Operating an aircraft on a schedule, not 121/135

CaptLabrador

CaptLabrador

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
291
Location
South San Francisco
Display Name
Display name:
Adam
So if one wanted to operate a small aircraft (turboprop 8-9 passengers at a time) as a side business but couldn't operate with the extensively expensive operations under pt 121 or 135, anyone have any thoughts on operating under pt 91 as a charter exemption? Last I remember I read there was a limit to the amount of flights. Anyone have experience in this manner?
 
CaptLabrador said:
So if one wanted to operate a small aircraft (turboprop 8-9 passengers at a time) as a side business but couldn't operate with the extensively expensive operations under pt 121 or 135, anyone have any thoughts on operating under pt 91 as a charter exemption? Last I remember I read there was a limit to the amount of flights. Anyone have experience in this manner?
Click to expand...
I don't believe there is any such "charter exemption," and that you will have to operate under at least Part 135.
 
I know of a couple of people doing that. They got their aircraft added to someone else's 135 certificate. It was still expensive and I can't see a scenario where flying part time would make it worth the hassle. In their case I expect it was to try to improve the tax situation around what is otherwise a personal aircraft.
 
Legally, it needs to be on a 135. In the commercial pilot regs there's an ambiguous line that makes reference to what you're talking about, and it seemed to hinge upon a "don't ask don't tell" philosophy. Basically your friend can come to you and ask for a flight, but no advertising. Even then, my guess is an inspector who wanted to bust you for it would do so.

What you're talking about (figure a King Air 200 in size) really isn't that small, and is pretty expensive to operate anyway. So I think that makes your case even harder. What most folks who want to fly those on charter do is add it to someone else's 135. Then they lose a bunch of money and get a tax deduction.
 
CaptLabrador said:
So if one wanted to operate a small aircraft (turboprop 8-9 passengers at a time) as a side business but couldn't operate with the extensively expensive operations under pt 121 or 135, anyone have any thoughts on operating under pt 91 as a charter exemption? Last I remember I read there was a limit to the amount of flights. Anyone have experience in this manner?
Click to expand...

Under 14 CFR 119 you can operate a 14 CFR 91 helicopter on limited commercial operations without obtaining a 14 CFR 135 Operating Certificate. No exception made for airplanes.

Sec. 119.1

Applicability.

(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to -

(v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it does apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and

(7) Helicopter flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of takeoff if -
(i) Not more than two passengers are carried in the helicopter in addition to the required flightcrew;
(ii) Each flight is made under day VFR conditions;
(iii) The helicopter used is certificated in the standard category and complies with the 100-hour inspection requirements of part 91 of this chapter;
(iv) The operator notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office responsible for the geographic area concerned at least 72 hours before each flight and furnishes any essential information that the office requests;
(v) The number of flights does not exceed a total of six in any calendar year;
(vi) Each flight has been approved by the Administrator; and
(vii) Cargo is not carried in or on the helicopter;
 
Since it's impossible to make money operating an owned T/P of that capacity, perhaps look into a sub-part K?
 
Where do folks get the notion of "exemption"? Is it AOPA? Is it wishful thinking? Where does this come from?
 
bbchien said:
Where do folks get the notion of "exemption"? Is it AOPA? Is it wishful thinking? Where does this come from?
Click to expand...

Well, technically speaking one could petition the FAA for an exemption from 14 CFR Part 135 if they could prove a "equivalent level of safety" with such an operation. Whether it can be done and whether the Agency would buy off on it? Who knows but I would imagine the cost involved would supersede certifying to Part 135 standards.
 
It's because the FAA has created a process that is extremely costly with high barriers to entry, and structured it in such a way that it's virtually impossible to make money with, while offering little in the form of true improvements to aviation safety when you're talking about us little guys. Then you look at the people who get the certificate, break the rules anyway, and wonder why even bother.
 
By the way, I'm not saying that means it's ok to break the rules. I'm just saying that's where the thought process comes from.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's because the FAA has created a process that is extremely costly with high barriers to entry, and structured it in such a way that it's virtually impossible to make money with, while offering little in the form of true improvements to aviation safety when you're talking about us little guys. Then you look at the people who get the certificate, break the rules anyway, and wonder why even bother.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with you at all. Bureaucracy in action. While working GA I could certify a single pilot 135 Certificate in a month if the office manager would permit it, however he kept all 135 applications on hold due to "lack of manpower" as he played his game with Region to try to get more employees.

