Comm. Pilot Privileges

bflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Piloting a plane does not make one an operator. You need to own or otherwise provide an airplane for that. The owner of the aircraft is flying friends for free and paying a pilot so not only is there no revenue involved, there is the additional expense of paying the pilot on top of it.

Otherwise, why would anyone have a part 135 on demand operation ever?
Click to expand...
Because that is what the regulations require if you are going to own and operate an aircraft and charge the public a fee to fly them in it to the destination of their choosing on the schedule of their choosing. But that isn't the case when the owner of an airplane wants to fly his or her friends at no charge to them and pay a pilot to fly the plane. This doesn't seem like it should be all that tough to understand. :confused2:
 
Doc Holliday said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually 135 can apply to operations that do not hold out. That would be the non common carriage, which is carriage for hire that doesn't hold out to the public. AD 120-12A is more than a bit outdated.

I can see both sides - clearly a pilot can be hired to fly an airplane in a non commercial operation, but if a pilot is being hired for the purpose of flying people around, why is that not an on demand air taxi?

BTW, I haven't just been reading and making this up. Lots of legal opinion research.

Wagner: A contract between a commercial pilot and his company to move company goods constitutes non common carriage. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2010/Wagner - (2010) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Krontje: non common carriage can still call under 119.1. There is a good deal of twisty law involved in the line, but someone stated that holding out is required for 119.1 and that's not true. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Kroontje - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Mills: Reminds us that private carriage is usually long term, not a on off event: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2011/Mills-DFWFSDO - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Howell-Patriots: Although phrased as a 61.113 question, the discussion wanders into 61.133 realm on the question of what constitutes compensation.

Cooling is a weird one - it basically states that an aircraft owned by a LLC club falls into 119.1 certification requirements because a LLC corporation is not the same as a person. Even though it's a "club" where members pay for operations, it's a commercial operation. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2017/Cooling - (2017) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Bonilla; reinforces that transporting a passenger for hire requires 135 certification. It also states that carriage can be common or noncommon for the exception tasks in 119.1(e). https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2011/Bonilla - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Going back to the DPE - what I come back with is that because it's a one time request, it's an on demand taxi operation. A 135 cert is required by someone before the pilot can fly it. The consistent rule is that a flight for compensation or hire requires 135 certification.

"Duck" theory. If you weren't friends and a person asked you to fly them, would it quack?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Piloting a plane does not make one an operator. You need to own or otherwise provide an airplane for that. The owner of the aircraft is flying friends for free and paying a pilot so not only is there no revenue involved, there is the additional expense of paying the pilot on top of it.

Because that is what the regulations require if you are going to own and operate an aircraft and charge the public a fee to fly them in it to the destination of their choosing on the schedule of their choosing. But that isn't the case when the owner of an airplane wants to fly his or her friends at no charge to them and pay a pilot to fly the plane. This doesn't seem like it should be all that tough to understand. :confused2:
Click to expand...

No, it does not. But someone will be the operator and I don't think it's your friend. Regardless, as a commercial pilot, you need to recognize when something requires a commercial operation certification. A commercial pilot is forbidden from flying in a situation where there should be a certification but isn't one. It is an on demand operation as defined in 110.1 (1)(iii) - Noncommon or private carriage operations conducted 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.

Bottom line, carriage is happening for compensation or hire.

Is suspect that if we get more information on the scenario, that will clear it up. This seems to land right on the line where a lot of fussy law weaves back and forth across the line and the answer depends on what you hear.
 
bflynn said:
Actually 135 can apply to operations that do not hold out. That would be the non common carriage, which is carriage for hire that doesn't hold out to the public. AD 120-12A is more than a bit outdated.
Click to expand...

So expand on that, and cite your reference.
 
bflynn said:
Actually 135 can apply to operations that do not hold out. That would be the non common carriage, which is carriage for hire that doesn't hold out to the public. AD 120-12A is more than a bit outdated.

I can see both sides - clearly a pilot can be hired to fly an airplane in a non commercial operation, but if a pilot is being hired for the purpose of flying people around, why is that not an on demand air taxi?

BTW, I haven't just been reading and making this up. Lots of legal opinion research.

Wagner: A contract between a commercial pilot and his company to move company goods constitutes non common carriage. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2010/Wagner - (2010) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Krontje: non common carriage can still call under 119.1. There is a good deal of twisty law involved in the line, but someone stated that holding out is required for 119.1 and that's not true. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Kroontje - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Mills: Reminds us that private carriage is usually long term, not a on off event: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2011/Mills-DFWFSDO - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Howell-Patriots: Although phrased as a 61.113 question, the discussion wanders into 61.133 realm on the question of what constitutes compensation.

Cooling is a weird one - it basically states that an aircraft owned by a LLC club falls into 119.1 certification requirements because a LLC corporation is not the same as a person. Even though it's a "club" where members pay for operations, it's a commercial operation. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2017/Cooling - (2017) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Bonilla; reinforces that transporting a passenger for hire requires 135 certification. It also states that carriage can be common or noncommon for the exception tasks in 119.1(e). https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2011/Bonilla - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Going back to the DPE - what I come back with is that because it's a one time request, it's an on demand taxi operation. A 135 cert is required by someone before the pilot can fly it. The consistent rule is that a flight for compensation or hire requires 135 certification.

"Duck" theory. If you weren't friends and a person asked you to fly them, would it quack?
Click to expand...

Let's come at this another way...

If Joe owns a plane and says to his buddies, "hey let's go to Traverse City in my plane" does that trip the requirement to need a 135 certificate? That is the relationship that determines whether it's needed or not, and in this case it does not. The hiring of a pilot doesn't change the non-need for a certificate.

Now if a friend of Joe's friends comes to Joe and says "I need you to fly me to Traverse City next weekend and here's $1000" now Joe needs a 135 certificate - or at least a 119 certificate. But again hiring a pilot to do the flight does not change whether or not Joe needed a certificate.
 
bflynn said:
No, it does not. But someone will be the operator and I don't think it's your friend. Regardless, as a commercial pilot, you need to recognize when something requires a commercial operation certification. A commercial pilot is forbidden from flying in a situation where there should be a certification but isn't one. It is an on demand operation as defined in 110.1 (1)(iii) - Noncommon or private carriage operations conducted 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.

Bottom line, carriage is happening for compensation or hire.

Is suspect that if we get more information on the scenario, that will clear it up. This seems to land right on the line where a lot of fussy law weaves back and forth across the line and the answer depends on what you hear.
Click to expand...

So, according to your logic, if a company owns an aircraft to use in their business (Part 91) and pays a pilot to operate it for them, then that compensation to the pilot equals compensation and thus requires an air operating certificate(135)?
 
How is the second question any different than running checks back in the day?
 
@Robert Wang

I guess you are beginning to see how complicated some folks can make relatively simple concepts. Seems as if your DPE has the same beliefs as a couple of folks on here do. He’s still wrong. @Doc Holliday and @EdFred have pretty much nailed it and said all that needs to be said. Below are links to some chief Counsel opinions on some subjects discussed in the thread. Hopefully they will help you though I believe that since you were right and your DPE was wrong that you might just want to send them to him.



https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...1990/Ferris - (1990) Legal Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or... Law Office - (2016) Legal Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...994/Bennett - (1994) Legal Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...y By Knight - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Good luck on your retake.
 
bflynn said:
BTW, I haven't just been reading and making this up. Lots of legal opinion research.

Wagner: A contract between a commercial pilot and his company to move company goods constitutes non common carriage. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2010/Wagner - (2010) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
You only need to get a few sentences into the second paragraph on this one. Pilot wants to rent a bonanza and fly it for the company and have the company pay for it. Pilot provides the airplane=holding out. Pilot providing the airplane is not the scenario we're discussing.

Krontje: non common carriage can still call under 119.1. There is a good deal of twisty law involved in the line, but someone stated that holding out is required for 119.1 and that's not true. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Kroontje - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
They want to sell share of plane to 'owners' but those owners must use the pilots the company provides. So the company that is providing the airplane for their customer is also providing the pilot. That's going to be holding out and again, not at all the scenario being discussed here.

The entity that provides the airplane is a big factor in whether or not the operation is a 135 op. Its not the only factor but its a big factor.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
No, it does not. But someone will be the operator and I don't think it's your friend. Regardless, as a commercial pilot, you need to recognize when something requires a commercial operation certification. A commercial pilot is forbidden from flying in a situation where there should be a certification but isn't one. It is an on demand operation as defined in 110.1 (1)(iii) - Noncommon or private carriage operations conducted 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.
Click to expand...

