Small Operations Pilot Evaluations

[TriGear28]

Here is something I never really gave much thought to until today. Let's say a person is a Private pilot without a medical and decides they want to be in the Aviation business regardless of the fact they cannot operate for hire as a pilot. They purchase a plane, say a PC 12, or a Centurion, MU-2 (well, probably not) and they hire a qualified commercial pilot. They look at other similar operations and develop a set operations procedures to meet all the professional standards, legal exposures, insurance requirements, etc. On an annual or simi-annual basis, the owner (not a commercial pilot, not a CFI, no medical) wants to ride along to ensure both that operations procedures are being followed, see them in use, and take feedback on what should and should not be changed. In what capacity is the owner operating if he makes suggestions as to procedures that are or are not being followed? Could this be construed to be 'instruction' and, as result, be a violation of the regs? If one has a small operation without a real Chief Pilot, how do you really evaluate the soul commercial pilot (chief pilot I guess if there is only one).

 

[ClimbnSink]

The boss says what he wants done and how, and the employee responds within the law, and their morals, all tempered by the desire to remain employed. Same as telling my guys to dump waste in the rivers at night.

 

[dtuuri]

In what capacity is the owner operating if he makes suggestions as to procedures that are or are not being followed? Could this be construed to be 'instruction' and, as result, be a violation of the regs? If one has a small operation without a real Chief Pilot, how do you really evaluate the soul commercial pilot (chief pilot I guess if there is only one).

You need to read Parts 119 and 135, the regs for the sort of business you describe. You will find that you need a "Director of Operations" whose purpose is to continually substantiate that all your operations conform to all the rules, i.e., you pay him/her to basically work for the FAA. You can meddle as much as you want, the DO is the fall guy. Don't expect to be too popular if your suggestions are naive.

dtuuri

 

[wabower]

Single airplane/single pilot operations have different requirements and DO's are a dime/dozen. The DO serves at the pleasure of the owner, so if anybody is worrying about things, he's the guy whose paycheck is on the line.

You need to read Parts 119 and 135, the regs for the sort of business you describe. You will find that you need a "Director of Operations" whose purpose is to continually substantiate that all your operations conform to all the rules, i.e., you pay him/her to basically work for the FAA. You can meddle as much as you want, the DO is the fall guy. Don't expect to be too popular if your suggestions are naive.

dtuuri

 

[TriGear28]

You need to read Parts 119 and 135, the regs for the sort of business you describe. You will find that you need a "Director of Operations" whose purpose is to continually substantiate that all your operations conform to all the rules, i.e., you pay him/her to basically work for the FAA. You can meddle as much as you want, the DO is the fall guy. Don't expect to be too popular if your suggestions are naive.

dtuuri

Ok...

Since the following quote seems to imply it is possible for an operation with one pilot to operate as such, I assume the only method by which to achieve the required level of oversight is to hire an outside 'check airman' or something of that nature say annually? I've seen some small freight operations in the past that appeared to be only one pilot ops, unless I was mistaken. I would assume the FAA would require some oversight such as that in a single pilot op before granting the cert.

Sec. 119.69 — Management personnel required for operations conducted under part 135 of this chapter.
(a) Each certificate holder must have sufficient qualified management and technical personnel to ensure the safety of its operations. Except for a certificate holder using only one pilot in its operations, the certificate holder must have qualified personnel serving in the following or equivalent positions:

 

[dtuuri]

...I assume the only method by which to achieve the required level of oversight is to hire an outside 'check airman' or something of that nature say annually?

No, not at all. The single pilot is chief cook and bottle washer. The exact title of the position needs to be defined in the ops specs, but the duties remain the same, see 119.65(d)(3). Exceptions can be applied for under 119.67(e).

Btw, you also need a Director of Maintenance. That position is commonly farmed out.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

The DO serves at the pleasure of the owner, so if anybody is worrying about things, he's the guy whose paycheck is on the line.

Who's "anybody" and what are they worrying about? The person doing DO duties, by whatever name, can do time in the big house, so better be worried about more than a paycheck.

dtuuri

 

[Ted]

Your scenario is missing a few points.