Yes, there needs to be a better system.
 
Back when my previous 9-5 job ceased, Laurie and I had talked about trying to get a single plane/single pilot 135 going, either with one of the planes we owned or else with a plane we'd buy for the purpose. The business and demand were there. Very doable.

The problem came into the certification aspect. The local FSDO cited lack of manpower as a reason to not accept any new 135 applications, period. I could sign on with another 135 cert, but knew that was a losing proposition. So we dropped the idea, and I stuck to flying for other folks as well as my Cloud Nine work.

In the end, someone else decided to sign his Navajo onto that 135 cert I knew better than to touch with a 10 foot crankshaft, and it cost probably close to $50k and a year to finally get the plane, which wasn't in bad shape, to legal 135 standards and then get legal with check rides, etc. When I quit 135ing to come to my new 9-5, they no longer had a PIC and pulled the plane off the cert. As I understand it now, the plane's been sitting since about the time I left Pennsylvania.

Score one for government interfering with business.
 
Shame,

It doesn't have to be that way. We have a good working relationship with the Feds. This not only keeps us in buissness with minimum interfearance, but also helps keep us legal as we know the FSDO will answer any questions with out going on a fishing expedition to crucify us.

As far as increased safety, really don't see any with our Cirrus', but there is a minor level of improvement on our chieftains. Granted that is because there are a couple of SBs that we have to do that reall ought to be ADs. I'm batting 4 for 4 finding scary levels of burning in the electrical systems. Easy and quick fix
 
Duncan, from what you've told me about your 135 relationship with the FSDO, you're in the lucky crowd.

So far as SB/ADs go, there's no reason why you couldn't opt to go do those SBs as a 91 operator. We go after ones that make sense. Burned up wires make sense.
 
Yep, one of these days I'll dig up the SB number, 7xx IIRC on the burned wire. It just needs to be done and is IMO a good example of why we have an AD process.
 
CaptLabrador said:
So if one wanted to operate a small aircraft (turboprop 8-9 passengers at a time) as a side business but couldn't operate with the extensively expensive operations under pt 121 or 135, anyone have any thoughts on operating under pt 91 as a charter exemption? Last I remember I read there was a limit to the amount of flights. Anyone have experience in this manner?
Click to expand...

It's a three party system to do that. The plane has to be owned by a leasing company, they have to lease the plane to someone who needs the scheduled service that falls under Pt 91 conditions (say hauling employees and owned equipment to and from offsite locations) and then you can contract to that company as their pilot.
 
And there is the 91 "corporate" as Henning pointed out.

I do wonder, (honest question as I don't take care of any medium turboprops) how much more would it really cost to at least have the aircraft up to 135 standards? I know that in some cases the insurance company requires recurrent training for fight crews that may even exceed 135 standards.
 
Henning said:
It's a three party system to do that. The plane has to be owned by a leasing company, they have to lease the plane to someone who needs the scheduled service that falls under Pt 91 conditions (say hauling employees and owned equipment to and from offsite locations) and then you can contract to that company as their pilot.
Click to expand...

Can you own the leasing company? LLC or an S-Corp?

I've read that is doable. If you are flying for a limited number of regular customers, and they sign a lease for a certain number of flight hours each month.
 
MX is almost identical for TP's. Conformity can be a problem, chasing down burn certs and the like. It's not unusual for a 135 to have a TP on the cert just to justify the inclusion on the paperwork, but to actually fly it infrequently if at all.

I've been a check airman and training provider for many 135's and have never seen any insurance requirements that exceeded the prescribed standards, but can't swear that somebody somewhere hasn't come up with them. If so, I'd be interested to know what they might be. Maybe some specialized training for Alaska or Hawaii or other non-typical spot?


Skylane81E said:
And there is the 91 "corporate" as Henning pointed out.

I do wonder, (honest question as I don't take care of any medium turboprops) how much more would it really cost to at least have the aircraft up to 135 standards? I know that in some cases the insurance company requires recurrent training for fight crews that may even exceed 135 standards.
Click to expand...
 
