New AC from the FAA on compensation

[midlifeflyer]

A CPL holder can fly for compensation in a plane provided and controlled by a third party. He is just he buss driver. I have made some nice money flying people around in their aircraft. The only control I over the flight I would exercise is safety of flight items, gross weight limitations, and places where we could legally go (usually international).

True, with a but.

The "but" (which is probably the No 1 gotcha) is that the flight itself must be an authorized operation. Many of them are so no problem. But, for example, if that "third party controlled" flight happens to be a charter or improper flight for compensation, the pilot can be dinged for a violation if the pilot knew or should have known the nature of the flight. That's a matter of the available evidence and, hopefully, most cases don't et far enough for the pilot to have to win that battle at trial. But the point is, a third party was in operational control does not automatically insulate the pilot.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Before the Internet forums, this was never an issue and seldom spoke about.

 

[bflynn]

A commercial certificate allows you to be a paid pilot. It does not permit you to run a commercial operation.

 

[Doc Holliday]

A commercial certificate allows you to be a paid pilot. It does not permit you to run a commercial operation.

Say what????

So as a commercial pilot, I can’t run a Part 135, Part 133 or a Part 91 LoA tour operator??

 

[bflynn]

RTFM - Read the Friendly Message. A commercial pilot certificate (by itself) does not permit you to run a commercial operation. Additional rule compliance is required.

Even a part 91 operation under a Letter of Authorization is not authorized by merely having a commercial certificate. Running that operation is not authorized by the commercial certificate, it's authorized by compliance to the conditions of the LoA.

 

[Doc Holliday]

RTFM - Read the Friendly Message. A commercial pilot certificate (by itself) does not permit you to run a commercial operation. Additional rule compliance is required.

Even a part 91 operation under a Letter of Authorization is not authorized by merely having a commercial certificate. Running that operation is not authorized by the commercial certificate, it's authorized by compliance to the conditions of the LoA.

Your first statement was lacking. Had you had bothered to elaborate it would have been clear.

 

[bflynn]

I apologize for not be clear to you.

 

[eman1200]

I have a friend (it's true). we'll call this friend Tweety. my friend really likes birds. my friend wants to pay me $5000 to go bird chasing in my moonanza. bird chasing is fun. am I legal?

(4) Aerial work operations, including -

(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have a friend (it's true). we'll call this friend Tweety. my friend really likes birds. my friend wants to pay me $5000 to go bird chasing in my moonanza. bird chasing is fun. am I legal?

(4) Aerial work operations, including -

(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;

Sure, so long as you have a commercial pilot certificate and 2nd class medical. That's what 119.1(e) is - a list of activities which do not require an Part 121, 125 or 135 operating certificate (for aircraft below a certain size/weight/configuration). There may be other requirements and limitations, like the distance, drug testing program and other limitations for commercial air tours. Plus most of these exceptions have some limits-by-interpretation having to do with passengers. "For instance, the FAA has consistently interpreted aerial work operations to mean operations that depart from a certain location and return to the same site without an intermediate stop. This means that the § 119.1 exception only applies when the aerial work operation involves nonstop flights departing and arriving from the same location." That's from the 2017 Lancaster Chief Counsel letter. So you can even take your friend with you, so long as you don't land anywhere except back at home base (before you ask, yes there is an exception - you an land to refuel or pee )

Even better news for you (assuming the commercial pilot certificate). It doesn't have to be a friend (we didn't believe that part, anyway). You can advertise the service as much as you want.

 

[eman1200]

Sure, so long as you have a commercial pilot certificate and 2nd class medical. That's what 119.1(e) is - a list of activities which do not require an Part 121, 125 or 135 operating certificate (for aircraft below a certain size/weight/configuration). There may be other requirements and limitations, like the distance, drug testing program and other limitations for commercial air tours. Plus most of these exceptions have some limits-by-interpretation having to do with passengers. "For instance, the FAA has consistently interpreted aerial work operations to mean operations that depart from a certain location and return to the same site without an intermediate stop. This means that the § 119.1 exception only applies when the aerial work operation involves nonstop flights departing and arriving from the same location." That's from the 2017 Lancaster Chief Counsel letter. So you can even take your friend with you, so long as you don't land anywhere except back at home base (before you ask, yes there is an exception - you an land to refuel or pee )

Even better news for you (assuming the commercial pilot certificate). It doesn't have to be a friend (we didn't believe that part, anyway). You can advertise the service as much as you want.

Sweet. Then we’re gonna go chase birds at OSH, land to pee, then come home. And collect five grand. Thanks Tweety!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sweet. Then we’re gonna go chase birds at OSH, land to pee, then come home. And collect five grand. Thanks Tweety!

I suspect the only birds in your scenario will be quacking loudly...

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Is this any change in rules or just a better definition. I’m surprised that advertising on a “small” closed fb book club page is not holding out but Fred going to Florida doesn’t advertise a thing is holding out. I thought Fred was a better example of common purpose.

Actually, I read that advertising on a FB page is holding out.

Say what????