I'm assuming that you're talking about a for-hire 135 operation. Basically, qualified pilots need to be in the appropriate positions. A private pilot would not qualify. There could be a single plane/single pilot 135 operation where the pilot gets check rides with the FSDO every 6 months.

Of course, as the owner of the plane, he can tell pilots to do whatever he wants and the pilots will likely comply for the sake of their jobs.

Your scenario sounds a lot like the Navajo gig I used to have. Owner was a great guy who was himself a student pilot, but wanted to be in the aviation business. He bought the plane, I was the legal 135 PIC, his son was 135 SIC, and we operated the plane on someone else's 135 cert, which meant those folks comprised the chief pilot, DO, etc. The owner could tell me whatever he wanted and I would probably follow it, but normally his reaction was "Wow, I didn't think this plane could do that!"

 

[Jaybird180]

Your scenario is missing a few points.

I'm assuming that you're talking about a for-hire 135 operation. Basically, qualified pilots need to be in the appropriate positions. A private pilot would not qualify. There could be a single plane/single pilot 135 operation where the pilot gets check rides with the FSDO every 6 months.

Of course, as the owner of the plane, he can tell pilots to do whatever he wants and the pilots will likely comply for the sake of their jobs.

Your scenario sounds a lot like the Navajo gig I used to have. Owner was a great guy who was himself a student pilot, but wanted to be in the aviation business. He bought the plane, I was the legal 135 PIC, his son was 135 SIC, and we operated the plane on someone else's 135 cert, which meant those folks comprised the chief pilot, DO, etc. The owner could tell me whatever he wanted and I would probably follow it, but normally his reaction was "Wow, I didn't think this plane could do that!"

Was there a "watch this!" missing from the story

 

[Ted]

Was there a "watch this!" missing from the story

The plane was based in an airport in a valley, which provided a few opportunities for brick approaches in. The Navajo makes a great brick (and a decent airplane), which can provide a rather impressively poor display of glide ratio.

Others on here can attest to me capabilities of making Pipers descend rapidly.

 

[TriGear28]

Your scenario is missing a few points.

I'm assuming that you're talking about a for-hire 135 operation. Basically, qualified pilots need to be in the appropriate positions. A private pilot would not qualify. There could be a single plane/single pilot 135 operation where the pilot gets check rides with the FSDO every 6 months.

Of course, as the owner of the plane, he can tell pilots to do whatever he wants and the pilots will likely comply for the sake of their jobs.

Your scenario sounds a lot like the Navajo gig I used to have. Owner was a great guy who was himself a student pilot, but wanted to be in the aviation business. He bought the plane, I was the legal 135 PIC, his son was 135 SIC, and we operated the plane on someone else's 135 cert, which meant those folks comprised the chief pilot, DO, etc. The owner could tell me whatever he wanted and I would probably follow it, but normally his reaction was "Wow, I didn't think this plane could do that!"

Sounds very similar to the projected scenario. I wouldn't think many 135 operators would be willing to take on the roles of those positions on your behalf under their cert though, unless you brought some significant mutual business advantage. i.e. aircraft they need but don't own but need for occasional special needs or something. Would they? Without that, essentially, the commercial pilot hired may need to meet more than 135 pilot requirements but would likely also need to meet Chief Pilot/DO requirements without riding on someone else' cert right? Getting expensive to fly checks or whatnot... So the FAA FSDO would act as the 'Chief Pilot'/Check Airman for meeting the 135 rides.

Ok. My only experience on 135 regs and ops was from Commercial Training and being familiar with what would be required from a pilot perspective, not as a DO/Chief Pilot, etc. Just trying to see what all is required for these Check Flying, etc. operators have to go through to get an idea how much those requirements add to the operations cost.

Also was curious if the 'single pilot' scenario would leave the owner exposed to legally and what kind of structure they set in place and enforce in the absence of an official Chief Pilot or DO.

Those have been informative and gives me a lot of insight.

Thanks!

 

[Ted]

Sounds very similar to the projected scenario. I wouldn't think many 135 operators would be willing to take on the roles of those positions on your behalf under their cert though, unless you brought some significant mutual business advantage. i.e. aircraft they need but don't own but need for occasional special needs or something. Would they? Without that, essentially, the commercial pilot hired may need to meet more than 135 pilot requirements but would likely also need to meet Chief Pilot/DO requirements without riding on someone else' cert right? Getting expensive to fly checks or whatnot... So the FAA FSDO would act as the 'Chief Pilot'/Check Airman for meeting the 135 rides.

