Is this 134.5 ?

This sounds more like part 91 subpart K fractional usage.
 
It’s a lease, not a fractional. Customer provides flight crew.

If it is legal, I wonder what the insurance concerns might be? I mean if “your pilot” crashes the thing.... who pays?
 
Also, seems like a darn easy way to operate a “charter service” without a 135 certificate. Not that much more work for the customer, and I assume significantly cheaper.
 
There’s ways to do commercial/charter legally and there’s ways...

134.5 (134 and a half) is usually just a bad joke about a flight where someone calls someone else and says “hey can you fly me to...” without meeting the legal requirements of a truly private non-commercial or sketchy commercial flight without a 135 certificate, any time or context that I’ve seen it used in.

No “shared purpose” for the flight and not a legitimate charter op.

Without digging but seeing this was some FB ad, the majority of what one sees “holding out” online in ads really isn’t a charter company, it’s a broker who’ll take a cut and call a regular ol 135 charter. You’re usually better off just calling the FBOs at any particular airport and getting the real charter place on the phone.

The broker ads always look like they’re not just a middleman. “We have airplanes and crews standing by!”... (Once we call the closest 135 operator to where you want to depart from or go to... and they agree to pay us.) :)
 
I know what 134.5 is... I was trying to make a joke.

on a serious note though, look at what they’re offering. They “lease” you the aircraft hourly. “You hire the crew” and “you buy the gas”.... “we’re not a 135 operation” they say.. “you have operational control” they say... hmm...

That’s not 135, but.... seems like it’s not meeting the spirit of what the FAA intended here.
 
Brad Z said:
This sounds more like part 91 subpart K fractional usage.
Click to expand...
“it’s like renting a car” and “You buy flight hours...it’s that simple.” don’t sound like any form of ownership to me.

The fine print at the end of the ad says they’re in compliance with AC 9137, so depending upon the actual lease agreement they may be operating legally. But based on the ad it sounds to me like 134 1/2.
 
Last edited:
It might not count as holding out, when most anyone viewing that ad clicks it off after the first 3 seconds of extremely annoying music.
 
dans2992 said:
It’s a lease, not a fractional. Customer provides flight crew.

If it is legal, I wonder what the insurance concerns might be? I mean if “your pilot” crashes the thing.... who pays?
Click to expand...
I don't know and can't comment on the specifics of this op but... Sounds like dry leasing, which is a very common transaction. I've written a few of them,

Advertising it publicly is an interesting twist, though. Again, if done properly, there "should" not be any more holding out issues than an FBO advertising airplane rentals. But, I would anticipate the possibility of a close regulatory look at who really has control of the crew.

Insurance depends on what the lease says. If it's a non-exclusive dry lease (meaning the owner has multiple customers), which this sounds like, typically the owner provides the insurance coverage for everyone.
 
Is dry leasing “by the hour” with multiple customers common?

...and the aircraft/crew only needs to comply with part 91? Sounds like an easy way to start a charter service to me...
 
Don’t get me wrong, if this is legal, that’s really cool, but I thought it wasn’t.

i’m assuming they have a handy list of “recommended pilots” (wink, wink)...

..and if this passes muster with the FAA, why isn’t everyone doing this to avoid the expensive/time consuming restrictions of Part 135?
 
Timbeck2 said:
"Can you drive me to XXX? I'll pay you two hundred dollars."
"Sure"
Click to expand...
Is that legal, or just something no one is aware of being illegal?

I think one the key factor in the legality of the ad operation is what the lease says...is it for a one-off flight, or is it, for example, a yearly lease? We were told at one time that if we had more than 4 separate lease agreements on a jet, the FAA would look pretty hard at it.
 
Last edited:
dans2992 said:
Is dry leasing “by the hour” with multiple customers common?

...and the aircraft/crew only needs to comply with part 91? Sounds like an easy way to start a charter service to me...
Click to expand...
Well, aircraft rental FBOs do it all the time. Their lessees' are pilots, but it's the same in principle.

Common? A non-exclusive dry lease with multiple lessees paying based on usage is not that unusual. It's actually a fairly common method of joint company ownership of larger, more expensive aircraft - specifically to keep them under Part 91. And I've seen it done with smaller ones. But, no, it's not common in the context of advertising for customers which is why I said I'd anticipate a closer look. But the general key is whether or not "operational control" (if you recall the phrase from commercial training) is in fact being transferred to each lessee. Part 135 may have more regulatory restrictions, but it's also coupled with more operational freedom an less compliance risk.

