Is it wise to do commercial without IFR?

Hippike

Hippike

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
212
Location
KSMO
Display Name
Display name:
Hippike
I have my PPL. I've been giving sightseeing tours to friends, family and splitting the costs equally between me and my pax. I thought maybe I should have them pay for all of it and for that, I need a CL.
I only do sightseeing trips during daylight in perfect VFR wx.
Am I better off getting my instrument ticket first, then onto CL? I know it would make me a safer pilot, but how smart would it be to skip IR and go for the CL only? (to be honest the IFR materials scare me a bit)
I haven't reached the magic 250 h of flight time (yet), but would be no issue to get a 2nd class, I'm healthy as a horse.

What do the highly esteemed members of POA think?
 
You likely need more than a commercial pilot certificate. I hope you know that there's more than just the pilot certificate requirement here. Even if you are using the 25 mile, local (read return to the point of takeoff with no stops), exemption for the operator certificate, you are still required to comply with the drug testing requirements, requirements for the LOA, and the equipement requirements (100 hour inspections, life jackets/raft, landing lights).

In addition, no instrument rating means no night flying either.
 
flyingron said:
You likely need more than a commercial pilot certificate. I hope you know that there's more than just the pilot certificate requirement here. Even if you are using the 25 mile, local (read return to the point of takeoff with no stops), exemption for the operator certificate, you are still required to comply with the drug testing requirements, requirements for the LOA, and the equipement requirements (100 hour inspections, life jackets/raft, landing lights).

In addition, no instrument rating means no night flying either.
Click to expand...

That, plus there likely will be a difference with insurance rates.
 
flyingron said:
I hope you know that there's more than just the pilot certificate requirement here.
Click to expand...
You're right, I was probably too hasty in my planning and did not think this thru properly. I just had this grand idea of flying around with my buddies and having them pay for all of it.

flyingron said:
using the 25 mile, local (read return to the point of takeoff with no stops)
Click to expand...
So going to a nearby airport (within 25mi) and stopping for lunch is out of the question here, right? Dang :(

flyingron said:
requirements for the LOA
Click to expand...
What's an LOA? o_O

flyingron said:
equipement requirements (100 hour inspections, life jackets/raft, landing lights)
Click to expand...
now I don't even dare to ask this (for fear of looking like a complete idiot) but using the school's rental plane for such activity is out of the question?
 
Letter Of Authorization from the FAA.
 
Hippike said:
now I don't even dare to ask this (for fear of looking like a complete idiot) but using the school's rental plane for such activity is out of the question?
Click to expand...

No you may not, your buddies may rent the plane and hire you to fly it with a commercial rating.
 
Not being highly esteemed,I would go for the IR then the commercial,the insurance companies will like it.
 
If you want a CPL for the sole purpose to fly friends around and have them pay....
I don’t think that’s wise.
 
Back in the day, when I was giving commercial checkrides, one of my questions during the oral was "When you get your commercial certificate, what will you be able to do with it?" Almost without exception, most applicants thought that they could start charging passengers for transportation. I thought then (and I still think), that training for the commercial should include Parts 119 and 135 and a stiff dose of reality.

Bob
 
I find that a useful way of looking at all this is to imagine what kind of business name / motto you would paint on the tail of your plane.

If it says: "Kath's Air Taxi Service... you buy it, we'll fly it!", then you're in Part 135 and you need to follow a whole separate list of very complicated and expensive requirements.
If it says: "Kath's Sightseeing... your local yokel!", then you can *maybe* do it under Part 91, but there are still some complicated requirements, as has been described above.
If it says: "Kath's Low and Slow... growing, towing and pipeline-patrolling", (so, things like towing banners, ag, scattering ashes, taking photos, etc.) then you're not being paid to transport anybody or anything anywhere, and you can do it with a CPL.
 
Hippike said:
So going to a nearby airport (within 25mi) and stopping for lunch is out of the question here, right? Dang :(
Click to expand...
Yep. You can't make stops.
What's an LOA? o_O
Click to expand...
Letter of Authroizaiton.
now I don't even dare to ask this (for fear of looking like a complete idiot) but using the school's rental plane for such activity is out of the question?
Click to expand...
You'll have to address that with the school, but I wouldn't be surprised if they told you no freaking way. The "iimited commercial" insurance a school usually has doesn't cover things beyond flight instruction.
 
Wow, I am awake now from my silly dreams :rolleyes:.

I appreciate all your responses. Not as easy/simple as I had thought.

Well, I will probably just stick to the "pay pro rata share" with my pax and pursue the dreaded IFR to make me a safe(r) pilot.

Cheerio ;D
 
Friends don't ask friends to pay for a ride in their plane. Period.

Forget the pro rata and all that mess.

Do you charge your friends for dinner at your place? Do you have a health certificate to sell food?

C'mon.
 
Skipping instrument and getting a commercial first is neither wise nor unwise. It depends on your personal circumstances. If you are far away from 250 hours it makes more economic sense to do the instrument first. If you have 250 or are reasonably close it doesn't matter what order you do them in. But a commercial with no instrument isn't too useful. And has been discussed by others, getting a commercial and charging your friends to take them flying is definitely not wise (or legal).
 
