Rules...

ArrowFlyer86

ArrowFlyer86

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
3,285
Location
Around
Display Name
Flight
If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport, then I get out at that airport and don't fly back with them (but I originally intended to)... Is there anything wrong with that?

To be clear, I'd still pay 100% of their rental + cfi fee for the whole round trip.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport, then I get out at that airport and don't fly back with them (but I originally intended to)... Is there anything wrong with that?

To be clear, I'd still pay 100% of their rental + cfi fee for the whole round trip.
Click to expand...
Unless the local flight school also operates under a part 135 certificate, you can't hire them to fly you somewhere, if that's what you're asking...
 
For the record I'm a qualified PPL... Can it count as a 135 if I'm the pilot in their plane on the way there?
 
See, glad I asked!

Cause otherwise I might have done something dumb!
 
This is all news to me... Kinda.
I thought 135 meant they supply the plane and the pilot.
I figured if I was the pilot there... then... Everything would just be fine :)

I guess some FARs don't stick as well as others >5 years after taking the written exam.
 
Sounds like a variation on what caused the 61.193 anendment.

S

Thread 'New FAR 61.193 amendment'

I see the FAA has limited 'elective and specialized training' to certificated pilots only, instead of allowing them as part of the inital training curriculum. This includes"transition training to operate a new aircraft of the same category and class, aerobatic training, formation training, and mountain flying,” among others.
Article
What are considered 'others'? I get the aerobatic and formation restrictions, but mountain flying is particularly important for some of us...
Thoughts?
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
This is all news to me... Kinda.
I thought 135 meant they supply the plane and the pilot.
I figured if I was the pilot there... then... Everything would just be fine :)

I guess some FARs don't stick as well as others >5 years after taking the written exam.
Click to expand...
You said you’d pay for the rental and the flight instructor. Assuming the rental is provided by the flight school, the flight school is providing plane and pilot. If the primary intent is not flight instruction (and reading between the lines, it sure doesn’t seem to be the case), this sure seems to be a charter operation.

If it quacks like a duck…
 
Dual received. Got motion sick and landed. Happened to have a car waiting to take you to the "doctor".

Kidding aside, sure sounds like a charter.
 
Brad Z said:
You said you’d pay for the rental and the flight instructor. Assuming the rental is provided by the flight school, the flight school is providing plane and pilot. If the primary intent is not flight instruction (and reading between the lines, it sure doesn’t seem to be the case), this sure seems to be a charter operation.

If it quacks like a duck…
Click to expand...
Gotcha gotcha.
Glad I asked... I knew it was on weird ground wasn't sure if technically legal. You guys answered it!
 
So what you're saying is, you want to rent a plane for a one-way cross-country flight, and your willing to let the school send a pilot to ride along and then fly the plane back?
 
Lindberg said:
So what you're saying is, you want to rent a plane for a one-way cross-country flight, and your willing to let the school send a pilot to ride along and then fly the plane back?
Click to expand...
That was my hope...
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
This is all news to me... Kinda.
I thought 135 meant they supply the plane and the pilot.
I figured if I was the pilot there... then... Everything would just be fine :)
Click to expand...
But who's the pilot on the way back? Yep, you just paid for a plane and a pilot to go point to point...

ArrowFlyer86 said:
I guess some FARs don't stick as well as others >5 years after taking the written exam.
Click to expand...
This one isn't completely black and white. Who says it couldn't be a legit instructional flight? The problem is, there have been far too many "Part 134.5" illegal charter operations that have justified themselves by saying it was flight instruction, so that doesn't fly any more.
 
You could hire a commercial pilot to drop you off in your plane.

I think you could rent a plane and hire a commercial pilot to fly you in it, but there has to be some separation between the pilot and the plane's owner...YOU have to pay for the pilot and plane independently, and YOU have to provide the pilot, not the plane's owner.
 
Jim K said:
You could hire a commercial pilot to drop you off in your plane.

I think you could rent a plane and hire a commercial pilot to fly you in it, but there has to be some separation between the pilot and the plane's owner...YOU have to pay for the pilot and plane independently, and YOU have to provide the pilot, not the plane's owner.
Click to expand...
He's the pilot.
 
You think the FAA will go out of its way to interpret their rules generously to let you essentially hire a plane and pilot for the planned return trip back to its base?
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport, then I get out at that airport and don't fly back with them (but I originally intended to)... Is there anything wrong with that?

To be clear, I'd still pay 100% of their rental + cfi fee for the whole round trip.
Click to expand...

This sounds fine with me, you are receiving instruction, if you have a student pilot cert or better, no issues. Now if you are doing this on a discovery flight, that’s probably not ok. I think the line is when the student has a logbook and you’re filling it out as instruction received. Now the grey area might be if there is a passenger in the back seat that gets out at the other airport, is this a student or rated pilot, or just a passenger.

There’s plenty of times when airplanes need to be transported from point A to B for maintenance, upgrades, going to your lake house, etc.
 
I dropped off my plane for annual at an airport years ago. Needed to get back to my base. Flight school threw me in the back of a plane, and I rode along on a lesson that just happened to go to my base. No one lost any certificates.
 
