Okay, but the lodge is not selling transportation. As someone earlier stated, the customers are not being charged for flights. They are being charged to go on a hunting trip.
"Is this legal" thread - pt 134 1/2 or not?
- Thread starter DavidWhite
- Start date
Okay, but the lodge is not selling transportation. As someone earlier stated, the customers are not being charged for flights. They are being charged to go on a hunting trip.
I suspect a number of the lodges have a single 'pilot single plane' operating certificate so they have the flexibility to conduct flights that they couldn't do under the 'incidental to' rules.
Last edited:
Just write up a 135 op and get to know your FSDO dudes. Much simpler than going to war with them over the interpretation of 119/135. Better to have the FSDO on your side than showing them up and now they’re perpetually looking for a reason to end you.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I'm not seeing the difference between flying customers to a lodge, in the lodge's airplane, who buy services of the lodge and flying customers to a corporation's headquarters, in the corporate airplane, who buy products of the corporation. The latter is something I used to do all the time under Part 91. OTOH, I can see where the OP can't do this for a lodge in an airplane rented by the hour by the lodge. No operational control by the lodge.
This would be the eventual plan, most certainly.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Being charged directly for a flight is only one of several indicators for holding out, and is not required for it to be holding out.
Last edited:
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Here's a chart:
Another potential trap: David said the the aircraft was owned by an LLC, and the FAA will often apply a presumption of 135 requirement where a single-asset LLC operates as he has described.
Lots more facts needed, though.
Lots more facts needed, though.
Stewartb
Final Approach
None that I know of, and I have several lodge operator friends. When they get behind they will hire 135 operators to help but that's an expense they try to avoid. This isn't imagined. It's how things work. There's nothing shady about it.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Most guys looking to enter into the 135 category buy somebody's certificate and planes. Establishing a new 135 took a friend a couple of years and more frustration than I could have handled. That process is a **** show.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
One of the big problems in obtaining a Part 135 certificate lies with the applicant. They don't bother to read the guidance, they submit incorrect documents and even try to conform an aircraft that is missing records.
Of course, the FAA plays their part in this as well. Cutbacks in Flight Standards has left fewer Inspectors to do more work.
To get a certificate through quickly needs someone who has everything in order and is willing to work with the FSDO from start to finish.
I didn't try to disagree with anything.
Bullseye.
You are talking about the the FAA's "flight department company" trap. Essentially, Company A, for liability or asset separation reasons, creates a wholly-owned subsidiary to own and operate company aircraft. Company B requires a Part 135 certificate (unless it's a Part 125 aircraft) because Company B's only operation is air transportation for Company A.
Given the sometimes adversarial heavy handed approach that some FAA folks employ as SOP I try to avoid making myself a target. There has been a lot of problems caused by people trying to circumvent the rules especially in this area (91 v 119 v 135) so better to be super careful than foolishly imprudent. Any time you disagree with an entity that has enforcement as part of their job description you need to be certain of the law before trying to argue your point. I'm not advocating to let them walk all over you. Just be certain of the law about what you are planning to do.
AA5Bman
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 822
- Display Name
Display name:
He who ironically no longer flies an AA5B
I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did take my Commercial written exam last week, so I spent a lot of time trying to figure this kind of issue out over the last month. Let me summarize my understanding thus far:
Who the hell knows!?
There was a moment there where I was like “oh cool, Part 91 Commercial ops! I have an airplane, maybe I can do some private carriage type stuff!”
That idea was quickly dismissed when I realized how broadly the FAA will interpret “holding out” and just how “incidental” incidental is. I mean just being known to occasionally fly people around (reputation) blows up “holding out”, and incidental really means incidental.
The only way I can see this working out would be for the plane to be owned by the company directly and for the pilot to be employed by the company directly, and even then, it’s probably a little more than incidental. Either that or you use the wink-wink handshake-handshake Alaska loophole, apparently!
Who the hell knows!?