There is no 110.1 (1)(iii), your citation doesn't even make sense. Try again.

bflynn said:
Bottom line, carriage is happening for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't.

You are not a commercial pilot, you are not instrument rated, you are (again) way beyond your area of expertise. You need to stop, literally everything you post is BS. Just like this tutorial you gave on how an ILS should be flown: "You descend to the decision height, then fly at that height until you reach the MAP and determine if you can see the airport."
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
There is no 110.1 (1)(iii), your citation doesn't even make sense. Try again.



No, there isn't.

You are not a commercial pilot, you are not instrument rated, you are (again) way beyond your area of expertise. You need to stop, literally everything you post is BS. Just like this tutorial you gave on how an ILS should be flown: "You descend to the decision height, then fly at that height until you reach the MAP and determine if you can see the airport."

You are a troll.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he's a troll. Just not as versed as others with a bit of experience. I was there once, too.
 
bflynn said:
Actually 135 can apply to operations that do not hold out. That would be the non common carriage, which is carriage for hire that doesn't hold out to the public. AD 120-12A is more than a bit outdated.

I can see both sides - clearly a pilot can be hired to fly an airplane in a non commercial operation, but if a pilot is being hired for the purpose of flying people around, why is that not an on demand air taxi?

BTW, I haven't just been reading and making this up. Lots of legal opinion research.

Wagner: A contract between a commercial pilot and his company to move company goods constitutes non common carriage. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2010/Wagner - (2010) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
Pilot provides the airplane...not the same as this.
Krontje: non common carriage can still call under 119.1. There is a good deal of twisty law involved in the line, but someone stated that holding out is required for 119.1 and that's not true. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2014/Kroontje - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
Management company determines who can fly the airplane, not the owner. Not the same as this.

Mills: Reminds us that private carriage is usually long term, not a on off event: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2011/Mills-DFWFSDO - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...
Pilots and airplanes provided by the operator...company being flown doesn’t control either. Not the same as this.

Cooling is a weird one - it basically states that an aircraft owned by a LLC club falls into 119.1 certification requirements because a LLC corporation is not the same as a person. Even though it's a "club" where members pay for operations, it's a commercial operation. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2017/Cooling - (2017) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Bonilla; reinforces that transporting a passenger for hire requires 135 certification. It also states that carriage can be common or noncommon for the exception tasks in 119.1(e). https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2011/Bonilla - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Going back to the DPE - what I come back with is that because it's a one time request, it's an on demand taxi operation. A 135 cert is required by someone before the pilot can fly it. The consistent rule is that a flight for compensation or hire requires 135 certification.

"Duck" theory. If you weren't friends and a person asked you to fly them, would it quack?
Click to expand...

What you don’t seem to be getting is that it’s only considered a commercial operation if the pilot and airplane are provided by the same entity. That entity would be a commercial operator, and therefore would be required to have an operating certificate under Part 119, along with all the trappings that come with it. A pilot being paid to fly somebody else’s airplane does not make him a commercial operator.

Just looking at the first three examples, two of them (1st & 3rd) are the pilot and/or his company providing the airplane-a commercial operation.

The second example is the operator having some operational control over the airplane (you may own the airplane, but I say who the pilots are), which again makes that operator a commercial operator requiring a certificate.

None of these are an owner or someone else with operational control over the airplane hiring whomever they please to fly the airplane, which is the way the OP’s scenarios are presented.
 
SkyDog58 said:
@Robert Wang

I guess you are beginning to see how complicated some folks can make relatively simple concepts. Seems as if your DPE has the same beliefs as a couple of folks on here do. He’s still wrong. @Doc Holliday and @EdFred have pretty much nailed it and said all that needs to be said. Below are links to some chief Counsel opinions on some subjects discussed in the thread. Hopefully they will help you though I believe that since you were right and your DPE was wrong that you might just want to send them to him.



https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/1990/Ferris - (1990) Legal Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2016/Lowenstein-Lowenstein Law Office - (2016) Legal Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/1994/Bennett - (1994) Legal Interpretation.pdf


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2015/Greenwood-Fly By Knight - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Good luck on your retake.
Click to expand...


yeah, definitely didnt expect this many replies to 2 questions. And thanks for the links, ill check them out
 
We're obviously not hearing the same situation.