So as a commercial pilot, I can’t run a Part 135, Part 133 or a Part 91 LoA tour operator??

Sure, but you may need additional authorization beyond your commercial ticket.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Actually, I read that advertising on a FB page is holding out.

This should have been what you read since it is in there.

Example 1: A small neighborhood book club has set up a private Facebook group and only members of the club who are approved by the board are allowed to join and see posts. A member of the club posts that he or she is piloting a plane to the beach for the day and is asking if any other members would like to join and share expenses. Here the group is limited and defined, and the FAA would likely not consider this pilot to be holding out.​

But in the next one, with the broader group being a open community college Facebook page, it would be considered holding out. It's consistent with the "it depends" language in the 2011 Haberkorn letter. When it comes to such things as social media, or eve the old FBO bulletin board, it's all about scope and reach.

 

[benyflyguy]

This should have been what you read since it is in there.

Example 1: A small neighborhood book club has set up a private Facebook group and only members of the club who are approved by the board are allowed to join and see posts. A member of the club posts that he or she is piloting a plane to the beach for the day and is asking if any other members would like to join and share expenses. Here the group is limited and defined, and the FAA would likely not consider this pilot to be holding out.​

But in the next one, with the broader group being a open community college Facebook page, it would be considered holding out. It's consistent with the "it depends" language in the 2011 Haberkorn letter. When it comes to such things as social media, or eve the old FBO bulletin board, it's all about scope and reach.

I get that but I guess it’s a real grey area that’s all. I would have considered the private group still holding out IMo. But I’m not the FAA. I guess erring on the side of caution is never bad.

But I thought the example of the guy who flys to Florida weekly and was well known to do it but not advertising would be still considered no good or holding out.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I like the old days (pre internet) when no one cared about this.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I get that but I guess it’s a real grey area that’s all. I would have considered the private group still holding out IMo. But I’m not the FAA. I guess erring on the side of caution is never bad.

But I thought the example of the guy who flys to Florida weekly and was well known to do it but not advertising would be still considered no good or holding out.

I suspect that was the point of some of the examples which weren't directly out of cases or written interpretations. To show how small changes in facts can change the answer. Make that book club larger and more public. Make that college page the fraternity house private page. You can probably reverse the answers.

 

[iamtheari]

I suspect that was the point of some of the examples which weren't directly out of cases or written interpretations. To show how small changes in facts can change the answer. Make that book club larger and more public. Make that college page the fraternity house private page. You can probably reverse the answers.

“Holding out” is just one of those things where the FAA will know it when they see it. The examples in this AC are helpful because they give a window into the things that the FAA is looking for and collect existing guidance in one place. I had to search a little harder than this recently when I was curious if I could post on Facebook to ask if any of my friends had a spare ticket to the FCS championship game and wanted to fly with me to Texas. The answer I came up with was that I could do that because I don’t have very many friends, almost none who are NDSU fans just on principle, and most of the ones I do have probably muted me anyhow. I wouldn’t reach an audience big enough for “holding out.” But if I were the NDSU athletic director and made the exact same post, it would be a different story altogether.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Before the Internet forums, this was never an issue and seldom spoke about.

"Nobody" is a pretty large group. There's a college bulletin board legal interpretation which was written in 1978. And if you think the FlyteNow air-Uber concept is new, there's a Chief Counsel letter addressing a similar proposal in 1976.

 

[Doc Holliday]

"Nobody" is a pretty large group. There's a college bulletin board legal interpretation which was written in 1978. And if you think the FlyteNow air-Uber concept is new, there's a Chief Counsel letter addressing a similar proposal in 1976.

Back in the days pre internet we didn't sit around the hangar or FBO splitting hairs and debating this. It was addressed in training, and anyone who could read and had the least bit of comprehension skills could figure it out.

And where in my post you quoted:

Before the Internet forums, this was never an issue and seldom spoke about.

Do you see the word "nobody"?

 

[midwestpa24]

I think a major point of this is targeted at all the start up, flying UBERs, ride sharing websites, etc., that have been popping up recently. Every one of them claims to have found the magic loophole that gets around the Part 135 requirements and allows pilots to haul strangers for some level of compensation or cost sharing. The FAA has made it pretty clear, there is no loophole, and if you are publicly posting the information to the general public at large, you will be shut down.

Thats the key to so much of this, is how public are you making the information. Two buddies share expenses to go lunch, you aren't on the FAA's radar. You start blabbing about it and attracting a lot of attention, now you are.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Back in the days pre internet we didn't sit around the hangar or FBO splitting hairs and debating this. It was addressed in training, and anyone who could read and had the least bit of comprehension skills could figure it out.

And where in my post you quoted:



Do you see the word "nobody"?

You are correct. I should have quoted "never an issue."

 

[Kristin]

Illegal charters have been an issue for legitimate operators and the FAA for the whole 40 years I have been in the business. We had one on the airport where I was flying charter in the 80's and our POI dogged it until he got his bust. It didn't hurt that the airport manager was calling the FSDO every time that plane moved.