MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
You're providing the airplane and the pilot for air transportation...that requires an air carrier certificate.
But if he hires you for a local flight to take pictures, that's allowed under 119.1(e)(4)
CPL stuff: Private, Non-common, common carriage ... oof
- Thread starter CerroTorre
- Start date
But if he hires you for a local flight to take pictures, that's allowed under 119.1(e)(4)
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
If you are landing somewhere other than the point of origin - ie, the beach - Then no, you must pay at least your share or you are providing air transportation for compensation or hire and the photos are irrelevant. Getting to this in the CFRs is not particularly straightforward, but if you start with 14 CFR 119.1(a)(1) and the definitions of air carrier and air transportation from 1.1, common and noncommon/private carriage from 110.2 and AC 120-12A then it probably still won't make sense.
If you land back at the same airport, then it's an aerial photography flight that is exempted from the need to have an air carrier certificate by 14 CFR 119.1(e)(4)(iii) as an aerial work operation.
IMO, no. You would essentially be flying the partner's aircraft as a hired pilot. Just make sure that said partner is allowed to choose other pilots besides you, or you may find that the FAA says you're flying your half of the aircraft as an air carrier.
No. The photography exception in 119.1 is sort of like the air tour one. Takeoff and landing at the same airport with no landings at another.
That’s aside from the FAA saying your claim it was just a photo flight is a sham.
On flying the co-owner, probably ok since the co-owner has operational control. But small fact changes can change the result.
bflynn
Final Approach
This came back around as a necro, but as I read through it for refresh, I didn't see something that I thought I knew. You can be hired as a pilot, but you have to understand the operation too, right? If you're a commercial pilot that is hired for an operation which should be 119/135 but isn't, you aren't off the hook. You're supposed to be able to recognize when that happens and call it out.
At least that's my understanding and where the "gotcha" questions seem to come from. Your friend wants you to take his plane and fly his wife somewhere, it's ok. Your friend wants you to take his plane and deliver a business package to a client when you drop his wife off, now you're a cargo carrier.
Or am I overthinking it?
At least that's my understanding and where the "gotcha" questions seem to come from. Your friend wants you to take his plane and fly his wife somewhere, it's ok. Your friend wants you to take his plane and deliver a business package to a client when you drop his wife off, now you're a cargo carrier.
Or am I overthinking it?
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
To some degree, yes.
If you’re flying your friend’s airplane for hire, it doesn’t matter whether it’s people or cargo, as long as it’s his people or cargo. Taking someone else’s cargo crosses the 135 line.
You are correct. One of the collateral consequences of the FAA's current enforcement focus on illegal charter is looking at the pilot in those types of situations and requiring the pilot to understand that, for example, a dry lease in name is really wet. In those cases, the pilot's certificate is in jeopardy.
Pilot responsibility and red flags to look for is one of the standard topics of discussion in the FAA's illegal charter webinars. I've I been involved in two FAA-sponsored webinars on the topic and will probably be presenting another this coming year.)
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ooooh, that last one.
Having been part of a mixed 91/135 operation, I was definitely glad I never got ramp checked even though we did everything 100% legally. It was kind of a fractional, but not in the 91K sense. If someone was on board their own airplane it was 91, if someone was on another airplane in the fleet it was 135. They probably didn't understand the differences in operational control, and could have thought it was still theirs even on a 135 leg. I guess that's a lot better than having them think we had operational control on a 91 leg.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’ve had the company lease an airplane…I was always afraid the passengers would call it a charter within earshot of the Feds.
On the subject of the pilot’s responsibility to know what’s happening…
On September 25, 2024, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision which discusses illegal charter operations. It reaffirms that "holding out" can be based on reputation alone, that "compensation" does not mean "profit," and that the pilot not knowing the company they work for is setting up improper flights may not be a defense. Bonnet v. FAA
Bonnet v. FAA
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,919
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
A commercial pilot (really, any certificated pilot) is supposed to have a working understanding of the regulations, whereas Pop-Pop's Muffler Emporium can't be expected to know that their corporate plane needs more than a pilot to run a charter. It makes sense to require certificated pilots not to turn a blind eye to the red flags of an illegal charter.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Red flags are fortunately "red." "Here's what to say if someone from the FAA asks" would probably get even Pop-Pop to raise his eyebrows. But when discussing recognizing illegal charter we're also potentially talking about realizing that a dry lease is actually wet (there may be yellow flags there), or that the corporate jet is carrying passengers in circumstances beyond those permitted by 91.501(b)(9) (where there may be no flags at all). In the webinar we go through some scenarios in which people - mostly pilots - are very surprised at the regulatory analysis.
Fortunately, as with other cases, the FAA tends to treat the iffy ones under the Compliance Program. Or, as an ASI once told me while we were discussing a potential enforcement issue in this area, "this stuff is really complicated," which led him to handle it informally.
Last edited: