Part 91 commercial flying

[citationxjl]

Is there a minimum hour requirement in the FAR's for a sightseeing pilot flying part 91 with 25 miles of the airport? I heard it was 500 but can not find it.
The only 500 hr I see in 91 is for charity flights.

Thanks
Jeff

 

[ScottM]

For hire or just some guy wanting to go sightseeing with you and splitting the costs? For hire oyu need 250, a commercial certificate and a 2nd class medical.

 

[Anymouse]

500 hours sounds like Part 135 VFR PIC minimums.

 

[poadeleted20]

As far as pilot certification/experience for those 25sm sightseeing flights, the FAR's generally require only that the pilot have a Commercial Pilot certificate with appropriate category/class ratings, which in some circumstances one can earn with as little as 190 hours for Airplanes, but usually at least 250 hours. However, there's a lot more to it, including that the pilot must be in an approved drug testing program, which is why most flight schools/FBO's without Part 135 charter operations don't do this any more. See the regs cited above as well as 14 CFR 135.1(a)(5).

BTW, that 500 hour minimum for charity flights applies only to Private Pilots; CP's can do them with no minimum hours beyond that needed to get the CPL.

 

[dbahn]

As far as pilot certification/experience for those 25sm sightseeing flights, the FAR's generally require only that the pilot have a Commercial Pilot certificate with appropriate category/class ratings, which in some circumstances one can earn with as little as 190 hours for Airplanes, but usually at least 250 hours. However, there's a lot more to it, including that the pilot must be in an approved drug testing program, which is why most flight schools/FBO's without Part 135 charter operations don't do this any more. See the regs cited above as well as 14 CFR 135.1(a)(5).

BTW, that 500 hour minimum for charity flights applies only to Private Pilots; CP's can do them with no minimum hours beyond that needed to get the CPL.

Just to add to the mix, as of 9/11/07 (a week and a half from now), you also need a LOA, letter of authorization, from the FSDO and as Ron says, to get that you need the drug testing program, which ends up adding a first year cost of about $200 to $250 and a yearly cost of about $80.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just to add to the mix, as of 9/11/07 (a week and a half from now), you also need a LOA, letter of authorization, from the FSDO

I wasn't aware of that -- where's that written?

 

[poadeleted20]

Ahh...there you go...that new 91.147 that has been out there for nearly six months, and I missed it!

 

[citationxjl]

Just to add to the mix, as of 9/11/07 (a week and a half from now), you also need a LOA, letter of authorization, from the FSDO and as Ron says, to get that you need the drug testing program, which ends up adding a first year cost of about $200 to $250 and a yearly cost of about $80.

Don't forget the requirement for Air tour operators to have life vests on board whenever crossing a shoreline. Beginning as of 9/11


Thanks, I had heard there was a hour requirment for the Part 91 25-mile tour flights as well, but had never heard of one. Just curious because of a certain competing company operating that way because of their 135 cert being taken.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

From Notice 8900.e

Certificate holders must implement a second drug and alcohol testing program to conduct operations under § 91.147. Even though the same company may be conducting operations under part 135 or 121 and air tour operations under § 91.147, the FAA’s regulations consider the two operations to be separate entities for drug and alcohol purposes.​

[/FONT]

You gotta be kidding me!? That's nonsense. If I'm flying for an outfit that is doing 135 ops, and I'm under their drug & alcohol testing program, they have to test my urine a 2nd time to let me fly part 91 tours? The first sample isn't sufficient?!

For crying out loud, if I'm reading that correctly that's a RIDICULOUS BURDEN on both the pilot and the operator.

 

[nosehair]

For crying out loud, if I'm reading that correctly that's a RIDICULOUS BURDEN on both the pilot and the operator.

Welcome to your Federal Government.

 

[dbahn]

Welcome to your Federal Government.

Actually, it's also even a burden on the Federal Government.

 

[skyflyer8]

For crying out loud, if I'm reading that correctly that's a RIDICULOUS BURDEN on both the pilot and the operator.

Yes it is, and it keeps people like me from being able to put up a big "airplane rides" sign and advertise sightseeing flights.

What I can do is advertise introductory flight lessons. If the person wants to take a picture while they're sitting in the left seat there's no problem as long as it is still flight training I guess. But if I were to advertise sightseeing rides, that'd be illegal.

I can teach people to become pilots without ever going through any drug testing etc. Yet I can't advertise and charge for a sightseeing flight. Go figure.

AOPA has some good information about this at: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/airtour.html

 

[poadeleted20]

What I can do is advertise introductory flight lessons. If the person wants to take a picture while they're sitting in the left seat there's no problem as long as it is still flight training I guess.

Be careful with that -- there's a legal principle called the "duck test," which says that if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if you call it a fish. If you're going to take people for an "introductory flight lesson," make sure it looks and feels like a flight lesson, not a sightseeing ride, because the FAA isn't above sending a shill to your operation to see what happens.

 

[KennyFlys]

What brought about this change? Besides the obvious, what is the difference when one is certificated to do flight instruction and the other is not?

 

[poadeleted20]

What brought about this change?

"As the commercial air tour industry has grown, the number of flights conducted under the § 119.1(e)(2) exception has increased, as has the number of accidents. Between 1993 and 2000 there were 75 accidents involving part 91 commercial air tours [Ed note: that's the 25sm sightseeing flights conducted only under Part 91], resulting in 38 fatalities,"

Kill enough people (especially the general public), and the FAA writes a rule about it. IOW, in the words of Walt Kelly's Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." See the NPRM for the full discussion.

Besides the obvious, what is the difference when one is certificated to do flight instruction and the other is not?

The difference is the public's expectation of safety. The FAA assumes that people interested in flight training do more to educate themselves about the options, and accept a higher level of risk, than those members of the general public simply paying for an airplane ride.

 

[tonycondon]

how many of those accidents were due to drug issues with the pilot though? i would bet not many.

 

[Ghery]

And if I recall correctly, a number of those accidents involved helicopters in Hawaii. They still have a relatively high accident rate there today in spite of this rule change.