For me it was get the instrument at 200 hours, then the commercial at 250 hours.
Comm. Pilot Privileges
- Thread starter Robert Wang
- Start date
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
That would be correct.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
In my humble opinion, if you recalled the questions correctly you were right on those two scenarios and the DPE was wrong. I'm curious if that might be the case for other items as well. What else did you "get wrong"?
Robert Wang
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
- Messages
- 8
- Display Name
Display name:
Robert631
I'm positive i recalled those questions correctly since I took this checkride less than 2 days ago. He also failed me on weather involving freezing rain, inoperative equipments and aircraft systems. He only asked 1-2 questions per topic, didn't dig much.
benyflyguy
En-Route
That’s kind of where I’m at and was considering getting the CPL over the next year. But thought it would be better to fly for about 50-100 hours first. But am realizing as someone said in another post. The instrument is just straight line flying. The cpl is stick and rudder to the max.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
You'd realize more of an insurance discount if you had the instrument ticket vs commercial. I doubt there's any discount for just the commercial. You might get a job at the drop zone and build some high performance PIC time with the commercial alone.
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
I've given up counting the number of people that think that renting an aircraft requires the aircraft to have a current 100 hour inspection.
But 100 hour would apply to the first scenario described in the OP. Maybe the plane being rented was over 100 hours since inspection. Lol
bflynn
Final Approach
Reading that definition carefully, I note that ownership of the aircraft is irrelevant to the activity being conducted. It is the operation, not the airplane ownership that is problematic.
I’m almost positive the DPE is saying that the operation is a 135 activity. There are a few exception for non common carriage, but they don’t apply to these examples. You’re getting paid, but not holding out means you are not common carriage, you are non common carriage.
Sec. 119.23
Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.
(a) Each person who conducts operations when common carriage is not involved with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, shall, unless deviation authority is issued--
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements of part 125 of this chapter;
(2) Conduct its operations with those airplanes in accordance with the requirements of part 125 of this chapter; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.
(b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in Sec. 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.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
One one hand it is a bit mind boggling how many pilots believe that, even Commercial Pilots who should know better. However it is easy to understand how some pilots get that idea.
Most rental planes are also flight school planes and of course to be used as a flight school plane where the school is providing both plane and CFI, a 100 hour inspection is required. Now what trips people up is that while the hours flown as a strict rental count towards the 100 hours between inspections, once the plane hits the 100 hours it can still be rented but cannot be used by the flight school for dual instruction until it has had the required inspection. This fact continues to allude many people and cause arguments. But if you read the regulations, it’s there in black and white.
dtuuri
Final Approach
These two scenarios aren't questionable, despite the opinion of the DPE. "Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit." There is no doubt, so no need to apply this test, but even when you do the "friend" secured the plane and hired a pilot to fly it. The pilot didn't conduct a major enterprise for profit.
Example: I knew a TV repairman with a commercial license. He flew a Cessna P-210 on occasion for a company that owned the plane, but didn't have a full time pilot. That company rented the plane to another company in another city sometimes and they would also hire the same pilot. The pilot was not an employee of either company, other than for pilot service. If the pilot was unavailable, either company could (and would) try to find another pilot. So, it's strictly an equipment rental at the level of the businesses involved and a separate pilot services arrangement with the PIC.
Last edited:
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Nope.
bflynn
Final Approach
So is your claim that the pilot is not being compensated, not conducting passenger or cargo operation, not in noncommon carriage or something else?
I don't know how long ago your TV repairman did this...given that there are almost no TV repairmen today...but the rules and interpretations have changed. Part 91 operations under corporate rules today are limited to the 91.113 (private) and 91.501 (commercial) exceptions. I suspect the same activity now would run foul of the current regulations, but like the OP's example, there isn't enough information to know how it's being handled.
The 91.501 exceptions define the line very clearly and require that for cargo and passenger operations the pilot cannot receive compensation. But yes, I know, they're a commercial pilot. There isn't an argument about whether or not a commercial pilot can fly in corporate program or conduct cargo and passenger operations - clearly they can. The issue, is when those operations cross the line into being a commercial operation requiring certification of the operation. Passenger and cargo carriage for hire is a part 135 operation.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
The scenario the OP was presented with by the DPE is absolutely not a charter operation whatsoever. You can be the aviation version of Driving Miss Daisy with 2nd class, commercial cert, and instrument rating. Just like you can be a ferry pilot. Passenger provides plane (whether borrowed, rented, or owned) to fly themselves or their cargo.
