commercial pilot question

[Trol]

I'm studying for my commercial ticket and have a few scenerio questions.

 

Scenerio: New commercial pilot: Friend calls you up and says he needs to get to another

town and will pay you and the fuel for YOUR aircraft to fly him there. He will get his own transportation back home.

I'm thinking yes, since you did not advertise or make any claim to provide this service to anyone.

 

Let me stress that I have learned/read about "holding out" and how that kicks into part 135.

 

Scenerio: Same as above, except friend pays for a rental aircraft and wants to pay you to fly him there.

 

I'm thinking again that it is ok, since friend arranged aircraft and is in control of the schedule/destination.

 

Thanks for the help.

Mike

[kodoz]

First scenario sounds like an on-demand operation and I'd look at 119.1.e.vii.

 

The second one...the rental part is the catch I can't get around. If it was his aircraft, that would seem like a part 91 operation. But him renting it...

 

Just putting my guess in the hopper. Besides, it's 9p on a Friday night...what are you expecting?

[delorean]

Both are 135, no question about it.

 

The one way trip is the dead giveaway. However, even if it was a roundtrip it could still be 135. It doesn't need to be advertised, planned, etc--you are an air taxi--no way around it.

 

For instance, if you fly a photographer somewhere, land somewhere to take pictures (from the ground), then they get back in the helicopter and fly home, that's 135. It's an air taxi--you ferried them from A to B so they could do something, then flew them home. If they took those pictures from the air and you just landed for fuel, food, rest, etc, then that's ok.

 

Just use this general rule: If it sounds anything like 135 or Air Taxi, that is what the FAA will interpret it as.

 

Also, whomever you're renting that airplane from probably won't let you conduct a commercial flight in their machine. Plus, before you call anything a "tour" or "ride", you have to be under a DOT approved random drug testing program.

 

It's amazing how much you CANNOT do with a commercial pilot's certificate.

[Trol]

Glad I asked. Ok, thanks.

[captkirkyota]

I'm studying for my commercial ticket and have a few scenerio questions.

 

Scenerio: New commercial pilot: Friend calls you up and says he needs to get to another

town and will pay you and the fuel for YOUR aircraft to fly him there. He will get his own transportation back home.

I'm thinking yes, since you did not advertise or make any claim to provide this service to anyone.

 

Let me stress that I have learned/read about "holding out" and how that kicks into part 135.

 

Scenerio: Same as above, except friend pays for a rental aircraft and wants to pay you to fly him there.

 

I'm thinking again that it is ok, since friend arranged aircraft and is in control of the schedule/destination.

 

Thanks for the help.

Mike

 

If he's your friend, just have him pay for fuel in #1. OR IF the flight is less than 25 STATUTE miles, in day VFR you notify FISDO 72 hours prior and all the other stuff in 119.1 (e) 7 you can do it.

 

I'm with KODOZ on the rental part though, I've read what D. said but I'm not convinced either way. He's prolly right just because we are talking about the FAA, I know it is a scenario, but if it ever happened, calling your local FSDO would be what I'd do.

[Darren Hughes]

Isn't there a part to 119.1 that states you have to do part 135 regular drug testing in order to do those flights. Don't have a FAR here so can't say for sure. That just might be another spanner in your works!

[JDHelicopterPilot]

Isn't there a part to 119.1 that states you have to do part 135 regular drug testing in order to do those flights. Don't have a FAR here so can't say for sure. That just might be another spanner in your works!

 

Yep, the new tour regulations require that even if you do a tour under part 91 you have to be under a DOT drug program.

 

 

I have a great one for you.

 

Someone comes to you and wants to photograph the interstate system from San Diego to Los Angeles. They want to go both ways taking a different route home to San Diego. It's clearly a long flight. You won't be able to carry enough fuel round trip. So, you will have to stop for fuel during your flight.

 

Can you do this flight?

 

If not why?

 

If yes, why?

 

 

What do you think?

[captkirkyota]

Yep, the new tour regulations require that even if you do a tour under part 91 you have to be under a DOT drug program.

 

 

I have a great one for you.

 

Someone comes to you and wants to photograph the interstate system from San Diego to Los Angeles. They want to go both ways taking a different route home to San Diego. It's clearly a long flight. You won't be able to carry enough fuel round trip. So, you will have to stop for fuel during your flight.

 

Can you do this flight?

 

If not why?

 

If yes, why?

 

 

What do you think?

 

Yes you can. 119.1 (3)

You could go across the entire country doing aerial photography/surveying with as many stops and over night stays you want.

The way I read it, the flight does not ever even have to go back to the airport of origin for that type of flight either.

[delorean]

If he's your friend, just have him pay for fuel in #1. OR IF the flight is less than 25 STATUTE miles, in day VFR you notify FISDO 72 hours prior and all the other stuff in 119.1 (e) 7 you can do it.