When people start calling me names, I'm done. Enjoy the cleanup.
 
Ok, guess I'm not out yet. Good question. I've been all over trying to pin down what exactly bothers me, but I think this is the core of it.

An airplane is being rented to fly some people for dinner. The travel is not incidental to the flight, transport is the purpose of renting it. It quacks like a charter flight.

Who will be the pilot isn't really part of what bothers me. I've said several times that it isn't the pilot, it's the operation. If the guy owns the airplane, clearly no problem.
 
bflynn said:
Ok, guess I'm not out yet. Good question. I've been all over trying to pin down what exactly bothers me, but I think this is the core of it.

An airplane is being rented to fly some people for dinner. The travel is not incidental to the flight, transport is the purpose of renting it. It quacks like a charter flight.

Who will be the pilot isn't really part of what bothers me. I've said several times that it isn't the pilot, it's the operation. If the guy owns the airplane, clearly no problem.
Click to expand...

Wait....so any plane rental that involves taking passengers anywhere is now a charter flight? If I go to the FBO, rent a plane, take myself and 2 friends for dinner (or a fly-in), that's a charter operation? Is that what is being implied?
 
bflynn said:
Ok, guess I'm not out yet. Good question. I've been all over trying to pin down what exactly bothers me, but I think this is the core of it.

An airplane is being rented to fly some people for dinner. The travel is not incidental to the flight, transport is the purpose of renting it. It quacks like a charter flight.

Who will be the pilot isn't really part of what bothers me. I've said several times that it isn't the pilot, it's the operation. If the guy owns the airplane, clearly no problem.
Click to expand...
Renting the airplane is the same as owning it for purposes of determining an air carrier operation. If the pilot is renting it, yes, but to a charter. But if the person hiring the pilot is renting the airplane separately (the renter gets to pick the pilot...the person/company renting the airplane to him has no say in that) as indicated by the OP, it’s not.

Now, let’s say there was a slight nuance to the scenario that the OP didn’t present...the friend says, “I’ll put the airplane you rent to take my wife and me to dinner on my credit card, and pay you to fly it,” that’s a charter because the airplane wouldn’t be available without that pilot.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Renting the airplane is the same as owning it for purposes of determining an air carrier operation. If the pilot is renting it, yes, but to a charter. But if the person hiring the pilot is renting the airplane separately (the renter gets to pick the pilot...the person/company renting the airplane to him has no say in that) as indicated by the OP, it’s not.

Now, let’s say there was a slight nuance to the scenario that the OP didn’t present...the friend says, “I’ll put the airplane you rent to take my wife and me to dinner on my credit card, and pay you to fly it,” that’s a charter because the airplane wouldn’t be available without that pilot.
Click to expand...

But even in that scenario, the FAA isn't going to do much, if anything, if they've known each other for 20 years.
 
EdFred said:
But even in that scenario, the FAA isn't going to do much, if anything, if they've known each other for 20 years.
Click to expand...

This is true.

The FAA is more interested in the "134 1/2" operators, those who provide a plane and a pilot and hold out to the public for transportation.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how one arrives at the conclusion that renting an airplane and taking passengers is automatically a 135 operation? One of my first flights after getting private was renting a PA28-140 and flying my dad to Burlington, WI for a friend's graduation. I don't remember if he chipped in for fuel or not. I didn't know I was running a charter operation every time I rented and took someone with me.
 
Let's throw a monkey wrench in the works:

Now you own a business with multiple locations, and you have employees that you need to move around from location to location. So, you buy a nice airplane, and put it in a separate LLC so that if it crashes, they don't take your factory to make plaintiffs' attorneys even more rich. Your LLC then hires a pilot (after all, you don't want your business on the hook under the doctrine of respondeat superior; you want your LLC to keep that risk) to fly your business' employees. The LLC has no source of income, so your business pays the expenses. Ok?
 
ZtIM69b.png
 
PPC1052 said:
Let's throw a monkey wrench in the works:

Now you own a business with multiple locations, and you have employees that you need to move around from location to location. So, you buy a nice airplane, and put it in a separate LLC so that if it crashes, they don't take your factory to make plaintiffs' attorneys even more rich. Your LLC then hires a pilot (after all, you don't want your business on the hook under the doctrine of respondeat superior; you want your LLC to keep that risk) to fly your business' employees. The LLC has no source of income, so your business pays the expenses. Ok?
Click to expand...