The 135 I worked at didn't own any of its planes. All of them were on the 135 under contracts. The benefit to the 135 was they had planes to fly. The benefit to the owners depending on the contract specifics, but it ended up meaning getting to use their planes with someone else picking up maintenance.

The 135 employed several pilots, but we didn't have a check airman. Instead we had the POI come out and sit in back and watch us shoot approaches once every 6 months. I ended up getting hired because of my relationship with the 135 owner, who introduced me to the Navajo owner. Fortunately, the Navajo owner and I got along well.

If you're talking about someone who just wants to get flown around, all he needs is a commercial pilot. If he wants his plane on 135, he needs someone with sufficient hours. If he wants to start a 135, that's a whole other kettle of fish and probably doesn't make sense. Better to make friends with another 135 and come up with a mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

[wabower]

Do you really think more ex 135 DO's are living at the graybar than those who are on the street for getting crosswise with the owner?

Who's "anybody" and what are they worrying about? The person doing DO duties, by whatever name, can do time in the big house, so better be worried about more than a paycheck.

dtuuri

 

[Ted]

Do you really think more ex 135 DO's are living at the graybar than those who are on the street for getting crosswise with the owner?

It's even worse when the owner is one of the pilots on the 135 cert and thinks that op specs are a challenge for how many you can violate in one flight.

 

[wabower]

Maybe my white-hat behavior and sterling record of compliance have allowed me to spend 55 years hanging out at the 'drome without ever hearing about a single pilot doing time. But maybe dturri is on parole

It's even worse when the owner is one of the pilots on the 135 cert and thinks that op specs are a challenge for how many you can violate in one flight.

 

[Ted]

Maybe my white-hat behavior and sterling record of compliance have allowed me to spend 55 years hanging out at the 'drome without ever hearing about a single pilot doing time. But maybe dturri is on parole

Hey, Bubba ain't so bad once you get to know him.

 

[dtuuri]

But maybe dturri is on parole

Very funny. Let me try to enlighten you:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/15/brothers-convicted-in-teterboro-charter-jet-crash-trial/​

Owners can do time too.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

You need to read Parts 119 and 135, the regs for the sort of business you describe. You will find that you need a "Director of Operations" whose purpose is to continually substantiate that all your operations conform to all the rules, i.e., you pay him/her to basically work for the FAA. You can meddle as much as you want, the DO is the fall guy. Don't expect to be too popular if your suggestions are naive.

Y'all are assuming this is a commercial operation where the operator is receiving compensation for providing air transportation of passengers or cargo. I didn't see that in the initial post. As read, it's just an aircraft owner riding along with his/her hired gun pilot, and that's pretty much bog-standard for corporate or big personal aircraft with hired pilots. The owner can make all the suggestions s/he wants (and those are merely suggestions, not training as the FAA defines it), but the pilot is responsible for staying within the FAA's rules in the operation of the aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since the following quote seems to imply it is possible for an operation with one pilot to operate as such, I assume the only method by which to achieve the required level of oversight is to hire an outside 'check airman' or something of that nature say annually? I've seen some small freight operations in the past that appeared to be only one pilot ops, unless I was mistaken. I would assume the FAA would require some oversight such as that in a single pilot op before granting the cert.

If this is a commercial operation, then yes, the FAA requires the one and only pilot to take periodic checkrides with an FAA inspector (or some designated training authority) just as a regular 135 pilot takes 6/12 month checks with company check airmen.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok. My only experience on 135 regs and ops was from Commercial Training and being familiar with what would be required from a pilot perspective, not as a DO/Chief Pilot, etc. Just trying to see what all is required for these Check Flying, etc. operators have to go through to get an idea how much those requirements add to the operations cost.

I know several consultants who can help you set up such an operation and educate you as to all the requirements.

Also was curious if the 'single pilot' scenario would leave the owner exposed to legally and what kind of structure they set in place and enforce in the absence of an official Chief Pilot or DO.

