PT 134 1/2?

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by BarryCooper, Mar 11, 2019.

  1. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    If my pilot flies a plane I rented and transports me from A to B the plane is not operated 'for hire'.
     
  2. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    30,590
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    Suppose a CFII rents a 170 just for the purposes of touch and stops. does that 170 need a 100 hour?
     
  3. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    30,590
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    no...Don't confuse "FOR HIRE' with what you are doing. AS long as the CFI didn't rent the plane, it is a simple rental, doesn't matter who is manipulating the controls.

    FOR HIRE insinuates a 135 op, holding out to the public for transportation = 135/125, or other commercial operations.
     
  4. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    21,690
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Aircraft rental does not require 100-hours if no flight instruction is being provided.

    Why? Just because you have the commercial doesn't mean you suddenly have to use it. I got my commercial multi "just in case" someone offered me an opportunity that would require it and I wanted to take said opportunity. I've had the cert for a hair over a decade and have only used it twice so far, but it was worth it - The second time was right seat in a Hawker 800.

    An aircraft that is being rented is not "for hire" unless you're a Brit. If the same entity is renting you the aircraft and providing instruction, it needs 100-hours. If different entities provide the airplane and the instructor, no 100 hours are required.
     
  5. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    We are saying the same thing.
     
  6. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Not until you pay the pilot, then he is operating for hire and can’t fly the plane without 100 hour inspection. Feel free to read the AOPA link.
     
  7. Dave Theisen

    Dave Theisen En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dave Theisen
    Re-read you own link. If the passenger is renting the airplane and then hiring a pilot to fly it, the passenger is providing the airplane and it is not a “for hire” operation. It’s no different from a company leasing a Citation from Textron and then hiring pilots to fly it. No 100 hr. inspection required.
     
  8. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    30,590
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    good
     
  9. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    I did. It refers to a photographer being carried 'for hire'. It doesn't address whether the pilot receives compensation.

    Otoh, there could easily be a situation where the pilot is unpaid and the plane still needs a 100hr. For example the FBO owner tells one of his flight instructors: 'take the 210 and fly this photographer to take pictures of the flooding 80 miles down the river'. He gets paid by the photographer but doesn't pay the CFI (knowing that the CFI likes to get the complex hours).
    Now, let's say the pllane carries an unmanned survey pod. The FBO gets paid but the plane doesn't need a 100hr as the reg refers to carrying persons for hire.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
  10. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    And if the FBO is flying the photographer without LOA (drug testing program) they in in violation of that reg.
     
  11. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Except that the reg that requires drug testing refers to 14 CFR 119.1 (e)(2) yet airwork is spelled out under 14 CFR 119.1 (e)(4) in that reg. Taking up a photographer or wildlife biologist is not a 'non stop commercial air tour', as such it doesn't fall under other restrictions that apply to those operations either. For example I can take off from A, fly to the wildlife refuge, survey for spotted caribou for 3hrs and land at B for fuel and lunch. Then take off at B, survey for another 3hrs and fly back to A.
     
  12. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    You might want to look at 91.147 before you haul that photographer. You need an LOA and to get that you need a drug test program.
     
  13. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    21,690
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    You might want to look at 91.147 yourself:

    "(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing, Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with §§119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport."

    Obviously 135 and 121 do not apply here, and 119.1(e)(2) refers to nonstop commercial air tours. In fact, 119.1(e)(4)(iii) specifically states that Part 119 does not apply to aerial photography operations.
     
  14. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    I looked at it and told you why it doesn't apply to hauling a photographer or wildlife biologist. Those activities don't fall under the paragraph in 119.1 that 91.147 includes by reference.

    I wouldn't even have to be an FBO or anything else to use an aircraft carrying passengers who paid for the ride. I am partner in a A36. If I had a commercial and a second class medical, I could take up the chief of my fire department or a photographer to plot out a large brush-fire and it would be a-ok with the FAA. It's not an air-tour, its either aerial survey 119.1 (e)(4)(iii) or firefighting 119.1 (e)(4)(iv) (just to add another tangent, the requirement for firefighting lead-planes to be operated by a 135 certificate holder is a forest service contract requirement, not an FAA reg. State forestry or a non-federal entity is free to hire whoever provides them a plane).
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  15. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,200
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    It’s kind of hilarious that the regs are so convoluted we can’t even agree on their interpretation.... :/
     
  16. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Tombstone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc Holliday
    It’s not the regulations that are the problem here.
     
    Tom-D likes this.
  17. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    21,690
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Usually, the problem is reading comprehension.

    The FARs aren't really that hard to understand, if you learn how they're written: Definitions in 1.1, applicability of each part is generally in *.1, there's an "Or" or an "And" in the second-to-last chunk of multi-part regs...