That's still a part 91 operation.
 
PPC1052 said:
Let's throw a monkey wrench in the works:

Now you own a business with multiple locations, and you have employees that you need to move around from location to location. So, you buy a nice airplane, and put it in a separate LLC so that if it crashes, they don't take your factory to make plaintiffs' attorneys even more rich. Your LLC then hires a pilot (after all, you don't want your business on the hook under the doctrine of respondeat superior; you want your LLC to keep that risk) to fly your business' employees. The LLC has no source of income, so your business pays the expenses. Ok?
Click to expand...

https://www.universalweather.com/bl...-own-and-operate-your-aircraft-is-a-bad-idea/
 
EdFred said:
I'm still trying to figure out how one arrives at the conclusion that renting an airplane and taking passengers is automatically a 135 operation? One of my first flights after getting private was renting a PA28-140 and flying my dad to Burlington, WI for a friend's graduation. I don't remember if he chipped in for fuel or not. I didn't know I was running a charter operation every time I rented and took someone with me.
Click to expand...
Who is coming to that conclusion besides you?
 
You all act like part 91 commercial ops don’t exist. :)

And providing flight instruction obviously isn’t one.
 
bflynn said:
Ok, guess I'm not out yet. Good question. I've been all over trying to pin down what exactly bothers me, but I think this is the core of it.

An airplane is being rented to fly some people for dinner. The travel is not incidental to the flight, transport is the purpose of renting it. It quacks like a charter flight.

Who will be the pilot isn't really part of what bothers me. I've said several times that it isn't the pilot, it's the operation. If the guy owns the airplane, clearly no problem.
Click to expand...
Well now you're presenting a completely different scenario. But since you brought it up, travel being incidental to the flight is not a concept the FAA uses as a litmus test for anything ever.

A flight being incidental to a business trip is something the FAA uses for some things so perhaps that's what you were getting at? If so, let's look at how the FAA applies this concept. A plane is being rented to fly some people to dinner. You don't specify who is renting the plane nor who is flying it nor how the expense of the plane is being handled. If its a private pilot renting the plane and using it to fly themselves and some friends to dinner, then the flight is incidental to the trip. In other words, the pilot could drive the friends to dinner so the use of the plane is not a required component of the trip. That private pilot can also make each friend pay a pro-rata share of the cost of renting the plane. Completely legal.

But now lets say it not a private pilot renting a plane to fly some friends to that dinner. Lets say its Barney Bigbucks who wants to impress his two college age companions by flying them to a city 200 miles away for dinner. Only problem is Barney Bigbucks isn't a pilot nor does he own a plane. So he calls his Irish commercial pilot buddy Pete O'Tube and says you get a plane and I'll pay for it and I'll pay you $500 to fly me and the girls to the city for dinner.

If Pete takes the deal and goes and rents the plane, Pete is in violation. If Pete says nope can't do it, but if you buy or rent an airplane yourself, then I'm your man, Pete is now legal. Again as has been stated previously, its unlikely any FBO will rent a plane to Barney and let him bring his own pilot to fly it. But if Barney could find such an FBO, paying Pete to fly him in it would be perfectly legal.

Or what would be more likely, if Barney goes out and buys an airplane, it would be perfectly legal for Barney to pay Pete to fly him in it anytime he wanted anywhere he wanted.
 
I asked one of the check pilots at my flight school regarding the 2 questions the DPE presented me and this was his response:

1st scenario: illegal - The only time when the operation is not considered for hire is when your friend either owns the plane or is leasing the plane. A short term (1-2 days) RENTAL does not make him the owner/operator.

2nd scenario: legal - your friends owns the plane this time and is hiring you as his personal pilot to fly his legal document. This is a part 91 operation.

However, during the checkride, the DPE said both scenarios are illegal.
 
Robert Wang said:
I asked one of the check pilots at my flight school regarding the 2 questions the DPE presented me and this was his response:

1st scenario: illegal - The only time when the operation is not considered for hire is when your friend either owns the plane or is leasing the plane. A short term (1-2 days) RENTAL does not make him the owner/operator.