There was a moment there where I was like “oh cool, Part 91 Commercial ops! I have an airplane, maybe I can do some private carriage type stuff!”
That idea was quickly dismissed when I realized how broadly the FAA will interpret “holding out” and just how “incidental” incidental is. I mean just being known to occasionally fly people around (reputation) blows up “holding out”, and incidental really means incidental.
The only way I can see this working out would be for the plane to be owned by the company directly and for the pilot to be employed by the company directly, and even then, it’s probably a little more than incidental. Either that or you use the wink-wink handshake-handshake Alaska loophole, apparently!
FYI: no special handshake required as the Alaska bush pilot exemption, by name, was made a law by Congress back in 2000.
danhagan
En-Route
Interestiong post related to this on AvWeb the 23rd.
Hmm may be 2nd time for this but here goes. Av Web on 23rd has a relevant post, check it out,
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
Well, a 135 operation requires highly maintained airplanes and pilots with continual proficiency training. And none of that is really needed for the safe carriage of hunters and fisherman, right?
dans2992
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 4,016
- Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
What are the details around this?
Stewartb
Final Approach
So you think 135 is a model of safety? Statistics don't support that assumption in Alaska!
Stewartb
Final Approach
We miss Ted Stevens! And yes, it is ironic that he died in a lodge airplane. Lodge operators have a good record. Not perfect. BTW that pilot was the former chief pilot for AK Airlines, so not a newbie by any stretch.
Last edited:
bflynn
Final Approach
I see that PL 106-181 was passed and directs that Alaska guide pilot operations are conducted under party 91. so it would seem to be legal. The rules making page says it was published last year, but not as part of the FARs.
Rules making page:
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=2120-AJ78
Law: Title 49, under 44701, f) Exemptions
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...itleVII-partA-subpartiii-chap447-sec44701.htm
The only definition of who this is applicable to says:
“(2) Alaska guide pilot.—The term ‘Alaska guide pilot’ means a pilot who—
“(A) conducts aircraft operations over or within the State of Alaska;
“(B) operates single engine, fixed-wing aircraft on floats, wheels, or skis, providing commercial hunting, fishing, or other guide services and related accommodations in the form of camps or lodges; and
“(C) transports clients by such aircraft incidental to hunting, fishing, or other guide services.”
The OP's example seems to check A, B and C. As long as they're complying with the other parts of the law, this seems to be an exemption prior to getting to the FARs. The only question I'd have is whether or not they are still considered a guide if they just fly the airplane.
Rules making page:
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201804&RIN=2120-AJ78
Law: Title 49, under 44701, f) Exemptions
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...itleVII-partA-subpartiii-chap447-sec44701.htm
The only definition of who this is applicable to says:
“(2) Alaska guide pilot.—The term ‘Alaska guide pilot’ means a pilot who—
“(A) conducts aircraft operations over or within the State of Alaska;
“(B) operates single engine, fixed-wing aircraft on floats, wheels, or skis, providing commercial hunting, fishing, or other guide services and related accommodations in the form of camps or lodges; and
“(C) transports clients by such aircraft incidental to hunting, fishing, or other guide services.”
The OP's example seems to check A, B and C. As long as they're complying with the other parts of the law, this seems to be an exemption prior to getting to the FARs. The only question I'd have is whether or not they are still considered a guide if they just fly the airplane.
Stewartb
Final Approach
Sometimes yes. Most times not. They're outfitters or transporters. Or employee pilots. "Guide" has a whole nuther book if rules to navigate.
FYI: No "seem to be." It's been law since 2000.
Unfortunately, the FAA has been dragging their feet since the Congress mandate to develop rules (FARs). The 2018 link you reference is their current attempt to comply with the 2000 law?? Why... is anyone's guess.
The above mentioned guidance from the FAA counsel Alaska region gives specific examples of how that is defined. Since the FAA headshed has failed to comply with law's requirement to pass rules on the subject the only guidance available at present is out of the local FAA counsel's office.
Last edited: