Another Part 91 Part 135 question. (This is long and kind of like a test)

[TheGolfPilot]

John = private pilot
Steve= John's business partner

John and Steve own and manage a good handful of real estate properties together, but not all of them.
Flying to one of the properties, in a rental, one day Steve says "If I get one of these will you fly me?"
John says "sure, you buy the plane I'll do all the upkeep and I will fly you wherever you want for the price of the fuel. When my upkeep costs exceed double the price you paid you deed me half the plane and we will renegotiate from there."

A Bonanza is bought for 100,000. 5 years go by and John's costs exceed 200,000.

Steve suggests a new deal. "I'll pay you $150 a hour to continue flying me, keep our shares at 50/50."
John accepts.

Another 2 years goes by John and Steve are trying to figure out a real estate deal John suggests "Steve I'll give you $30,000 and you give me your half of the plane" I'll continue to fly you for $150 a hour"

John now owns 100% of the plane. He flies Steve when he wants for $150 a hour regardless of the flight being a mutual property or not.


At what point in this story does John need a commercial rating? At what point is John operating under Part 135?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

My take is John needs the commercial from day one if he does not have a common purpose with Steve on any given flight and he needs a 135 Certificate once he owns 100% of the airplane.

 

[farmerbrake]

My take is John needs the commercial from day one if he does not have a common purpose with Steve on any given flight and he needs a 135 Certificate once he owns 100% of the airplane.

I agree with this

 

[ahkahn]

John needs his commercial license once Steve starts paying him $150/hour. Ownership of the plane does not matter, nor does the common purpose.

EDIT: I just re-read that first part. Looks like John is not getting paid cash to fly the plane for Steve, but John is accruing flight hours flying Steve's plane. According to an advisory circular out there, the accrual of flight hours on someone else's dime is considered compensation. So, from day 1 he would need a commercial whether he is compensated with cash or flight hours.

Once John owns the plane 100%, he would definitely need a commercial, but there is a lot of argument/confusion on the part 135. There was an advisory circular that explained (in a very vague way) that since this is an arrangement with one "client" and John is not advertising his services to the general public that he can still fly under part 91 for hire. There will be some that disagree with that assessment... but the bottom line is that the AC adds more confusion than it was created to clear up.

 

[bobmrg]

John needs his commercial license once Steve starts paying him $150/hour. Ownership of the plane does not matter, nor does the common purpose.

EDIT: I just re-read that first part. Looks like John is not getting paid cash to fly the plane for Steve, but John is accruing flight hours flying Steve's plane. According to an advisory circular out there, the accrual of flight hours on someone else's dime is considered compensation. So, from day 1 he would need a commercial whether he is compensated with cash or flight hours.

Once John owns the plane 100%, he would definitely need a commercial, but there is a lot of argument/confusion on the part 135. There was an advisory circular that explained (in a very vague way) that since this is an arrangement with one "client" and John is not advertising his services to the general public that he can still fly under part 91 for hire. There will be some that disagree with that assessment... but the bottom line is that the AC adds more confusion than it was created to clear up.

I agree. He is not "holding out" transportation services to the public at large. Commercial, yes; Part 135, no.

Bob Gardner

 

[ahkahn]

I agree. He is not "holding out" transportation services to the public at large. Commercial, yes; Part 135, no.

Bob Gardner

Your agreement means a lot to me, Bob. I highly respect the insight you bring to the table.

 

[arnoha]

I agree. He is not "holding out" transportation services to the public at large. Commercial, yes; Part 135, no.

Bob Gardner

I agree, but does it meet "common cause"? He's flying his own aircraft to transport someone else at their request. That's the definition of a charter.

 

[dtuuri]

I agree, but does it meet "common cause"? He's flying his own aircraft to transport someone else at their request. That's the definition of a charter.

AFAIK, there is no definition of "charter". But I know what you mean. Even though there is no holding out, I'm pretty sure private "carriage" still requires an operating certificate.

dtuuri

 

[Captain]

They're partners in real estate. Every flight is common purpose.