Now if the 'passenger' supplied the plane to fly complete strangers or their cargo, now we have a commercial operation.
And a rented 172 isn't Large, Turbine, or fractional ownership, so Part F doesn't apply.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Pilot is operating within commercial privileges.
No, they have not. Same rules, same interpretations. The AC on holding out is ancient, for example.
Right of way?
The P-210 is not a "large aircraft", turbine powered or was fractional ownership.
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
I don't think there is anything wrong with the 2nd scenario as presented. It sounds as though he was trying to frame it as a 135 operation, but I don't think it fits that definition as presented. If the lawyer owns the plane and the documents to be carried belong to the law firm which the lawyer also owns, it seems like pretty cut and dry part 91 op that any commercial/instrument pilot could do for hire. If the documents belonged to another law firm and the lawyers only involvement with them was transporting for that other law firm and charging them for that transport, then you've got a part 135 op. Maybe he was looking for the plane needs to be owned by the law firm, not the lawyer? But as has been said, ownership of the aircraft is not a factor so long as you the pilot do not own or provide it.
I'm no DPE but it sure sounds like this DPE is contradicting the information that my DPE discussed with me during my commercial oral.
Fast Leroy
Filing Flight Plan
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 29
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Leroy
Maybe the answer is... Yes, after I successfully pass this examination but right now no.
bflynn
Final Approach
So dodging the question. 14 CFR 110.2 (Definitions for chapter 14) defines non common carriage as aircraft operation for compensation or hire that does not involve a holding out to other. 14 CFR 119.23 states that non common carriage requires certification of the operation under part 135. So which part of the DPE's example doesn't fit in these examples?
One again and critical - this is not about the pilot, it's about the operation. Part of being a commercial pilot is being able to recognize when an operation also requires a certificate.
110.2
Aircraft operation - check.
Pilot being hired - check.
No holding - check.
-> Operation is non common carriage.
119.23
cargo or passenger operation - check.
non common carriage - check.
aircraft less than 20 seats and less than 6000 lbs cargo capacity - check
-> Requires Part 135.
Yes, the pilot can do the flight but being paid creates a commercial operation.
bflynn
Final Approach
Hmmm, you are correct, 91.501 does not apply to smaller aircraft. I should know to look back to applicability by now. I see there are exceptions in 119.1 (e) that allow things like ferry flights and student instruction without it being passenger carriage.
Same caveat - the pilot is qualified to do the activity. But when does the operation require certification? I still maintain that the DPE was saying passenger or cargo carriage activates subchapter G for commercial operations as non common carriage.
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Still not applicable
119.1
(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft—
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.
119.1
(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft—
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.
bflynn
Final Approach
14 CFR subChapter G (Parts 110-139) is air carrier certification. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/chapter-I/subchapter-G That is different than 14 CFR 91 Part G
Because the pilot is flying people or cargo for hire, the air operation requires certification. 119.1(e) lists the exceptions that lets the commercial pilot do certain operations.
It would only be inapplicable if you think a commercial pilot doesn't have to also abide by commercial operations rules. 119.23 is the key piece that pulls you into air operation certification, unless I've missed that applicability.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
I never said the ownership had anything to do with it.
Part 119.23 only applies to commercial operators. There is no commercial operator involved in the DPE's scenario.
You are assuming that the operation is a commercial operation and then using regulations that apply to commercial operators to try to prove your assumption. It's a circular reasoning fallacy.
Last edited:
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
You're saying very operation in which a pilot is paid requires a commercial operator's certificate--that's not how it works.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Because the operator in this case is the owner/renter. So he's not carrying anyone for hire.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
119.23 is N/A because of 119.1
bflynn
Final Approach
Yeah, that's the core disagreement. When the pilot is flying for hire. It doesn't become "not for hire" because you already know the person or because it's their plane. You are flying them and getting paid to be a pilot. There are exceptions for when you can do this without certification, but this isn't one of them.
When the pilot is getting paid to fly people or cargo, it is a commercial operation of some kind. 119.1 is absolutely applicable. That doesn't mean the pilot is the commercial operator, but it does mean that they must know the requirement of when the operator has to be part 135. The pilot is prohibited from performing the task if the operation should require certification.
Otherwise, start backing it out. What makes this situation not a 135 operation? Why is it not and quote the regulation that backs up the why.
When the pilot is getting paid to fly people or cargo, it is a commercial operation of some kind. 119.1 is absolutely applicable. That doesn't mean the pilot is the commercial operator, but it does mean that they must know the requirement of when the operator has to be part 135. The pilot is prohibited from performing the task if the operation should require certification.