That would depend on the corporate structure and ownership, the owner's participation in the operation, and the liability laws of your state. As such, you'd need an attorney familiar with aviation, corporate, and liability law in your state to advise you on the various options and what the legal risks are for each.

 

[bobmrg]

Sounds very similar to the projected scenario. I wouldn't think many 135 operators would be willing to take on the roles of those positions on your behalf under their cert though, unless you brought some significant mutual business advantage. i.e. aircraft they need but don't own but need for occasional special needs or something. Would they? Without that, essentially, the commercial pilot hired may need to meet more than 135 pilot requirements but would likely also need to meet Chief Pilot/DO requirements without riding on someone else' cert right? Getting expensive to fly checks or whatnot... So the FAA FSDO would act as the 'Chief Pilot'/Check Airman for meeting the 135 rides.

Ok. My only experience on 135 regs and ops was from Commercial Training and being familiar with what would be required from a pilot perspective, not as a DO/Chief Pilot, etc. Just trying to see what all is required for these Check Flying, etc. operators have to go through to get an idea how much those requirements add to the operations cost.

Also was curious if the 'single pilot' scenario would leave the owner exposed to legally and what kind of structure they set in place and enforce in the absence of an official Chief Pilot or DO.

Those have been informative and gives me a lot of insight.

Thanks!

You might also take a look at 135.113, governing who can occupy the right seat.

Bob Gardner

 

[TriGear28]

I know several consultants who can help you set up such an operation and educate you as to all the requirements.

That would depend on the corporate structure and ownership, the owner's participation in the operation, and the liability laws of your state. As such, you'd need an attorney familiar with aviation, corporate, and liability law in your state to advise you on the various options and what the legal risks are for each.

It's just an idea, more than a business plan. If it were to go further than that, I'd be certain to call you up to obtain that info and start combing through more of the fine details.

It just struck me, as I was thinking of various ways to change career paths as one of many not-yet-well-thought-out ways to get more involved in a career in aviation as, I admit, sometimes I get burned out on what I do and, even though I do alright as it is, I'd take a pay cut to do what I love.

The question I posted was not the most eloquently written so, here's a better description:

The person happens to obtain a 135 cert from the faa for cargo ops for single pilot ops and hires one pilot. The owner did not posses the necessary qualifications to act as a pilot, Check airman, instructor, DO, or Chief pilot.

Does the pilot have to meet the 119 requirements to to be DO/Chief Pilot, etc?

AND

Are there situations that could arise where the Owner could unwittingly be giving forms of advice or setting standards, in the interest of safety and balancing risk, that could be construed as acting in some sort of professional capacity that they both lack the legal requirements for and are not listed as that position on the faa docs for the 135?

Just seeking out the width of the white line the Businessman must walk.

Obviously, he's not flying anything for comp or hire. But he may want to monitor the operations of his pilot a couple times a year, just to see if he feels things are being done in a manner that does not expose him or his business to risk or place someone in danger.

He doesn't have an official 'chief pilot' to go to with concerns, discuss them, make a collaborative decision, and have the Chief Pilot discuss a situation with the pilot in question so, at what point might his standards make him appear to be acting in some sort of capacity that, he should not, as far as the FAA goes?

 

[TriGear28]

You might also take a look at 135.113, governing who can occupy the right seat.

Bob Gardner

Good point! I do not recall reading that one before. So, in the theoretical situation, does that mean, in a cargo situation, if one removed the extra seats (assumed anyway for cargo, it would be legal in a pc12 or caravan?

I'm liking the learning points in this thread btw...

Thanks!

 

[poadeleted20]

It's just an idea, more than a business plan. If it were to go further than that, I'd be certain to call you up to obtain that info and start combing through more of the fine details.

It just struck me, as I was thinking of various ways to change career paths as one of many not-yet-well-thought-out ways to get more involved in a career in aviation as, I admit, sometimes I get burned out on what I do and, even though I do alright as it is, I'd take a pay cut to do what I love.

The question I posted was not the most eloquently written so, here's a better description:

The person happens to obtain a 135 cert from the faa for cargo ops for single pilot ops and hires one pilot. The owner did not posses the necessary qualifications to act as a pilot, Check airman, instructor, DO, or Chief pilot.