 

[red4golf]

AC 120-12A - Clear as mud.......

d. Carriage for hire which does not involve "holding out" is private
carriage. Private carriers for hire are sometimes called "contract carriers," but
the term is borrowed from the Interstate Commerce Act and legally inaccurate when I*
used in connection with the Federal Aviation Act. Private carriage for hire is
carriage for one or several selected customers , generally on a long-term basis.
The number of contracts must not be too great, otherwise it implies a willingness
to make a contract with anybody. A carrier operating pursuant to 18 to 24
contracts has been held to be a common carrier because it held itself out to serve
the public generally to the extent of its facilities. Private carriage'has -been '
found in cases where three contracts have been the sole basis of the operator's
business. Special adaptation of the transportation service to the individual L
needs of shippers is a factor tending to establish private carriage but is not
necessarily conclusive.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

flip flop the ownership and let the pilot own the real estate and the other own the plane.

The pilot still needs the commercial ticket (and a valid drug test)....but if the pilot doesn't own the plane....he can be compensated under part 91 for operating someone else's aircraft. Then any amount of $$$ exchanging hands is immaterial.

The pilot can not provide the plane......and be compensated.

 

[bobmrg]

I agree, but does it meet "common cause"? He's flying his own aircraft to transport someone else at their request. That's the definition of a charter.

If he has a commercial ticket, common cause is irrelevant.

Bob

 

[PilotRPI]

They need to keep it between themselves, enjoy the flying, and not blab it all around and they won't need anything special

 

[dtuuri]

AC 120-12A - Clear as mud.......

d. Carriage for hire which does not involve "holding out" is private
carriage. Private carriers for hire are sometimes called "contract carriers," but
the term is borrowed from the Interstate Commerce Act and legally inaccurate when I*
used in connection with the Federal Aviation Act. Private carriage for hire is
carriage for one or several selected customers , generally on a long-term basis.
The number of contracts must not be too great, otherwise it implies a willingness
to make a contract with anybody. A carrier operating pursuant to 18 to 24
contracts has been held to be a common carrier because it held itself out to serve
the public generally to the extent of its facilities. Private carriage'has -been '
found in cases where three contracts have been the sole basis of the operator's
business. Special adaptation of the transportation service to the individual L
needs of shippers is a factor tending to establish private carriage but is not
necessarily conclusive.

This is more recently written:

§119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.

(a) ...
(b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in §91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall—

(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part;

(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only to commuter operations; and

(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.
​

dtuuri

 

[mscard88]

They need to keep it between themselves, enjoy the flying, and not blab it all around and they won't need anything special

Uh huh that's right!

 

[alfadog]

They need to keep it between themselves, enjoy the flying, and not blab it all around and they won't need anything special

Right, until they have a falling out about the RE business or the airplane and the non-flying partner tattles to the FAA.

It's like next week I'm flying a 172 to the Light Sport Expo at KSEF with another pilot and I called two of my friends to offer them the backseat. The first one was waffling so I called the second and told him it was conditional as the first fellow asked for a few days to decide. Second guy is also a pilot and says "come on, can't we all fit in the airplane?" I love my friends but I don't love them enough to make them party to my putting my license at risk. If I'm putting my license at risk, you can believe that I'm all alone in the airplane.

 

[uncreative]

The pilot can not provide the plane......and be compensated.

Why not? A bonanza does not cross the threshold to preclude operating under Part 91 from what I understand.

 

[ahkahn]

The pilot can not provide the plane......and be compensated.

Sure he can. Although, I'm down with OPP.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Sure he can. Although, I'm down with OPP.

So....I can accept $$$ (more than the pro-rata share of expenses) from a friend who wants me to fly my airplane on a trip greater than 25 miles?.....that I have no common interest?

the pilot has a Commercial license and the plane is within the 100hr inspection.