2nd scenario: legal - your friends owns the plane this time and is hiring you as his personal pilot to fly his legal document. This is a part 91 operation.

However, during the checkride, the DPE said both scenarios are illegal.
Click to expand...

Your check pilot is wrong on the 1st scenario as well. Ask your check pilot, what happens if he borrows his hangar mate's plane and 'rents' it for $0. He's still not the owner, but it still isn't a 135 operation. By your check pilots logic, ferry pilot operations could be part 135, and they aren't
 
Robert Wang said:
i did fail but there were other topics that were justified that he failed me on. I just wanted to figure out why i missed the 2 scenarios he gave me for privileges and limitations. especially the second scenario, where im not carrying persons but just a legal document and I wasn't providing the plane.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of scenario 2, "just a legal document" does not change (most of*) the applicable FARs. While the DPE probably should have done a better job explaining the why it was wrong, if you reasoned that it was "just a legal document and not passengers" then you showed a lack of understanding of the FARs and how they apply to the scenario.

This is a prime example of why so many people recommend short concise answers, yes/no when you can get away with it and to only elaborate if prompted further.

Your solution was spot on. Your justification sounds like it may have been lacking. Unlike common core math where only your justification/reasoning/process matters or "old school math" where arguably only the solution matters, in aviation both the answer and the justification/reasoning matter and you need to be able to provide both.

*I say most of because there other FARs regarding currency, distances flown at night without a instrument rating and other things that differ for passengers vs cargo but I would argue those FARs are not applicable until you first meet the minimum legal requirement to conduct the flight.

Robert Wang said:
I asked one of the check pilots at my flight school regarding the 2 questions the DPE presented me and this was his response:

1st scenario: illegal - The only time when the operation is not considered for hire is when your friend either owns the plane or is leasing the plane. A short term (1-2 days) RENTAL does not make him the owner/operator.

2nd scenario: legal - your friends owns the plane this time and is hiring you as his personal pilot to fly his legal document. This is a part 91 operation.

However, during the checkride, the DPE said both scenarios are illegal.
Click to expand...

I had 2 very similar questions to the one's posed in my commercial checkride a few months ago and my DPE accepted legal for both operations though he did ask follow-on questions which like previously stated, showed I knew how to apply the regs. Like the rental question was multi-part with different scenarios (I rent, my friend rents, etc)
 
apr911 said:
For the purposes of scenario 2, "just a legal document" does not change (most of*) the applicable FARs. While the DPE probably should have done a better job explaining the why it was wrong, if you reasoned that it was "just a legal document and not passengers" then you showed a lack of understanding of the FARs and how they apply to the scenario.

This is a prime example of why so many people recommend short concise answers, yes/no when you can get away with it and to only elaborate if prompted further.

Your solution was spot on. Your justification sounds like it may have been lacking. Unlike common core math where only your justification/reasoning/process matters or "old school math" where arguably only the solution matters, in aviation both the answer and the justification/reasoning matter and you need to be able to provide both.

*I say most of because there other FARs regarding currency, distances flown at night without a instrument rating and other things that differ for passengers vs cargo but I would argue those FARs are not applicable until you first meet the minimum legal requirement to conduct the flight.



I had 2 very similar questions to the one's posed in my commercial checkride a few months ago and my DPE accepted legal for both operations though he did ask follow-on questions which like previously stated, showed I knew how to apply the regs. Like the rental question was multi-part with different scenarios (I rent, my friend rents, etc)
Click to expand...


So what would be a better explanation to scenario 2? I would say its legal because the friend is the owner/operator of the plane and no one else (a third party) is paying for the legal document to be on board.
 
Robert Wang said:
So what would be a better explanation to scenario 2? I would say its legal because the friend is the owner/operator of the plane and no one else (a third party) is paying for the legal document to be on board.
Click to expand...
That's the part we don't know because AFAWK the DPE never explained what he thought was improper.

Actually, I have a feeling he's trying to point out that 91.501(b) doesn't apply to light aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Check with your local FSDO. Someone in an earlier reply mentioned air taxi which is the operative phrase here.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's the part we don't know because AFAWK the DPE never explained what he thought was improper.

Actually, I have a feeling he's trying to point out that 91.501(b) doesn't apply to light aircraft.
Click to expand...
It would be a very indirect way to point that out...
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top