I don't see the violation here. Precisely what FAR would be violated?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
But who's the pilot on the way back? Yep, you just paid for a plane and a pilot to go point to point...
Click to expand...
With that definition doesn't that mean a ferry pilot is a charter operation?
To me the key thing is that I'm the pilot when I'm aboard. When he's flying the aircraft (to a point) on a return trip, he has no passengers or cargo. Can that really still be considered a charter if you have nothing on board when the hired pilot is flying?
EDIT: Put another way, if I flew myself without him on board in the rented airplane, then paid for him to take a greyhound bus to the airport where I'm going to leave the plane so he can fly it back solo... would that still be a charter? Cuz in both situations he would not be responsible for flying me to the point I want to go to.

Brad Z said:
You said you’d pay for the rental and the flight instructor. Assuming the rental is provided by the flight school, the flight school is providing plane and pilot. If the primary intent is not flight instruction (and reading between the lines, it sure doesn’t seem to be the case), this sure seems to be a charter operation.

If it quacks like a duck…
Click to expand...
The rule breach would not exist if I provided an aircraft from flight school A, but had independent CFI B (also a commercial pilot) be a passenger on the flight there, and then fly it back?

RyanShort1 said:
If it's legit, like you got sick, it's legit and on your conscience, and hopefully some form of documentation in case someone nosy asks.
If it's not legit, there's the old proverb: "Be sure your sins will find you out."
Click to expand...
I hear what you're sayin'. But I'ma be totally honest with you, my conscience would not come into play in such a scenario.
To me, this isn't a moral or ethical question (there's no safety of flight risk or anything), it's purely regulatory.


EDIT:
Other question. The FARs set the regulatory framework for how a 135 operates. And obviously it is unlawful to operate an uncertified 135 operation.
However, I could find no such rule suggesting that it is unlawful for a customer to use a non-135 operation (i.e., there is no penalty for the person who utilizes such a service).
So if a pilot/plane are unwittingly used as a charter operation (but that was never their intent), but the passenger knew he was using it like that... Is anyone legally on the hook for what occurred?
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
You think the FAA will go out of its way to interpret their rules generously to let you essentially hire a plane and pilot for the planned return trip back to its base?
Click to expand...
Which rules are you referring to that would be violated?
 
Lindberg said:
Repositioning an aircraft doesn't require a 135 certificate.
Click to expand...
No, but they do also look at what caused the airplane to be repositioned, and if transporting a person from point A to point B is involved... Well, I wouldn't want to be that CFI.

Also, while in practice most repositioning flights are part 91, I will tell you that given all of the most current interpretations, my last 135 job did decide to operate all repositioning legs *for 135 flights* as Part 135. (They were mixed 91/135.) So either the entire trip was 91 or the entire trip was 135.

EdFred said:
I dropped off my plane for annual at an airport years ago. Needed to get back to my base. Flight school threw me in the back of a plane, and I rode along on a lesson that just happened to go to my base. No one lost any certificates.
Click to expand...
You can get away with anything if the relevant authorities don't know it happened.

Also, this used to be completely kosher, I've done similar in the past. However, the FAA has gotten stricter on this stuff since you and I started flying.

ArrowFlyer86 said:
With that definition doesn't that mean a ferry pilot is a charter operation?
Click to expand...
No, because no people or property are moved in the airplane for hire.

ArrowFlyer86 said:
To me the key thing is that I'm the pilot when I'm aboard. When he's flying the aircraft (to a point) on a return trip, he has no passengers or cargo. Can that really still be considered a charter if you have nothing on board when the hired pilot is flying?
EDIT: Put another way, if I flew myself without him on board in the rented airplane, then paid for him to take a greyhound bus to the airport where I'm going to leave the plane so he can fly it back solo... would that still be a charter? Cuz in both situations he would not be responsible for flying me to the point I want to go to.
Click to expand...
This is what's a bit of a gray area right now, even though it used to be allowed implicitly. If you want a definitive answer, you're going to have to write to the Chief Counsel for an interpretation, not just ask SGOTI.

ArrowFlyer86 said:
The rule breach would not exist if I provided an aircraft from flight school A, but had independent CFI B (also a commercial pilot) be a passenger on the flight there, and then fly it back?
Click to expand...
Correct. In that case, it doesn't even need to be a CFI, just a commercial pilot. But, they also can't work for the FBO you rent the airplane from. You need to provide the plane and hire the pilot separately, or the FBO is providing air transportation.

ArrowFlyer86 said:
Other question. The FARs set the regulatory framework for how a 135 operates. And obviously it is unlawful to operate an uncertified 135 operation.
However, I could find no such rule suggesting that it is unlawful for a customer to use a non-135 operation (i.e., there is no penalty for the person who utilizes such a service).
So if a pilot/plane are unwittingly used as a charter operation (but that was never their intent), but the passenger knew he was using it like that... Is anyone legally on the hook for what occurred?
Click to expand...
The FAA is going to go after the FBO and the pilot. There's nothing stopping the CFI from coming after you as a civil matter if you purposely tried to convince them to perform an operation which you knew was illegal.
 
I don't see anything in the FARs that requires instructional flights to return to the point of origin, or that prohibits one from compensating the CFI for a repositioning fight.
 
Dana said:
I don't see anything in the FARs that requires instructional flights to return to the point of origin, or that prohibits one from compensating the CFI for a repositioning fight.
Click to expand...
Me neither. First leg is like any other rental. Second leg is being flown by a commercial pilot paid for legally.
 
Dana said:
I don't see anything in the FARs that requires instructional flights to return to the point of origin, or that prohibits one from compensating the CFI for a repositioning fight.
Click to expand...
But it’s not really a kosher instructional flight. The primary reason was to transport someone. The instructional was added on to attempt to make it fit in the regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top