Is this a Part 135 Operation?

[CFIse]

(see my businessman flying his own twin on a business trip with a CFI-ME along to be PIC for insurance purposes).

This is a bogus example unless I've completely misunderstood the direction of this thread.
Part 135 requires that the same company provide both the plane and the pilot for transportation for hire.
If the businessman owns the plane then the MEI is only providing pilot services and Part 135 never comes into it.
If the businessman doesn't meet insurance requirements and he rents a twin and an instructor from the FBO to fly on his/her trip then this is arguably Part 135.
I say arguably because I've seen 2 arguments:
- as long as there is some element of training in the flight then the Part 119 exemption applies - no problem.
- if there is any element of transportation and the plane and pilot come from the same place then it's Part 135.

 

[Henning]

This is a continuation of the "Las Vegas" thread in Hangar Talk.


Scenario:

A pilot elected to do a precautionary landing and left his plane at a remote airfield due to a mechanical problem. Mechanical problem is fixed, but now he needs to get back to the remote airfield. He has a non-pilot friend that also needs to fly with him back to his plane.

The pilot of the stranded aircraft rents an aircraft to return to their plane, being PIC on the outbound flight (he is fully qualified as PIC for the rental plane as far as the FAA is concerned). He brings along a commercial pilot to ferry the plane (solo) back to the rental FBO. Let's assume the commercial pilot is being paid for their time to fly out and back, but is not PIC nor required crew on the outbound flight.

Can this be construed as a Part 135 operation with regard to the commercial pilot's or FBO's involvement? If so, what about this operation makes it fall under Part 135?

My read is that the commercial pilot is not carrying passengers for compensation/hire, and this is a Part 91 activity.

Jeff

Sounds like a clean 91 to me, proviso he's just being paid a flat rate to return the aircraft to its base.

 

[gismo]

Sounds like a clean 91 to me, proviso he's just being paid a flat rate to return the aircraft to its base.

I think we all pretty much agree that as long as the stranded pilot was PIC on the outbound it's clean because the only time the CFI is being paid for piloting is on the return trip. Where it get's dirty is when the stranded pilot isn't PIC on the way out and therefore the CFI is being paid to fly (and transport the stranded pilot plus his friend).

I've heard of several anectdotes where an attempt to disguise a transport flight by a non-135 CFI as "instruction" that just happened to move the "student" from one place to another and the FAA jumped on the CFI's case. I suppose (but have nothing to back the supposition) that on a flight that mixed transport with legitimate training, the deciding factor would be whether the training was the primary purpose. It also seems to me that a significant factor would be whether the CFI and the other pilot made the whole trip (out and back) instead of a case where the CFI went out and back but the "student" only went one way.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is a bogus example unless I've completely misunderstood the direction of this thread.
Part 135 requires that the same company provide both the plane and the pilot for transportation for hire.
If the businessman owns the plane then the MEI is only providing pilot services and Part 135 never comes into it.

Right -- that's my point.

If the businessman doesn't meet insurance requirements and he rents a twin and an instructor from the FBO to fly on his/her trip then this is arguably Part 135.
I say arguably because I've seen 2 arguments:
- as long as there is some element of training in the flight then the Part 119 exemption applies - no problem.
- if there is any element of transportation and the plane and pilot come from the same place then it's Part 135.

The second argument is the position the FAA will take. The first argument is, in the FAA's view, insufficient -- there must be more than "some element of training in the flight," and they have said this repeatedly. To apply this argument, the training must appropriate to a training course in which the pilot was already enrolled. That includes both the type of aircraft and the nature of the flight. Example:

Situation: A businessman is working on his Private in C-172's and is up to dual XC's.

1. The flight is made under VFR on a good VMC day in a flight school C-172, and the businessman does all the flight planning and makes the calls for weather. The FAA will accept this as a non-135 training flight.

2. The flight is made under IFR on a low IMC day in a Baron owned by the FBO. The "instructor" from the FBO does all the planning and makes all the calls for weather and filing IFR, and only his voice is heard on the radios. The businessman shows up just in time for the flight on each end. Whether the businessman sits in the left seat or not, the FAA will say this is a 135 operation.

 

[CFIse]

Situation: A businessman is working on his Private in C-172's and is up to dual XC's.

1. The flight is made under VFR on a good VMC day in a flight school C-172, and the businessman does all the flight planning and makes the calls for weather. The FAA will accept this as a non-135 training flight.

This cross-country went to an airport where the business man rented a car and disappeared for 4 hours for a meeting and a lunch. The instructor waited at the airport. Then they flew home in VFR with the business man doing all the planning etc.

Is that a training flight or is it Part 135? Certainly SOME element of the flight was transportation to get the business man to the remote location for the meeting. But certainly there was an element of training.

 

[poadeleted20]

This cross-country went to an airport where the business man rented a car and disappeared for 4 hours for a meeting and a lunch. The instructor waited at the airport. Then they flew home in VFR with the business man doing all the planning etc.

Is that a training flight or is it Part 135? Certainly SOME element of the flight was transportation to get the business man to the remote location for the meeting. But certainly there was an element of training.

As I said earlier, it's not whether there's "some element" of training or transportation, but rather whether the flight itself was bona fide training.

If the flight you describe was in an aircraft in which the businessman had been training, and if the flight was applicable to his stage of training (e.g., VFR XC for post-solo student pilot, or IFR XC for Private Pilot up to that stage of his Instrument Rating course), then it's a training flight, and the fact that he got some transportation out of it is irrelevent.

If, OTOH, it was not a fully legitimate training flight as described above (aircraft and training both appropriate to the student), then the fact that there was "some element of training" involved does not keep this from being a 135 operation. IOW, if it is not a fully bona fide training flight, it falls under 135, but if it is a fully bona fide training flight, the fact that there was "some element of transportation" involved does not make it a 135 operation.