Is this 134.5 ?

Timbeck2 said:
Nor do I. You responded with the Buddy Holly incident as a precedent for the regulation.
Click to expand...
If you find the actual basis for the regulation, you’ll probably still find dead people. I don’t know when Part 135 originated, but the Buddy Holly accident resulted in a lot of changes.
 
Often times, the regulations are written in blood.

The idea behind Part 121 or 135 is that the general public knows bupkis about aviation safety, and has no way to effectively protect themselves from bad operators. Those regulations are designed to protect John Q. Public by requiring training, inspections and oversight to make their journey safer. Just compare the safety stats of Part 91 versus 121 or 135.

I'm not saying the regs are perfect, or that they can't be overly restrictive or just plain dumb, but they exist to protect the public.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you find the actual basis for the regulation, you’ll probably still find dead people. I don’t know when Part 135 originated, but the Buddy Holly accident resulted in a lot of changes.
Click to expand...

As a controller I know this all too well. Everything we say and how, when and why we say it is as a result of dead people.
 
dtuuri said:
If the lessee can't choose to fly illegally, does the lessee actually have "operational control"? Seems to me, with true operational control, a lessee could hire an unqualified pilot or take off over gross or make a drug run and risk suffering the consequences. If the dry lease doesn't allow that, I'd say it's a sham. I'm betting you will miss my point.
Click to expand...
You won that bet.
 
Timbeck2 said:
91.119

If you are arguing that the reg states "when necessary for take off..." we both know that it isn't.
Click to expand...
But it doesn’t give specific guidance as to how much clearance is necessary...if I comply with the required climb gradient off of runway 32 at St. Paul, I will clear the building by substantially less than the 91.119 requirement.

And “when necessary for takeoff” isn’t clearly defined. I could argue that if I’m going to take off, I’m going to have to clear the building by mere inches. Therefore it’s necessary, and the reg doesn’t apply.

Again, that is why you can’t have your friends pay you to take them somewhere...pilots trying to manufacture loopholes to do things they aren’t qualified or authorized to do.
 
Having flown for people leasing their airplane it is easy to make mistakes and find oneself non compliant. I made a call to the FSDO and had a chat to make sure I understood the landscape. I found the biggest issue is showing operational control of the aircraft is in fact with the folks riding in the back. There can’t be anyone from the aircraft management side calling the shots. Not with aircraft operations or crew management. It all has to be documented in a manner that holds up under scrutiny and is legitimate. This requires the passengers to be more knowledgeable than just someone that chartered the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I will stipulate they gray area on building clearance. So that's it then, the required climb gradient off of runway 32 at St. Paul is the reason friends can't pay a pilot to take them somewhere. :)

Now I know.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I will stipulate they gray area on building clearance. So that's it then, the required climb gradient off of runway 32 at St. Paul is the reason friends can't pay a pilot to take them somewhere. :)

Now I know.
Click to expand...
Well, that and the fact that the FAA psychic once looked into the fire and said, ya know, there’s gonna be this guy named Timbeck2 who’s going to learn to fly in about 60 years...we better start laying the groundwork for regs and interpretations that’ll really get under his skin.
:D
 
MauleSkinner said:
Well, that and the fact that the FAA psychic once looked into the fire and said, ya know, there’s gonna be this guy named Timbeck2 who’s going to learn to fly in about 60 years...we better start laying the groundwork for regs and interpretations that’ll really get under his skin.
:D
Click to expand...

I was hoping for an explanation that involved some airline complaining to the FAA about pilots getting money from passengers was eating into their profits. I understand the regulations, what I don't understand is what led to the one pertaining to private pilots taking money from friends for a flight (pro rata...yada yada) is illegal.
Not under my skin
Not looking for a loophole
Not taking money from friends for a flight
Just a simple question with a seemingly esoteric answer.

BTW - thanks for the civil discussion, seriously. So many of these turn into ****ing contests.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I was hoping for an explanation that involved some airline complaining to the FAA about pilots getting money from passengers was eating into their profits. I understand the regulations, what I don't understand is what led to the one pertaining to private pilots taking money from friends for a flight (pro rata...yada yada) is illegal.
Not under my skin
Not looking for a loophole
Not taking money from friends for a flight
Just a simple question with a seemingly esoteric answer.

BTW - thanks for the civil discussion, seriously. So many of these turn into ****ing contests.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that the airlines complaining about lost profits was ever a part of it, but I wasn’t flying (and possibly not born) when the regs were written. I can only go by what I’m told by “the FAA”.

and you’re welcome. We all know I can **** higher than anyone else, so I have nothing to prove. ;)
 
FWIW, the company posted minimum pilot qualifications. As long as the pilot meets those requirements, they can fly it. That area seems ok, but I'm not an aviation attorney.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
FWIW, the company posted minimum pilot qualifications. As long as the pilot meets those requirements, they can fly it. That area seems ok, but I'm not an aviation attorney.
Click to expand...

I dunno, it sounds a whole lot like my flying club.