Ryanb said:
That depends. If they're female 'friends' than of course not. If they're guys than by all means, I'll have them pay their share. :)
Click to expand...

You must be sumthin' like a pimp. You could end up at the FSDO defending whether the fair value received was actually equal to or lesser than the pro rata share. Not all rides are valued the same.

[Note to the mods: This is as close to the edge as I plan to get in this thread]
 
I remembering reading the restrictions you have on a commercial lic and often wondered what the advantages are for a recreational flyer like myself?? I think the advanced training would be nice I just wouldn’t be able to really DO much more.
 
There's more to commercial piloting than carrying passengers for hire. The FAA rightfully has a lot of issues they want you to address before they let you carry people.
 
bobmrg said:
Back in the day, when I was giving commercial checkrides, one of my questions during the oral was "When you get your commercial certificate, what will you be able to do with it?" Almost without exception, most applicants thought that they could start charging passengers for transportation. I thought then (and I still think), that training for the commercial should include Parts 119 and 135 and a stiff dose of reality.

Bob
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged. This is why a PPL should read ahead. Unfortunately for me my DPE had to tell me this, after the check ride, because he asked me what I was going next. I said I'm going to build some time, get my commercial and start flying people around. He rolled his eyes. I think my CFII heard about that one.
 
Hippike said:
Wow, I am awake now from my silly dreams :rolleyes:.

I appreciate all your responses. Not as easy/simple as I had thought.

Well, I will probably just stick to the "pay pro rata share" with my pax and pursue the dreaded IFR to make me a safe(r) pilot.

Cheerio ;D
Click to expand...
Good choice. When you're done with the instrument, consider doing the commercial also. It probably won't take much more work once your instrument is done (I did my commercial check ride a month to the day after my instrument) but there's a lot of worth while learning in that training that will make you a better safer pilot even if you never do any professional flying.
 
dmspilot said:
Skipping instrument and getting a commercial first is neither wise nor unwise. It depends on your personal circumstances. If you are far away from 250 hours it makes more economic sense to do the instrument first. If you have 250 or are reasonably close it doesn't matter what order you do them in. But a commercial with no instrument isn't too useful. And has been discussed by others, getting a commercial and charging your friends to take them flying is definitely not wise (or legal).
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I have two friends (from long ago) that only wanted to fly for the local skydiving club. Nothing commercially beyond that. They both got the commercial with no IR, and were very happy and content with that arrangement.

So, I agree it’s all about personal circumstance.
 
kath said:
I find that a useful way of looking at all this is to imagine what kind of business name / motto you would paint on the tail of your plane.

If it says: "Kath's Air Taxi Service... you buy it, we'll fly it!", then you're in Part 135 and you need to follow a whole separate list of very complicated and expensive requirements.
If it says: "Kath's Sightseeing... your local yokel!", then you can *maybe* do it under Part 91, but there are still some complicated requirements, as has been described above.
If it says: "Kath's Low and Slow... growing, towing and pipeline-patrolling", (so, things like towing banners, ag, scattering ashes, taking photos, etc.) then you're not being paid to transport anybody or anything anywhere, and you can do it with a CPL.
Click to expand...

This should be in the commercial oral exam prep book.
 
kath said:
I find that a useful way of looking at all this is to imagine what kind of business name / motto you would paint on the tail of your plane.

If it says: "Kath's Air Taxi Service... you buy it, we'll fly it!", then you're in Part 135 and you need to follow a whole separate list of very complicated and expensive requirements.
If it says: "Kath's Sightseeing... your local yokel!", then you can *maybe* do it under Part 91, but there are still some complicated requirements, as has been described above.
If it says: "Kath's Low and Slow... growing, towing and pipeline-patrolling", (so, things like towing banners, ag, scattering ashes, taking photos, etc.) then you're not being paid to transport anybody or anything anywhere, and you can do it with a CPL.
Click to expand...
If a sign said “Kath’s low & slow”, I might think that is illegal in a different level.
 
James331 said:
Letter Of Authorization from the FAA.
Click to expand...

Sight seeing rides are not Part 135. But your aircraft will require 100 hour inspections, the sight seeing LOA from the FSDO and a drug testing program. 91.147.
 
Last edited:
Hippike said:
I have my PPL. I've been giving sightseeing tours to friends, family and splitting the costs equally between me and my pax. I thought maybe I should have them pay for all of it and for that, I need a CL.
I only do sightseeing trips during daylight in perfect VFR wx.
Am I better off getting my instrument ticket first, then onto CL? I know it would make me a safer pilot, but how smart would it be to skip IR and go for the CL only? (to be honest the IFR materials scare me a bit)
I haven't reached the magic 250 h of flight time (yet), but would be no issue to get a 2nd class, I'm healthy as a horse.

What do the highly esteemed members of POA think?
Click to expand...
Did you really mean "have them pay for all of it," or be allowed to pay for all of it? That being said, I dunno. Do you ever want to be able to charge beyond 50 miles or what ever the rules are for VFR only Commercial? I don't see no problem in getting your Commercial first and your IR later except that it may shake a few more coins out of your piggy bank in the long run.
 
