guest's luggage. If I have no knowledge of the contraband, I am not responsible for it.
 
Not exactly true per the FAR's. The PIC per regulation (pt. 91) is responsible for ALL aspects of the flight, period. The FAA MAY, I repeat MAY choose to not bring an enforcement action against the pilot if they are convinced he had no part in the violation and had NO way of knowing.

Look at my link, there are no exceptions in the FAR's. It is civil law law and the law was written by the FAA. I repeat, no contract, no agreement, no lack of knowledge is going to supersede the regs unless the FAA so deems.

If Tim wants to believe that a piece of paper will exempt him from the FAR's or if you, Henning want to believe that not having knowledge of the regs or not knowing a reg was broken or if someone believes having a third party set up the flight such as a secretary/dispatcher will exempt you from the regs that is fine with me.

Captain, I suspect you knew the answer to your question, not 10 pages but, more than it should be. Hope you are happy:rofl:
 
ronnieh said:
Weilke, no doubt the FAA can do pretty much as they please. I suspect if it was a first time, and the FAA believed the pilot did not know, (especially a PP) they very well may decide against a pilot action.

I am just talking about the literal application of the regs. Which BTW is what Captain was talking about as far as I can tell. Nothing, absolutely nothing, no contract, no agreement, nothing will supersede the FAR's and the responsibility of the PIC. The pilot always takes the fall.
Click to expand...

That would be my understanding.

If you fly 5 trips to the same place in the bahamas and you can provide a manifest that shows all pax to be family of the operator, you are probably ok. If you go to 3 different airports and there are no fuel uplifts on the operators account (because the guests ran their black Amex for the fuel) you may have a more difficult case proving your lack of knowledge.

The only thing a contract can govern is the relationship between the parties that enter into it. The only thing worth putting in the contract is that you have full access to the manifest infornation.
 
weilke said:
That would be my understanding.

If you fly 5 trips to the same place in the bahamas and you can provide a manifest that shows all pax to be family of the operator, you are probably ok. If you go to 3 different airports and there are no fuel uplifts on the operators account (because the guests ran their black Amex for the fuel) you may have a more difficult case proving your lack of knowledge.

The only thing a contract can govern is the relationship between the parties that enter into it. The only thing worth putting in the contract is that you have full access to the manifest infornation.
Click to expand...

This I agree with.
In my case naming the owner as the operator explicitly is mainly to put the owner on the hook with me if there should be maintenance discrepancies. Let's say an owner hires me to ferry his airplane. By signing the contract, he is warranting to me that the airplane is airworthy (that's in writing). I do a reasonable amount of due diligence (when were the last inspections, etc), and go fly. Enroute, let's say I run into a maintenance issue, and while that's being resolved it turns out that the airplane wasn't actually airworthy. As long as it's not something I should have found on pre-flight, I've got the operator responsible for maintaining the airplane in an airworthy condition right there on the hook with me. Best result is the FAA only goes after the owner (who lied to me in writing). Worst result if the FAA goes after both of us, I've got a nice basis for a civil case against the guy since he violated the terms of our contract.

Your example of who pays for the fuel is a good one... I'd prevent any pax (except the owner/operator) for paying any expense. The one time I did fly passengers in an owner's airplane with the owner not present, I was quite careful to make sure that I paid for the services (and expensed them back to the owner).

I'm not really afraid of the FAA trying to falsify a case against me. They've got enough legitimate issues to deal with.
 
weilke said:
That would be my understanding.

If you fly 5 trips to the same place in the bahamas and you can provide a manifest that shows all pax to be family of the operator, you are probably ok. If you go to 3 different airports and there are no fuel uplifts on the operators account (because the guests ran their black Amex for the fuel) you may have a more difficult case proving your lack of knowledge.

The only thing a contract can govern is the relationship between the parties that enter into it. The only thing worth putting in the contract is that you have full access to the manifest infornation.
Click to expand...


Boating has much the same laws as aviation, if you are hauling pax for hire more rules start applying as well as extra licensing for the boat and operator (although the boat end gets a pass up to 6 pax, the operator needs a license. Beyond 6 everything escalates dramatically). Shuttling a large group of people in multiple trips to an island by the private yacht of the party's primary sponsor is hardly uncommon. Occasionally someone will look and ask a question, but if it's a private party and the owner is footing the bill, no worries. There was only once when there was a bit of a question with a new Coastie over the wedding presents being brought as "consideration", but since the the gifts were for the bride and the bill was being footed by her dad (his boat as well), a quick call to his commanding officer got that cleared up right away as "No problem".
 
Personally, I find the lack of due process in administrative law quite appalling.
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I find the lack of due process in administrative law quite appalling.
Click to expand...

Personally I find the options provided in administrative law make up some for the lack of "due process". I've been called to the carpet before and it has always worked out pretty simply and painlessly, although I will grant I have never been called in by the IRS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top