Otherwise, start backing it out. What makes this situation not a 135 operation? Why is it not and quote the regulation that backs up the why.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
You are applying regulations that aren't applicable, because 119.1 specifically says it doesn't apply. So 119.23 doesn't apply. 135 doesn't apply. Nothing applies because 119.1 says no certificate needed.
I already posted the regulation that says it's not needed. But here it is again:
119.1
(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft—
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
The owner of the airplane is not an air carrier - I think that's obvious. Nor is the owner a commercial operator* because the owner is not flying other people for compensation or hire. The pilot is not a commercial operator either as he is not supplying the aircraft. Now if the owner said, hey I need to to fly persons X Y and Z that have no relation to me, then the owner has become a commercial operator. Remember, pilots don't get the operating cert, the business or person owning (or leasing) the aircraft does.
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.
I think this is obvious.
As neither of these apply. That's where we stop. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not read any further regulations. But here's what 135 says
135.1
(a) This part prescribes rules governing—
(1) The commuter or on-demand operations of each person who holds or is required to hold an Air Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter.
Since they aren't required to hold, it doesn't apply.
* - 14CFR 1.1
Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.
I already posted the regulation that says it's not needed. But here it is again:
119.1
(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft—
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
The owner of the airplane is not an air carrier - I think that's obvious. Nor is the owner a commercial operator* because the owner is not flying other people for compensation or hire. The pilot is not a commercial operator either as he is not supplying the aircraft. Now if the owner said, hey I need to to fly persons X Y and Z that have no relation to me, then the owner has become a commercial operator. Remember, pilots don't get the operating cert, the business or person owning (or leasing) the aircraft does.
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.
I think this is obvious.
As neither of these apply. That's where we stop. Full stop. Do not pass go, do not read any further regulations. But here's what 135 says
135.1
(a) This part prescribes rules governing—
(1) The commuter or on-demand operations of each person who holds or is required to hold an Air Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter.
Since they aren't required to hold, it doesn't apply.
* - 14CFR 1.1
Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
@bflynn, you're way over your ski tips on this. The OP's scenarios are private, Part 91 operations. If the plane crashed, the accident report would say that too. Anybody who owns a plane can hire a pilot to fly it under Part 91. Even if they only own a fraction of it. Or if it's a big jet. Selling transportation to passengers or freight forwarders goes under Part 119. So, too, certain other mentioned aircraft because of their size and the need for higher operating standards.
bflynn
Final Approach
So tell me why 119.1 doesn't apply. The only answer you have given is "it isn't a commercial operation" but it meets every definition of being required to be a commercial operation.
I know the owner of the airplane is not a commercial operator, THAT IS THE ISSUE. The owner doesn't get to say "oh, i'll just not be a commercial operation, so I don't have to be part 135". It is a revenue generating flight carrying passengers. That makes it a commercial operation.
I know the owner of the airplane is not a commercial operator, THAT IS THE ISSUE. The owner doesn't get to say "oh, i'll just not be a commercial operation, so I don't have to be part 135". It is a revenue generating flight carrying passengers. That makes it a commercial operation.
dtuuri
Final Approach
What "revenue"?
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Where is it stated that it's a revenue generating flight - that the owner is charging his passengers for the flight? You're adding to the question. Paying the pilot does not make it a commercial operation. Yes, charging the passengers would, but nowhere is it shown that he's doing that. But that wasn't the question.
bflynn
Final Approach
You are getting paid. That's revenue to you. You're an independent contractor, you should legally claim that money on your taxes. If it's over $600, there's an additional form your friend must legally give you.
Otherwise, why would anyone have a part 135 on demand operation ever?
dtuuri
Final Approach
The "friend" is paying. That's an expense.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
But you as the pilot aren't the operator! Ergo, not a revenue generating flight.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,169
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
The pilot is flying for hire. The pilot is not the operator (that's why it matters whether the pilot supplies the airplane or not). The aircraft is not operated for hire. These are different things. Just like a commercial pilot certificate and a commercial operator's certificate are different things.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
The key words here are "holding out to the public". An operating certificate (135,121,125) is required if that operation is holding out.
As previously stated, FAR 119 is clear on this.
As previously stated, FAR 119 is clear on this.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Doc Holliday
En-Route
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I was just reading that!
And looking up the legal definition of private carriage and public carriage, neither of these apply to the questions the DPE posed as relayed here.