OTOH, we don't know whether this business model is even viable. I think similar operations have been attempted. In some cases the transfer of operational control was suspect. In others, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the company found that the costs of operation in comparison to the potential customer base did not support the business.

Every challenge you or anyone else here might present to the model is absolutely a legitimate question. As I said, I don't have an opinion about this specific operation. I haven't seen the lease. I haven't been asked to review the operation for compliance risk and I don't expect to.
 
My point is, why should I have a class whatever license that "allows" me to drive my Ford F-150 for hire?
 
Timbeck2 said:
"Can you drive me to XXX? I'll pay you two hundred dollars."
"Sure"
"Can you fly me to XXX? I'll pay you two hundred dollars."
"Oh GOD no!"

Stupid rules that (arguably) have no real reason for existing.
Click to expand...

The short answer is that 61 years ago a 21yo pilot with no instrument rating took off at night into deteriorating weather and crashed in a cornfield, killing three famous musicians.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Brad for NOT going the "because the regulations say so" route. Was it "legal" 61 years ago for him to do so?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Why should I need a driver’s license for an F-150 at all?
Click to expand...
You don't if you only drive it on your property. I learned to drive in my grandparents' Galaxie 500...in their fields...when I was 10. You need a license to drive on public roads. You would also, of course, need Tim's permission to drive his F-150.
 
MuseChaser said:
You don't if you only drive it on your property. I learned to drive in my grandparents' Galaxie 500...in their fields...when I was 10. You need a license to drive on public roads. You would also, of course, need Tim's permission to drive his F-150.
Click to expand...
I learned to drive an F-100 with a hay rack behind the same way. :)
 
MauleSkinner said:
I adjusted my answer to go the direction that you, apparently a sovereign citizen, not subject to their laws, were taking. ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
The “real reason” is that the FAA demands a higher level of proficiency and competency from someone who flies for pay, along with stricter operating rules intended to enhance safety. They believe that John Q Public should be able to trust that someone they’re paying is safer than someone who has the legal authority to endanger his own life in an airplane.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You mean like Uber and Lyft? (Generally, CDL not required)
Click to expand...

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?
 
MauleSkinner said:
The “real reason” is that the FAA demands a higher level of proficiency and competency from someone who flies for pay, along with stricter operating rules intended to enhance safety. They believe that John Q Public should be able to trust that someone they’re paying is safer than someone who has the legal authority to endanger his own life in an airplane.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dans2992 said:
I was under the impression this kind of thing was not strictly legal.
Click to expand...
It's been around for years and is legal so long as the flight remains strictly under the definition of a dry lease and lessee maintains full operational control. And its considered straight Part 91. But without seeing the lease agreement can't judge either way. The FAA tends to get interested in these ops when the number of dry leases by a particular individual get "excessive" and want to make sure their not bypassing 135/121 requirements, etc. The main issue for the lessee is their specific understanding of what FAA defined operational control and how that legally holds them responsible. Some lessors have been busted for not making the operational control requirement crystal clear to the lessee. There's guidance on this plus a few LOIs that explain better.
 
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...
Beats me. But I don't think it's about weight. For example, Uber Black, in addition to more high end cars, also has a state CDL requirement. I've never had a reason or interest to look into the issue. Maybe someone here drives Uber and knows.
 
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...
The underlying reason a Private Pilot can’t accept money from his friends for a flight is that the FAA wants to prevent exactly what this thread, and the FlyteNow fiasco was all about...people thinking they’re getting that higher level of safety when they’re not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The underlying reason a Private Pilot can’t accept money from his friends for a flight is that the FAA wants to prevent exactly what this thread, and the FlyteNow fiasco was all about...people thinking they’re getting that higher level of safety when they’re not.
Click to expand...

But the regulations were in effect long before FlyteNow was even thought of...never mind. I give up.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Thank you Brad for NOT going the "because the regulations say so" route. Was it "legal" 61 years ago for him to do so?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's ever been legal to crash a plane and kill people.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But the general key is whether or not "operational control" (if you recall the phrase from commercial training) is in fact being transferred to each lessee.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Timbeck2 said:
But the regulations were in effect long before FlyteNow was even thought of...never mind. I give up.
Click to expand...
The reason the regs and their interpretations exist have been around far longer than either of us have been flying. We’re just seeing the current crop of pilots and operators who think the regs don’t say what they say.
 
Brad Z said:
I don't think it's ever been legal to crash a plane and kill people.
Click to expand...
True...but as a Private Pilot, is it illegal to plan your takeoff to miss the First Bank building in St Paul by a couple of inches Like it would be under Part 135?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top