As I've been saying for this entire thread, if you are legal, and authorized by the airplane owner to fly the flight yourself, then it's fine. No need to receive dual instruction unless you want it.
Gotcha, understood!
Only if the FAA doesn’t pursue it. If the FAA chose to pursue it, for whatever reason, the CFI would be the one on the hook.
Here's the thing, I fully anticipate if I call the flight school and say: "Hey, I'm going to use your aircraft as a 1-way rental where I fly myself and someone needs to fly it back. I'll pay for their time on the way there, and pay for the rental on the way back. But I'll fly it there.", they'll say "sorry bruh, no".
If the FBO is concerned, have the CFI fly your airplane home and you fly the round trip in the rented airplane. They can't complain about.
Again, if the FBO or "CFI" are doing this every week, then I could see the FAA trying to make a case about 134.5, but a one time deal that's totally legit like this, the FAA is not going to pursue.
Which definition is that?
Just take a friend who's checked out in the rental or fits your open pilot clause.Here's the thing, I fully anticipate if I call the flight school and say: "Hey, I'm going to use your aircraft as a 1-way rental where I fly myself and someone needs to fly it back. I'll pay for their time on the way there, and pay them to fly it back. But I'll fly it there.", they'll say "sorry bruh, no".
I could be wrong but my guess is they will want to completely avoid even the potential appearance of giving me a 135 ride -- and I suspect that will be their answer for the same reason many on here are suggesting that would be potentially a misunderstood, hazardous situation.
But it's not a 135 ride.
Cuz I know, for a fact, that I will be the only PIC on board while I'm in the airplane. So the problem isn't reality, the problem is perception.
The harmless subterfuge was solely to guarantee:
1) They say yes to the flight
2) They have absolutely no way to ever be blamed for what turned out to be a 1-way flight. Cuz no one can predict illness...
... except me...
Part 119 governs all air carrier operations, including both 121 and 135 as well as the other bits of Subchapter G that aren't as commonly known.
And the FBO.
Exactly. They know the score.
How happy do you think they'll be to discover your deception? Do you think they'd rent to you again? Do you think the subterfuge really is "harmless" if the CFI and/or the FBO get in trouble over it?
Yes! There's all kinds of ways to do this that are black-and-white legal and don't get into the gray area that the FBO will be trying to avoid. There's no reason to continue to pursue the scenario posed in the OP.
And if you do it the way you planned I would fully anticipate being fired as a customer by the FBO, regardless of the actual legality.I’ve seen it done. If they think it’s illegal, they’re not gonna let you ever fly their airplanes again.
yeah, but ya know, I can't control what they think is legal. That's totally on them.
Whomp, whomp.
why not just do it such that no one thinks it’s illegal?
Because there is always someone that thinks it's illegal.
the OP has chosen that crappy way, apparently, because he asked what people think.
I’ve had people tell me lots of things that were wrong, some saying it was illegal when it wasn’t, some saying it wasn’t legal when it was. They were all wrong, but they all had to be dealt with using actual respect. The OP’s “**** you, I don’t care what you think, I’m going to do what I want with your airplane and your certificate” method is bad whether it’s legal or not.
I'm sorry, but that's not accurate. That was not my attitude in this thread. I was respectfully soliciting different ideas and giving them a fair hearing; if I didn't care I wouldn't have asked. But, as everyone reading the thread can plainly see, the issue is a little bit polarizing. I don't think I've taken a combative attitude in this thread (though some other passionate individuals might have).
You haven’t taken a combative attitude in this thread, but by your own admission, your intent is to be deceptive andnot tell the FBO or the pilot what your plan is because you’re sure they won’t allow it. That’s a “**** you” if there ever was one.
That does not seem accurate to me.
It does to me.
According to you. They have likely been paying more attention to what the FAA is actually enforcing these days, and they're acting accordingly.
From what I can tell, the FARs are on my side here.
Words cannot express how much I vehemently disagree with that assessment
As logic requires, I'm forced to choose between two mutually exclusive assessments. Either the flight is doable or isn't doable under the regs. This isn't Schrodinger's Airplane Flight, so it stands to reason I can't agree with both. So if I choose the one I originally suspected (that it's OK), I'm only agreeing with people who agreed with me. If I switch viewpoints, I'm ignoring the ample examples and evidence produced by other people to show it's OK. Kind of damned if I do, damned if I don't? Eh?
One of the reasons we’re here is so we don’t have to have friends.
Naah, a bunch of Internet lawyers are on both sides here. If you want to know whether the FARs are on your side, the place you need to ask this question is the chief counsel's office:
But the way administrative law works is that the FAA gets to decide what their own rules mean, so the way the FAA chooses to see it IS the letter of the law.
That used to be the case.
The only reason there was any controversy here was that we didn't have all the information. Now that we do, it's clearly legal. No need to worry about what anyone who's partially informed thinks.
Only if the pilot comes from the same source as the airplane.
This really only applies to sight seeing type flights. If you land somewhere else, especially if you shut down and change pilots, the FAA is going to say that the flight did begin and end at the same airport.
What FBO is going to rent a non-pilot and airplane without retaining control over who the pilot will be?
Either one that doesn’t know it’s happening, or one that says, “we don’t care who flies the airplane, as long as they’re checked out in it by us.”
So a commercial pilot who wants to make some money flying people around just needs to get checked out then have the FBO rent the airplane directly to his passengers?
basically, yes. As long as the FBO doesn’t coordinate the process, it’s legal.
Or the pilot is a checked out pilot at that FBO, but not associated with it.
