MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Got an example of a violation or interpretation from the FAA?
Alaska hunting lodge Pilot
- Thread starter brien23
- Start date
Not on my phone. This goes back to 'vacation clubs' in the 60s where some fast talkers tried the 'but we are selling lodging' line.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Let us know when you find one.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
You own a plane and a business. You fly several people to a meeting.
Still Part 91
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
Still Part 91
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
Stewartb
Final Approach
If you're an average lodge pilot or support pilot for hunting and fishing operations you're not flying for free, you're being compensated as an employee. All the guys I know who do it are commercial pilots. They are not air taxi pilots. Several years back the FAA made noise about forcing lodges and guides to part 135 but that effort never came to pass.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Don't forget about
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Your example isn't as clean-cut as you'd like.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,219
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
That sounds suspiciously like an accurate analysis of realities and use of common sense. You sure this is the FAA you're speaking of?
OK,
There is a hunting lodge in the middle of "Nowhere, Alaska" with no roads leading to it. I sell you reservations at mu lodge and transportation to and from there is included in the price of said reservations. I can't get you there any other way other than using a plane. To transport you to the lodge I have no other choice but to use the plane. Does that place me under part 135 requirements and obligations? IMO, and FWIT's worth the above is simply an opinion. Sure, the FAA allows some leeway in Alaska that would even be considered in the lower forty eight.
Hauling the hunters and their bagged Moose may present another problem; hopefully one that Is easily solved at takeoff.
There is a hunting lodge in the middle of "Nowhere, Alaska" with no roads leading to it. I sell you reservations at mu lodge and transportation to and from there is included in the price of said reservations. I can't get you there any other way other than using a plane. To transport you to the lodge I have no other choice but to use the plane. Does that place me under part 135 requirements and obligations? IMO, and FWIT's worth the above is simply an opinion. Sure, the FAA allows some leeway in Alaska that would even be considered in the lower forty eight.
Hauling the hunters and their bagged Moose may present another problem; hopefully one that Is easily solved at takeoff.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
I flew for a company that supported a hunting lodge. The 135 company I flew for would fly the hunters to the lodge, but the owner would use his own airplanes to fly the hunters out to the fields. His lodge was a fly in only, no other way to get there except walk.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Exactly it's not incidental at all, without the plane there is zero way the guests could realistically get to the camp and get their money worth.
At the very very least it's a pt 91 commerical operation, and it's so very on the edge of a 135, especially if you're flying them from the lodge out other places to hunt.
I'd say for a small lodge owner the smart move would be to work a deal and get yourself and your plane onto someone's 135.
Sometimes you can get to these places on snowmobile in the winter. And sometimes by river. Depends.
Stewartb
Final Approach
You guys are Alaska experts. I hope some of those lodge owners tune in and learn!
brien23
Cleared for Takeoff
The post is about PPL not CPL I am sure their are a lot of commercial pilots doing the work this post is about Private Pilot lodge guides.
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Stewartb
Final Approach
I read the thread. I've lived in AK for 50 years. I have lots of friends in the aviation industry and almost as many in the lodge industry, but you e-experts have this. Carry on.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Did you stomp your foot when you typed that?
Stewartb
Final Approach
Nope. I laughed. You guys are funny.
Absolutely, especially when some pilots up there don't even have a license. Just part of the lifestyle.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Your tone is more along the lines of stomping your foot. You are the only one who knows what is right so by god everybody must accept your opinion on the matter. There is no room at all for an opinion to the contrary much less even another perspective on the matter.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Ah, the pot calling the kettle black!
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Please point out where I have posted an intolerant opinion on this thread.
So far, that argument has not worked in FAA enforcement cases. However, they reportedly look the other way on some things in Alaska.
I suspect that the realities of what it takes to survive in much of Alaska have forced a higher class of common sense than is evident in the lower 48.
The conclusion in that case:
Even if the FAA as a whole somehow had in mind an
interpretation different from that of its Alaskan Region,
guides and lodge operators in Alaska had no reason to know
this. Cf. Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 587. Those regu-
lated by an administrative agency are entitled to "know the
rules by which the game will be played." See Holmes,
Holdsworth's English Law, 25 Law Quarterly Rev. 414
(1909). Alaskan guide pilots and lodge operators relied on
the advice FAA officials imparted to them--they opened
lodges and built up businesses dependent on aircraft, believ-
ing their flights were subject to part 91's requirements only.
