Non-IR Commercial and 50 miles

[DesertNomad]

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

So could you fly from LA to Miami in 50-mile legs, perhaps doing a flight every few days?

Some sources say a 50-mile radius, but 61.133(b)(1) doesn't say that. I guess it depends on the definition of "flights".

This is an academic exercise as I work on my CFI.

 

[brcase]

Fine as along as you change passengers every 50 miles. But if you transport a passenger more than 50 miles then you are violation.
At least that is how I would read it. If you or another pilot tried to get creative with that rule I think you would likely get in trouble also.

Brian

 

[DesertNomad]

Fine as along as you change passengers every 50 miles. But if you transport a passenger more than 50 miles then you are violation.
At least that is how I would read it. If you or another pilot tried to get creative with that rule I think you would likely get in trouble also.

I completely agree.

 

[red4golf]

Devil's advocate..

Isn't that from the point of origin? If one flew 49.9 miles and spent the evening having dinner, playing golf, watching a movie or some other similar event could that not be the end of that trip?

 

[RussR]

I’m pretty sure this would fall under the “walks like a duck” test for legality…

The FAA in general gets to interpret and enforce its own rules, regardless of attempts to find a loophole. See the numerous attempts at “Part 134.5” operations.

 

[Lindberg]

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

So could you fly from LA to Miami in 50-mile legs, perhaps doing a flight every few days?

Some sources say a 50-mile radius, but 61.133(b)(1) doesn't say that. I guess it depends on the definition of "flights".

This is an academic exercise as I work on my CFI.

I would say your starting point should be what the contract for carriage says. Did the passengers buy a ticket from LA to Miami with a bunch of stops, or did they buy a ticket from LA to somewhere 49.9 miles from LA? And what do they expect to happen when they get there?

 

[Kritchlow]

I always assumed it was in case the weather took an unexpected turn down the road. That rule was written before the modern day weather gizmos you may have in the cockpit today. Yes there was FSS and flight watch, but that was much more cumbersome to use than todays gadgets.
So, if you stop after 49 miles and reevaluate to the weather and planning for the next 49, I figured that would meet the intent of the rule.

That said, thinking it through a bit more, I doubt the FAA would see it that way.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m pretty sure this would fall under the “walks like a duck” test for legality…

The FAA in general gets to interpret and enforce its own rules, regardless of attempts to find a loophole. See the numerous attempts at “Part 134.5” operations.

Yeah but this isn't really that kind of thing. In the 134.5 we have two policies involved - protection of the generally unsophisticated public and protection of the operators who jumped through the hoops. You don't have either of those policies at work here.

I think @Kritchlow said it right - the policy at force here is protection from unanticipated instrument conditions.

I don't have an answer, but I can definitely see the FAA applying it to the entire contract of carriage. Yes, in theory, the policy would be met by stopping every 49 NM on a 1000 NM contract. But that ain't gonna happen on any planet I'm familiar with.

"OK, Mr. Customer, You want to go from NY to Kansas City. We can definitely do that in our King Air. It's usually about a 4 hour nonstop trip. But you'll be using Pete Pilot, so you'll have to stop every 50 miles or so to check the weather. That's about 20 stops, but Pete is fast, so that only add about 10 hours to your trip. Of course, you understand that at any of these stops may be the end of the trip if there are clouds up ahead."

 

[RussR]

Yeah but this isn't really that kind of thing. In the 134.5 we have two policies involved - protection of the generally unsophisticated public and protection of the operators who jumped through the hoops. You don't have either of those policies at work here.

I wasn't attempting to draw a direct comparison between the two, just that they both seem like "walk like a duck" attempted loopholes.

Let's say you own a second home in the mountains 98 nm away. You hire a pilot to fly you in your plane every weekend. He's a non-IFR Commercial pilot, so he tells you, "sure, but we're going to have to do a touch-and-go (or some other landing) at the airport in the middle, 49 nm away, every time to be legal." You say okay because you really like this pilot for some reason. And so you do this every weekend. Sometimes you have him fly friends and family up there. I have to think the FAA would look dimly on that operation.

Yes, it's a silly scenario. But the lengths people go to to try to justify cost-sharing (etc.) are pretty extreme too.

 

[midwestpa24]

I’m pretty sure this would fall under the “walks like a duck” test for legality…

The FAA in general gets to interpret and enforce its own rules, regardless of attempts to find a loophole. See the numerous attempts at “Part 134.5” operations.

This is truthfully the answer. Lots of people have tried to read interpretations into the FAA regs, but it isn't how you interpret the rules. It is how the FAA interprets the rules.

In this case I would surmise what you propose doesn't not meet the intent or spirit of the regulation. I'm sure if someone was caught attempting such a scheme, an official Counsel Opinion letter would be forthcoming, if one doesn't already exist.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wasn't attempting to draw a direct comparison between the two, just that they both seem like "walk like a duck" attempted loopholes.

Let's say you own a second home in the mountains 98 nm away. You hire a pilot to fly you in your plane every weekend. He's a non-IFR Commercial pilot, so he tells you, "sure, but we're going to have to do a touch-and-go (or some other landing) at the airport in the middle, 49 nm away, every time to be legal." You say okay because you really like this pilot for some reason. And so you do this every weekend. Sometimes you have him fly friends and family up there. I have to think the FAA would look dimly on that operation.

Yes, it's a silly scenario. But the lengths people go to to try to justify cost-sharing (etc.) are pretty extreme too.

I agree.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm sure if someone was caught attempting such a scheme, an official Counsel Opinion letter would be forthcoming, if one doesn't already exist.

Technicality: Probably not.

The opinion letters typically address hypotheticals presented as questions. Someone caught has to deal with the reality of a potential enforcement action which do not generate opinion letters (at least I don't recall ever seeing one resulting from someone being caught in a deviation).