I lease the plane.
I provide the pilot
I buy the gas
I even have to meet minimum pilot qualifications.

Where does the ad suggest that anyone is charging revenue for the flight? They're advertising for renting airplanes.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I was hoping for an explanation that involved some airline complaining to the FAA about pilots getting money from passengers was eating into their profits. I understand the regulations, what I don't understand is what led to the one pertaining to private pilots taking money from friends for a flight (pro rata...yada yada) is illegal.
Click to expand...
If it helps, the most common source of an investigation into a Part 134.5 operation is a complaint from a Part 135 operator.
 
bflynn said:
it sounds a whole lot like my flying club.
Click to expand...
FYI: it's vaguely similar but when you get into large aircraft (12500+) which Dupage Av offers there is a whole separate Part 91 regulation that defines the leasing and documentation requirements which can be complex at times. So it's not like you can walk in one day and fly away as it takes time to execute the lease, complete the FAA notifications, etc.
 
So... if the customer cuts separate checks for the plane, the pilot, and the fuel, you can basically run charter without having a 135 cert?

That’s what it seems like here. I’ll bet most customers don’t have a Falcon 50 pilot on speed dial.No doubt they’re looking for “pilot recommendations” from the FBO renting the jet...
 
dans2992 said:
I’ll bet most customers don’t have a Falcon 50 pilot on speed dial.
Click to expand...
Well if you don't, I doubt you'll be allowed to lease the aircraft since you're required to mail a copy of the lease to OK City and notify the local FSDO 48 hrs before flight in case they want to ramp check you. Part 91.23 covers these types of ops and I believe there is an AC or Order issued that covers same.
 
Timbeck2 said:
That's an answer but as a private pilot, one has already demonstrated a level of proficiency that enables one to fly with passengers (which the pilot knows because otherwise we're talking about something else entirely) who may offer said pilot money in exchange for a flight.

In other words, what is the underlying reason for why it is illegal for a private pilot to accept money from his friends for a flight. Don't read too much into this - I not advocating it, I just want to know why.
Click to expand...

Didn’t BradZ cover the “real” reason?

If you are asking, is there any actual data which suggests that the Part 135 rules improve the safety of the public when hiring a flight, I think that is a different question.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Because you don’t have a Class Whatever license that allows you to drive for hire?
Click to expand...

No special license is required to drive for hire... Unless you're driving vehicles of a certain weight, or which carry a certain number of passengers.

sarangan said:
This one always seemed odd to me, why truck drivers need a CDL but Uber drivers do not. Is there some weight threshold on commercial operations?
Click to expand...

Commercial Drivers Licences - CDLs - allow you to drive vehicles of a particular weight, for the most part, with exceptions noted below.

Any vehicle with a maximum gross weight of greater than 26,000 pounds and/or a maximum trailer weight of greater than 10,000 pounds is a CMV (Commercial Motor Vehicle) and requires a CDL - Again, with exceptions noted below.

If you have a trailer greater than 10,000 pounds GVWR, you need a Class A.
If you have a vehicle with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds, with either a trailer at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR or no trailer, you need a Class B.
If you don't take the written test for, and the practical test with, a vehicle with air brakes, you'll get a restriction not allowing you to drive a vehicle with air brakes.
If you drive a vehicle under 26,000 pounds but with more than 15 passenger seats, you need a passenger endorsement.

Those last two are handled differently in different states. Here in Wisconsin, we have such a thing as a Class C CDL, so if you drive something like an airport shuttle with a GVWR of less than 26,000 pounds but with more than 15 passenger seats that's what you get... And a non-commercial driver's license here is Class D. In many states, though, the non-commercial licenses are Class C and they don't have a separate commercial under-26,000 license.

If your vehicle is not for hire - Say, if @Ted DuPuis buys a bus and converts it to a private motor home - It is exempt from the CDL requirements. If you're going to do that, and your vehicle doesn't look like a motor home, it's not a bad idea to paint "NOT FOR HIRE" on the side lest you get incessantly pulled over for skipping the weigh stations. ;)

Timbeck2 said:
I'm subject to the laws, I even follow the law. My question is that I've seen this argued time and time again about pilots getting money for flying. Other than "you can't because the rules say so" I've never seen the real reason. Don't assume because I asked the question that I'm flying people around for pay.
Click to expand...

It's all about who you can kill.

If you're a student pilot, you're only allowed to kill yourself.
If you're a recreational or sport pilot, you can kill yourself plus one friend or family member.
If you're a private pilot, you can kill yourself plus several friends or family members.
If you're a commercial pilot, you can kill unsuspecting paying passengers.
If you're an airline transport pilot, you can kill a LOT of unsuspecting paying passengers, and fly hardware big enough that there's a significant chance of killing people on the ground who weren't even unsuspecting paying passengers.

As such, the standard of care on the part of the FAA increases dramatically as you climb that ladder. They don't really care if you kill yourself. If you kill 150 passengers and a neighborhood full of people on the ground, there will be people demanding action and lots of microscopes pointed in uncomfortable places, so they want to be pretty dang sure you're not going to do that.