Cf. Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 587. That advice became
an authoritative departmental interpretation, an administra-
tive common law applicable to Alaskan guide pilots. The
FAA's current doubts about the wisdom of the regulatory
system followed in Alaska for more than thirty years does not
justify disregarding the requisite procedures for changing
that system. Throughout this period, guide pilots and lodge
operators had no opportunity to participate in the develop-
ment of the part 135 regulations and to argue in favor of
special rules for their operations. Air transportation regula-
tions have evolved considerably since 1963 and part 135 has
been the subject of numerous rule making proceedings. Had
guides and lodge operators been able to comment on the
resulting amendments and modifications to part 135, they
could have suggested changes or exceptions that would have
accommodated the unique circumstances of Alaskan air car-
riage.8 As the FAA pointed out in its brief, the agency's
regulations have, in several respects, treated Alaska differ-
ently from the continental United States. See, e.g., 14 C.F.R.
ss 135.261(b)(1), 121.353, 91.323. There is no reason to sup-
pose that with the participation of Alaskan guide pilots and
lodge operators, the regulations in part 135 would not have
been affected. If the FAA now wishes to apply those regula-
tions to these individuals, it must give them an opportunity to
comment before doing so. The Notice to Operators was
published without notice and comment and it is therefore
invalid. The petition for review is granted.
So ordered.
interpretation different from that of its Alaskan Region,
guides and lodge operators in Alaska had no reason to know
this. Cf. Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 587. Those regu-
lated by an administrative agency are entitled to "know the
rules by which the game will be played." See Holmes,
Holdsworth's English Law, 25 Law Quarterly Rev. 414
(1909). Alaskan guide pilots and lodge operators relied on
the advice FAA officials imparted to them--they opened
lodges and built up businesses dependent on aircraft, believ-
ing their flights were subject to part 91's requirements only.
Cf. Paralyzed Veterans, 117 F.3d at 587. That advice became
an authoritative departmental interpretation, an administra-
tive common law applicable to Alaskan guide pilots. The
FAA's current doubts about the wisdom of the regulatory
system followed in Alaska for more than thirty years does not
justify disregarding the requisite procedures for changing
that system. Throughout this period, guide pilots and lodge
operators had no opportunity to participate in the develop-
ment of the part 135 regulations and to argue in favor of
special rules for their operations. Air transportation regula-
tions have evolved considerably since 1963 and part 135 has
been the subject of numerous rule making proceedings. Had
guides and lodge operators been able to comment on the
resulting amendments and modifications to part 135, they
could have suggested changes or exceptions that would have
accommodated the unique circumstances of Alaskan air car-
riage.8 As the FAA pointed out in its brief, the agency's
regulations have, in several respects, treated Alaska differ-
ently from the continental United States. See, e.g., 14 C.F.R.
ss 135.261(b)(1), 121.353, 91.323. There is no reason to sup-
pose that with the participation of Alaskan guide pilots and
lodge operators, the regulations in part 135 would not have
been affected. If the FAA now wishes to apply those regula-
tions to these individuals, it must give them an opportunity to
comment before doing so. The Notice to Operators was
published without notice and comment and it is therefore
invalid. The petition for review is granted.
So ordered.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
brien23
Cleared for Takeoff
Alaska way of life if you don't like the law just ignore the law.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 29, 1999 Decided June 4, 1999
No. 98-1051
Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc., et al.,
Petitioners
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
From my reading of that case, rather than "if you don't like the law just ignore the law," it appears to be a situation in which the hunters association was relying on FAA guidance. The ruling appears to be saying that once the FAA has put out such an interpretation, changing the interpretation is equivalent to a rule change and therefore requires a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), including an opportunity for public comment.
azblackbird
Pattern Altitude
That's the gist. Thus the reason the FAA has backed off on the lodge owners. As somebody else here stated, it's no different than being a hotel/resort owner and providing ground transportation from the airport to the hotel, or to the various activities (wine tasting, balloon rides, horseback riding, etc.) that guests of the hotel would partake in. I worked at a resort that provided those very amenities for their guests and not a single van driver had a commercial drivers license. The same would apply if the transportation were an airplane instead of a van. It's all incidental to the main business which is lodging, not transportation or holding out to the public for hire.
Stewarb says that his friends in that industry are commercially rated pilots, and it's not clear to me that the court case cited above supports the idea that private pilots who are employees of a lodge could fly passengers on behalf of the lodge. Most of the decision talks about whether parts 119, 121, and 135 apply. The only mention of private pilots is in a precedent that was cited, in which the pilot was a hunting and fishing guide. The CAB ruled in that case that the flight was merely incidental to his guiding business. I don't know whether the pilots that Stewartb referred to are employed primarily as pilots, or whether flying is merely incidental to their other job responsibilities.
As for hotel van drivers, they do not operate under FAA jurisdiction. Different agencies may have different rules.