The part that gave me pause was the “stop for lunch “ comment.

No bueno
 
kath said:
If it says: "Kath's Low and Slow... growing, towing and pipeline-patrolling", (so, things like towing banners, ag, scattering ashes, taking photos, etc.) then you're not being paid to transport anybody or anything anywhere, and you can do it with a CPL.
Click to expand...
Still wrong. If you're towing other than a glider, you need a waiver.
 
Grum.Man said:
No you may not, your buddies may rent the plane and hire you to fly it with a commercial rating.
Click to expand...
Be careful with that one as well ...... if you do that you may run afoul of some of the Part 135 regs that deal with commercial operators "holding themselves out" as a flying business ----- the airplane requires 100 hour inspections, landing lights, etc........
 
JonH said:
Guilty as charged. This is why a PPL should read ahead. Unfortunately for me my DPE had to tell me this, after the check ride, because he asked me what I was going next. I said I'm going to build some time, get my commercial and start flying people around. He rolled his eyes. I think my CFII heard about that one.
Click to expand...
The correct answer to that question is, "A commercial pilot certificate allows the holder to fly an airplane for compensation or hire." 'Nuff said.
 
You can spray crops, pipeline patrol and local sightseeing flights. If there are any opportunities for you in those areas, a limited commercial may make sense. But even the pipeline jobs require IR in case you have to reposition the aircraft in IMC.
 
davidgfern said:
Be careful with that one as well ...... if you do that you may run afoul of some of the Part 135 regs that deal with commercial operators "holding themselves out" as a flying business ----- the airplane requires 100 hour inspections, landing lights, etc........
Click to expand...
If someone brings you an airplane they own, lease or rent, and they want to hire you to fly them in it (i.e. you are not providing an airplane for them) that is pilot services and does not fall under part 135. Now getting an FBO to rent an airplane to someone who wants to pay their own employee pilot to fly them in it could be a challenge. But in the highly unlikely event you could find such a situation, it would not run you afoul of any 135 regs.
 
The simplistic way to look at a CPL is now you can work for an outfit that has an air carrier certificate.

Yes, more to it than that, but for most that sums it up.

PS- unlike a long time ago, the CP cert means very little to employers. It’s all about the ATP cert in today’s world.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
If someone brings you an airplane they own, lease or rent, and they want to hire you to fly them in it (i.e. you are not providing an airplane for them) that is pilot services and does not fall under part 135. Now getting an FBO to rent an airplane to someone who wants to pay their own employee pilot to fly them in it could be a challenge. But in the highly unlikely event you could find such a situation, it would not run you afoul of any 135 regs.
Click to expand...
The first part of your statement "If someone brings you an airplane they own, lease or rent, and they want to hire you to fly them in it (i.e. you are not providing an airplane for them) that is pilot services and does not fall under part 135" is true SO LONG AS the person who brings you the airplane does not pay for the flight. If the person that you are transporting pays for the flight the situation is less clear. A scenario which is problematic (from my understanding at least) is one where a commercial pilot is hired by a company to fly one of their company aircraft. This is clearly an example of "pilot services", and if the pilot carries passengers that are employees of the company (on a business trip, for example), the employees are not paying for the flight, so no violation of the rules occurs. However, if the company also had other "guests" on board the aircraft that paid the company for transporting them from Point A to Point B, that comes under the purview of Part 135.
 
davidgfern said:
The first part of your statement "If someone brings you an airplane they own, lease or rent, and they want to hire you to fly them in it (i.e. you are not providing an airplane for them) that is pilot services and does not fall under part 135" is true.
Click to expand...
I know its true. That's why I said it. The other part of what I wrote is true too.
 
OK, so let me ask the audience this:

With a regular private license, can I (for zero additional compensation) fly a colleague to a different city? In other words, I have a colleague who has to go to Atlanta every week from Jacksonville, Fl. Am I allowed to fly him up there, wait for his meeting to end then fly him back?
 
That's dicey. There is at least one official letter of interpretation that I'm aware of which makes it clear that making a flight which you would not ordinarily make in order to move a passenger to a destination of their choosing on their schedule for no compensation other than good will still qualifies as flying for compensation or hire.
 
Dr. Mike said:
OK, so let me ask the audience this:

With a regular private license, can I (for zero additional compensation) fly a colleague to a different city? In other words, I have a colleague who has to go to Atlanta every week from Jacksonville, Fl. Am I allowed to fly him up there, wait for his meeting to end then fly him back?
Click to expand...
As long as you can find a reason to go yourself, you are good. See JH’s post above.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
That's dicey. There is at least one official letter of interpretation that I'm aware of which makes it clear that making a flight which you would not ordinarily make in order to move a passenger to a destination of their choosing on their schedule for no compensation other than good will still qualifies as flying for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Personally, I have a problem with that, but it is what it is. I personally think that making the trip just for the enjoyment of the flight is justification enough, but I am not King.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top