Does the pilot have to meet the 119 requirements to to be DO/Chief Pilot, etc?

No.

Are there situations that could arise where the Owner could unwittingly be giving forms of advice or setting standards, in the interest of safety and balancing risk, that could be construed as acting in some sort of professional capacity that they both lack the legal requirements for and are not listed as that position on the faa docs for the 135?

Not unless the pilot lets it happen.

Obviously, he's not flying anything for comp or hire. But he may want to monitor the operations of his pilot a couple times a year, just to see if he feels things are being done in a manner that does not expose him or his business to risk or place someone in danger.

He can do that if he wants, within the restrictions Bob mentioned on occupying a pilot station. IOW, he's essentially just a passenger when he does that, but that also means the flight must be operated IAW with the rules on passenger-carrying operations.

He doesn't have an official 'chief pilot' to go to with concerns, discuss them, make a collaborative decision, and have the Chief Pilot discuss a situation with the pilot in question so, at what point might his standards make him appear to be acting in some sort of capacity that, he should not, as far as the FAA goes?

The FAA will hold the pilot whose name is on the paperwork responsible for all that, although if the owner interferes too much and the pilot complains to the FAA about it, the owner may lose that certificate (which of course also means the pilot loses his/her job).

 

[TriGear28]

No.

Not unless the pilot lets it happen.

He can do that if he wants, within the restrictions Bob mentioned on occupying a pilot station. IOW, he's essentially just a passenger when he does that, but that also means the flight must be operated IAW with the rules on passenger-carrying operations.

The FAA will hold the pilot whose name is on the paperwork responsible for all that, although if the owner interferes too much and the pilot complains to the FAA about it, the owner may lose that certificate (which of course also means the pilot loses his/her job).

Cool... Good feedback and puts things in a little perspective. I've never investigated things from the flip-side (business owner) as opposed to what a pilot's requirements would be to work for one.

Still looks like the pilot better be very much up-to-snuff on the same kind of regulations so as to not have liability himself. Whereas, if he were working for another 135 operation, he would not have to be quite so fully informed and involved. Whether or not they actually meet the requirements of a 'chief pilot' they had better be very well on top of the regs to make sure they inform you if there is an issue.

Lots of good info

Thanks to everyone!

 

[wabower]

BFD.

And others in addition to the most-scrutinized and precedent-setting case in the history of part 135 aviation?

BTW, the Mets won the World Series, NC State beat the dream team in the final four and the Gainesville, TX local paper ran a picture story showing that lightning actually struck the outhouse at the the J. N. Whaley Sr. farm on W. Butterfield Rd.

Very funny. Let me try to enlighten you:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/15/brothers-convicted-in-teterboro-charter-jet-crash-trial/​

Owners can do time too.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

BFD.

And others in addition to the most-scrutinized and precedent-setting case in the history of part 135 aviation?

BTW, the Mets won the World Series, NC State beat the dream team in the final four and the Gainesville, TX local paper ran a picture story showing that lightning actually struck the outhouse at the the J. N. Whaley Sr. farm on W. Butterfield Rd.

If you just want to argue, find somebody else. Pencil whipping FAA requirements to please an owner can get a pilot in serious trouble. Mechanics too:

"But is revocation the worst consequence a mechanic can face in a falsification case? Sadly, it is not. Criminal prosecution, and its more severe consequences, is becoming more frequent."​

dtuuri

 

[wabower]

If you want to apply the actions from a single incident to the entire field of 135 ops, find somebody else to try to sell it.

If you just want to argue, find somebody else. Pencil whipping FAA requirements to please an owner can get a pilot in serious trouble. Mechanics too:

"But is revocation the worst consequence a mechanic can face in a falsification case? Sadly, it is not. Criminal prosecution, and its more severe consequences, is becoming more frequent."​

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Whether or not they actually meet the requirements of a 'chief pilot' they had better be very well on top of the regs to make sure they inform you if there is an issue.

You may find this AC answers some of your questions better than just the regs:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%20120-49/$FILE/Appx1-4.pdf​

It's where I started when I set up my single-pilot 135.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

If you want to apply the actions from a single incident to the entire field of 135 ops, find somebody else to try to sell it.

Ok, I'll let my uncle Sam sell it:

Title 49 U.S.C. § 46310. Reporting and recordkeeping violations
(a) GENERAL CRIMINAL PENALTY.—An air carrier
or an officer, agent, or employee of an air
carrier shall be fined under title 18 for intentionally—
(1) failing to make a report or keep a record
under this part;
(2) falsifying, mutilating, or altering a report
or record under this part; or
(3) filing a false report or record under this
part.
(b) SAFETY REGULATION CRIMINAL PENALTY.—
An air carrier or an officer, agent, or employee
of an air carrier shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned
for not more than 5 years, or both, for
intentionally falsifying or concealing a material
fact, or inducing reliance on a false statement of
material fact, in a report or record under section
44701(a) or (b) or any of sections 44702–44716
of this title.​

Your cavalier attitude about this is... troubling.

dtuuri

 

[wabower]

Your chicken little approach is worse.

Ok, I'll let my uncle Sam sell it:

Title 49 U.S.C. § 46310. Reporting and recordkeeping violations
(a) GENERAL CRIMINAL PENALTY.—An air carrier
or an officer, agent, or employee of an air
carrier shall be fined under title 18 for intentionally—
(1) failing to make a report or keep a record
under this part;
(2) falsifying, mutilating, or altering a report
or record under this part; or
(3) filing a false report or record under this
part.
(b) SAFETY REGULATION CRIMINAL PENALTY.—
An air carrier or an officer, agent, or employee
of an air carrier shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned
for not more than 5 years, or both, for
intentionally falsifying or concealing a material
fact, or inducing reliance on a false statement of
material fact, in a report or record under section
44701(a) or (b) or any of sections 44702–44716
of this title.​

Your cavalier attitude about this is... troubling.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Your chicken little approach is worse.

"There ya go, folks," (in my best Cap'n Ron imitation). Compliance with the rules is "chicken little".

I'm done.

dtuuri

 

[bobmrg]

Good point! I do not recall reading that one before. So, in the theoretical situation, does that mean, in a cargo situation, if one removed the extra seats (assumed anyway for cargo, it would be legal in a pc12 or caravan?

I'm liking the learning points in this thread btw...

Thanks!

I did all of my freight-hauling in twins, so I haven't a clue.

Bob

 

[jonnyjetprop]

I have flown single pilot cargo in small planes like Cherokee 6 and Lances. The operator left both forward pilot seats in the planes for check rides and FAA inspections. Both of these operators were multi pilot, so we had the traditional DO, CP, DM positions. Our ops specs at both company's allowed us to carry non pilot at times with written permission of either the DO or CP. Since I was just a line pilot, the letter was good enough for me. I have no knowledge of any FAA involvement to gain flight ops approval.

All of my big airplane stuff has simular ops specs. that allow folks to ride in the cockpit, with captain's approval, as long as they have written authorization from flight operations. I've carried tech reps for various vendors, flight operation interns, and the always popular cargo handlers or curriers.

Here is something I never really gave much thought to until today. Let's say a person is a Private pilot without a medical and decides they want to be in the Aviation business regardless of the fact they cannot operate for hire as a pilot. They purchase a plane, say a PC 12, or a Centurion, MU-2 (well, probably not) and they hire a qualified commercial pilot. They look at other similar operations and develop a set operations procedures to meet all the professional standards, legal exposures, insurance requirements, etc. On an annual or simi-annual basis, the owner (not a commercial pilot, not a CFI, no medical) wants to ride along to ensure both that operations procedures are being followed, see them in use, and take feedback on what should and should not be changed. In what capacity is the owner operating if he makes suggestions as to procedures that are or are not being followed? Could this be construed to be 'instruction' and, as result, be a violation of the regs? If one has a small operation without a real Chief Pilot, how do you really evaluate the soul commercial pilot (chief pilot I guess if there is only one).

 

[TriGear28]

Thanks guys! I have been trying to get a better understanding of the challenges that light ops part 135 operators go through. My job pays well but i'm tired of doing something just because. Looking for combining my talents and my passions more. This info brings me closer.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2