    Other than that, it's English. It shouldn't be so dang hard as it seems to be for so many people.
     
    jbarrass and MauleSkinner like this.
  18. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Well, you have to read them, understand what the terms mean and apply them correctly. But its hard to convince someone who has internalized 'everything is illegal' and tries to pick and choose from the regs to justify his position. This entire 91.147 tangent has very little to do with the question at the top of the thread anyway.
    Now sometimes, the FAA chief counsel or a NTSB appeals board decision provides a binding interpretation and may expand the reg into something that it doesn't say. So far, nobody has posted either of those when it comes to:
    - part 91 dry lease operations
    - aerial photography
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  19. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    I know what you told me, but if a photographer shows up and asks to pay you to take a local flight the 91 reg is applicable. It is still a sight seeing flight. Your certificate, do as you please.
     
  20. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    What makes it so ?
     
  21. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Read the reg. It is a local sight seeing flight. The fact he has a camera has no effect.

    Edit: I think where we are differing is a person renting a plane totally independent of the pilot and the person showing up to use you and your plane.
     
  22. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,893
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    You would be surprised how common that is. If anything, it's more common with larger aircraft that are generally professionally flown. The understanding is that Joe Passenger is not going to be flying it, but he rents the plane and then Jim Pilot flies it. I flew a couple of corporate Navajos back in Pennsylvania for multiple owners. Since I was the named pilot on the insurance and airplanes break, the owners all had agreements with eachother to rent the planes out as needed and I flew them. The owners were all paying me to fly, and they were renting the planes from eachother.
     
  23. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    You have added your interpretation of what you think the reg means here.
     
  24. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    bbbut thats clearly illegal. Everything is illegal. How could you possibly have done that without a 119,121,135,127,141,125 certificate ???? That's clearly reckless conduct under 91.13 to boot (because everything is illegal under 91.13) !


    /sarcasm
     
  25. Ted DuPuis

    Ted DuPuis Administrator Management Council Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    23,893
    Location:
    Paola, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iBanYou
    Oops, you're clearly right. Sorry, I'll go back in my hole and live under a rock.

    /sarcasm
     
    TCABM likes this.
  26. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Do you own search of chief council opinions. The lastest was last year
     
  27. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    30,590
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    The whole thing about this issue is,, understanding what a Commercial operation is.
     
  28. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Feel free to cite it.
     
    flyingcheesehead likes this.
  29. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  30. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    It's not saying that.

    It says you can't do air tours and claim that you are exempt because the passengers are also taking pictures. Even the opinion you quote states so:

    We further note that the exception in §119.1(e)(4) for certain "aerial work operations," such as banner towing, aerial photography or survey, and powerline or pipeline patrol, does not extend to air tour operations in which the primary purpose is sightseeing.

    The newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO and wants to rent an aircraft is not calling to go sightseeing. The soil conservation district that needs pictures of ditches is not calling to go sightseeing.
     
  31. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    30,590
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    I don't know why some are so upset by this. If you were a real pilot with half a heart would simply give the guy ride.
     
    PPC1052 likes this.
  32. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Sorry, but I disagree. If the n
    The newspaper photographer may in fact be calling to go sight seeing. The site can be a natural disaster or an event. Sightseeing is not defined. I will concede a radio station wanting to do traffic watch is excluded.

    But your original example was a guy show up with a camera. It is a sightseeing flight.
     
  33. weilke

    weilke Touchdown! Greaser! PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,456
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    weilke
    Again, that is your interpretation. A newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO to take pictures of an incident like a flood, avalanche, exploding rail-cars or a traffic pileup doesn't do so in order to say 'hey, I just got the most amazing tour of the valley' . He does this so he can email a batch of pictures to his editor and get paid if they print or syndicate.

    Its ok if you dont understand the difference.

    My initial post that brought up air-work said no such thing.
     
  34. IK04

    IK04 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2018
    Messages:
    438
    Location:
    Copperas Cove, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    LNXGUY
    This discussion is making me sad. I thought I understood all this crap and now I doubt I will want to look it all up to satisfy an answer...

    Carry on without me...
     
  35. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Your certificate. Do as you want.
     
  36. Salty

    Salty En-Route PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,182
    Location:
    FL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Salty
    Ben wasn’t a Quaker.
     
  37. Ventucky Red

    Ventucky Red Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    769
    Location:
    Ventura, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John S
    After all these years having thought so...
     
  38. IK04

    IK04 Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2018
    Messages:
    438
    Location:
    Copperas Cove, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    LNXGUY
    Nah, he just looks like the guy on the oatmeal box...
     
  39. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    3,706
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    No it doesn’t, for hire also includes flying Part 91. If you are going to hire a pilot to fly part 91, the pilot may not operate unless the plane has 100 hour inspections. The reg prohibits the pilot from operation.
     
  40. Tom-D

    Tom-D Taxi to Parking PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    30,590
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tom-D
    Show me that rule:

    no ... understand what a commercial operation is.
    If the commercial pilot is not providing the aircraft, it is not a commercial operation.
    When a CP operates their own aircraft for their own pleasure or transportation without compensation, it is not a commercial operation.
    When a Commercial pilot operates their own aircraft for transportation of others for compensation That is a part 135 operation and requires a 135 certificate.
    When a Commercial pilot is teaching in an aircraft that they did not provide it is not a commercial operation.
    When you rent your aircraft to any other person/pilot that is not a commercial operation.
    Part 91 is owner operator, rules not for hire. You can not operate for hire in part 91.