The dividing line between commercial and private is really that they figure that people who know you can judge what kind of pilot you'll be with some level of success based on what they know about you. When you start flying strangers who are paying for the privilege, that onus is now on the FAA to ensure that you're a reasonably prudent pilot.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If your vehicle is not for hire - Say, if @Ted DuPuis buys a bus and converts it to a private motor home - It is exempt from the CDL requirements. If you're going to do that, and your vehicle doesn't look like a motor home, it's not a bad idea to paint "NOT FOR HIRE" on the side lest you get incessantly pulled over for skipping the weigh stations. ;)
Click to expand...

Correct. A lot of converted busses have that "NOT FOR HIRE" on the side to make the point obvious. While not technically required per everything I've read, it seems like probably a good idea to hopefully minimize hassling by the police.

Meanwhile, RVs generally don't get too much attention from what I can tell. Most of them don't get driven fast enough to get pulled over for speeding anyway.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If your vehicle is not for hire - Say, if @Ted DuPuis buys a bus and converts it to a private motor home - It is exempt from the CDL requirements.
Click to expand...

That is scary to me. A lot of times you see the older retirees that have never driven anything larger than a compact car buying those things and getting on the road with no training whatsoever.

I once knew a car dealer that also had a RV dealership attached. He always had a fleet of barely used 1 ton trucks on the lot with less than 5,000 miles. I asked him why and he said he would have so many new retirees that didn't want to buy the big motorhome, instead buy a new truck and 5th wheel camper. After one or two trips they would find they couldn't drive a trailer to save their life, so they'd trade in for a motorhome.
 
Timbeck2 said:
That's an answer but as a private pilot, one has already demonstrated a level of proficiency that enables one to fly with passengers (which the pilot knows because otherwise we're talking about something else entirely) who may offer said pilot money in exchange for a flight.

In other words, what is the underlying reason for why it is illegal for a private pilot to accept money from his friends for a flight. Don't read too much into this - I not advocating it, I just want to know why.
Click to expand...


Why?

Because 60 years ago, commercial carriers didn't want to lose customers to every flyer with a PPL and a plane with a back seat.
 
BTW, I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but every time there is a new lease, the company has to record the lease with the aircraft Registry within 24 hours after it is signed and notify the local FSDO at least 48 hours before the first flight. So it's not exactly as though this is under the FAA's radar.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That is scary to me. A lot of times you see the older retirees that have never driven anything larger than a compact car buying those things and getting on the road with no training whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Yup. Honestly, there is a significant portion of the population that can't drive a full-size SUV or van safely, yet they can go rent a 26,000 pound box truck and a 10,000 pound trailer and drive them around with no further training. I'd really like it if normal drivers licenses required a "large vehicle endorsement" and associated training for anything weighing over maybe 6,000 pounds curb weight.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That is scary to me. A lot of times you see the older retirees that have never driven anything larger than a compact car
Click to expand...
That's too funny. The typical 1960s era "compact car" a retiree may have learned to drive (if the had access to something new) was maybe a foot and a half shorter than a full-size sedan today. The mid-size ones used by a lot of driving schools was as big as a today's full-size. I'd be more worried about youngsters who think "compact" always meant Honds Civic."
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's too funny. The typical 1960s era "compact car" a retiree may have learned to drive (if the had access to something new) was maybe a foot and a half shorter than a full-size sedan today. The mid-size ones used by a lot of driving schools was as big as a today's full-size. I'd be more worried about youngsters who think "compact" always meant Honds Civic."
Click to expand...
Good news is a lot of those youngsters are terrified of driving a full-size pickup,much less pulling a trailer or driving a motor home.

Full disclosure...my daughter’s work vehicle for the county used to be a full-size pickup. Apparently I didn’t train her well, because she never figured out how to park it, whether parallel or in a head-in space.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's too funny. The typical 1960s era "compact car" a retiree may have learned to drive (if the had access to something new) was maybe a foot and a half shorter than a full-size sedan today. The mid-size ones used by a lot of driving schools was as big as a today's full-size. I'd be more worried about youngsters who think "compact" always meant Honds Civic."
Click to expand...

I was thinking not just the lack of experience, but also the diminishing skills and physical abilities as we age.

flyingcheesehead said:
Yup. Honestly, there is a significant portion of the population that can't drive a full-size SUV or van safely, yet they can go rent a 26,000 pound box truck and a 10,000 pound trailer and drive them around with no further training. I'd really like it if normal drivers licenses required a "large vehicle endorsement" and associated training for anything weighing over maybe 6,000 pounds curb weight.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I've often wondering why driving with a trailer isn't an endorsement in itself. Funny you have to take additional test to risk riding a motorcycle, but buy a 6,000 lb pickup and pull a 10,000 pound trailer with zero knowledge or training. A sizeable percentage can't even hook a trailer up correctly and legally, much less attempt to back one.

Granted a CDL isn't a magic ticket to good driving either. The CDL puppy mills are so bad, they make Embry Riddle look like Harvard Medical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top