 

I'm with KODOZ on the rental part though, I've read what D. said but I'm not convinced either way. He's prolly right just because we are talking about the FAA, I know it is a scenario, but if it ever happened, calling your local FSDO would be what I'd do.

 

He can pay for his less than pro rata share of the of the aircraft on the leg that he's on. So that would be up to 1/2 of first leg. The return leg would be 100% on the PIC if the a/c is empty. Keep in mind the FAA has violated people for doing this excessively to build hours. They ruled that the flight hours in the log book were compensation. So don't abuse it, advertise it, or even talk about it!

 

I doesn't matter who the aircraft is rented by. If you could call it 91 since the pax were paying for the rental cost, you wouldn't have anyone under 135. Airline pax would be doing a "group buy" to lease the a/c and contracting a pilot to fly the mission under 91??? No way. It's 135 no matter how you look at it if the PIC isn't paying more than their pro rata share in that situation.

 

Lately the FAA has nailed a quite a few corporate flight depts for illegal charters. The corporation owns the aircraft, but under another company. Then it's leased it back or chartered to the actual company. All for tax reasons, but even if you're chartering the a/c from yourself, it's 135. Can't beat the IRS and FAA at the same time in some cases. There was an excellent article on this in BAC about a year ago.

 

Yep, the new tour regulations require that even if you do a tour under part 91 you have to be under a DOT drug program.

 

Someone comes to you and wants to photograph the interstate system from San Diego to Los Angeles. They want to go both ways taking a different route home to San Diego. It's clearly a long flight. You won't be able to carry enough fuel round trip. So, you will have to stop for fuel during your flight.

 

Can you do this flight?

 

The DOT random drug testing has been around for almost 10 yrs now. It wasn't easy to find before because it was a DOT deal, which trumped the FAA. It has to do with any carriage of the common public. So, bus drivers, train engineers, ferry captains, etc. For aviation that includes scheduled/121, on demand 135, rides, tours, and a few other areas.

 

About the only things that are excluded from 135 and the DOT randoms are "Aerial Work" flights. This is powerline/pipeline survey, electronic news gathering, aerial photography, wildlife counts, marijuana erradication, etc. The difference is that the customer is not paying for the benefit of flight or transportation--they're using the helicopter as a tool to acquire something else. Give a few years, everything will be 135. Already with a lot of FSDOs, 135 operators have agreed to conduct all flights under your 135 rules regardless if it's a MX test flight, ferry flight, non-135 aerial work flight, etc--everything will be within the OpsManual so there's never any confusion.

 

As for the scenario, that's a 91/119 flight. Route, duration, number of stops, etc does not matter. As long as the flight [eventually] ends up from where it took off from and the customer did not receive an added benefit from any of those stops, it's excempt. If you would have landed at each intersection to take ground photos, or the guy had a meeting halfway through the day across town, then it's 135. You could do a year long flight down every interstate in the country as long as you dropped the guy at the departure point in the end.

 

I don't know if anyone at the FAA has ever challenged a businessman who receives flight training as he flies to/from sales calls with associates in the back seat. We used to do it a lot with doctors who wanted to train and buy a helicopter to fly between hositals to make their rounds or perform surgury. They got a lot of cross country time and good experience. Nothing illegal about it in my eyes, but I'd be surprised if the FAA hasn't gone after someone for this.

 

As I said before, if it sounds like a 135 flight, that's the way the feds are going to see it. And it's going to be up to you to defend yourself on a "loophole". Same goes for private pilots trying to build hrs by finding loopholes to perform commercial flights. Like the IRS or any other government entity, the little guy RARELY wins a loophole case--and then the loophole will be closed promping more regs the rest of us have to live with. Why do you think that book is so thick??

[JDHelicopterPilot]

I agree. In Trol's case that would all be under part 135. In the case I presented that could be done under 91 so long as the flight ended up where it took off after all the fuel stops.

 

I thought I would throw that out there as it was one that was given to me by my examiner on my Com. ride.

[Trol]

Thanks for all the comments and replies. After going back to my research, I found where I made my mistake on interpeting the rules. I mistook an argument for a part 91 flight vs it being 135 and missed that it was the pilot's argument and not the judges ruling.

[Bootcamp]

Scenerio: Same as above, except friend pays for a rental aircraft and wants to pay you to fly him there.

 

I'm thinking again that it is ok, since friend arranged aircraft and is in control of the schedule/destination.

 

First, let me put it out there that I'm not a lawyer or an FAA representative. However, having the same question, I approached one of the AOPA lawyers, Kathy Yodice, regarding this issue. Here is her interpretation (or at least my understanding of her interpretation):

 

The FAA looks at "who puts the flight together" not "who the pilot is". If the passenger goes to an aircraft owner/operator and rents an aircraft and then independently hires you as a pilot, it's Kosher under Part 91. It's the same this as if he/she had owned the aircraft and hired you as a pilot.

 

Any thoughts or criticisms from others are of course appreciated.