For a while ours wanted sim training and currency/experience equal to the regs. I can't remember the company but one year they wanted a big premium increase and we changed providers.
 
Part 91 ops involving TP are generally covered in the -500 section of the reg. BTW, Slim left town.

dell30rb said:
Can you own the leasing company? LLC or an S-Corp?

I've read that is doable. If you are flying for a limited number of regular customers, and they sign a lease for a certain number of flight hours each month.
Click to expand...
 
I think the "exemption" the OP is confused with is the FAR that allows a non-scheduled 135 operator up to 4 scheduled flights per week without requiring approval as a part 135 commuter operator. Has nothing to do with operating part 91.
 
bbchien said:
Where do folks get the notion of "exemption"? Is it AOPA? Is it wishful thinking? Where does this come from?
Click to expand...

NBAA small aircraft exemption

is what is commonly misunderstood as a P135 exemption. It really has more to do with buisnesses leasing each others aircraft wet or dry (crew not gas) than doing charters, you still have to be on a FAA approved maint program and a NBAA member .
 
Last edited:
CaptLabrador said:
So if one wanted to operate a small aircraft (turboprop 8-9 passengers at a time) as a side business but couldn't operate with the extensively expensive operations under pt 121 or 135, anyone have any thoughts on operating under pt 91 as a charter exemption? Last I remember I read there was a limit to the amount of flights. Anyone have experience in this manner?
Click to expand...

Your best bet is a single pilot Part 135 certificate, all you need is a drug program, hazmat manual, Letter of economic authority from the DOT and a Compliance Statement, NO MANUALS! You will also have to watch a mind numbing video at the FSDO. You will be limited to you and your plane.

BTW your engines must be within TBO and 12 calander years.
 
Last edited:
I have an old memory that if you want more than a single pilot 135 certificate you have to have at least six employees in specific roles (director of ops, maintenance, .....).

Is that close to correct?
 
Dave Theisen said:
I think the "exemption" the OP is confused with is the FAR that allows a non-scheduled 135 operator up to 4 scheduled flights per week without requiring approval as a part 135 commuter operator. Has nothing to do with operating part 91.
Click to expand...

Thats the one im thinking of then. But then it would still be a 135 operation.
 
JimNtexas said:
I have an old memory that if you want more than a single pilot 135 certificate you have to have at least six employees in specific roles (director of ops, maintenance, .....).

Is that close to correct?
Click to expand...

Something like that. I dont think I could find six people to take on the responsibility for a case of beer and a shiny new nickel :D
 
CaptLabrador said:
Something like that. I dont think I could find six people to take on the responsibility for a case of beer and a shiny new nickel :D
Click to expand...

Thats for a basic certificate, must have DO and CP
 
dell30rb said:
Can you own the leasing company? LLC or an S-Corp?

I've read that is doable. If you are flying for a limited number of regular customers, and they sign a lease for a certain number of flight hours each month.
Click to expand...

It'll have to be a C corp most likely. Boats and ships follow very similar rules, that's why they are typically owned by leasing corporations. If you want to be the pilot, I'm not sure you can even be an officer of the corporation, but your wife or kid can be. Demise charter rules were simpler, but 20 years ago they cracked down pretty tightly, but the courts ruled in a couple of cases that family relations were acceptable to own the leasing company.
 
Why would income tax pass-through status make a difference?
Henning said:
It'll have to be a C corp most likely. Boats and ships follow very similar rules, that's why they are typically owned by leasing corporations. If you want to be the pilot, I'm not sure you can even be an officer of the corporation, but your wife or kid can be. Demise charter rules were simpler, but 20 years ago they cracked down pretty tightly.
Click to expand...
 
taters said:
Your best bet is a single pilot Part 135 certificate, all you need is a drug program, hazmat manual, Letter of economic authority from the DOT and a Compliance Statement, NO MANUALS! You will also have to watch a mind numbing video at the FSDO. You will be limited to you and your plane.

BTW your engines must be within TBO and 12 calendar years.
Click to expand...

Small nit, the 12 (or however many specified by the manufacturer) is part of the TBO stated typically as "1700hrs or 12 years".
 
Henning said:
Small nit, the 12 (or however many specified by the manufacturer) is part of the TBO stated typically as "1700hrs or 12 years".
Click to expand...

and even nittier "whichever comes first"

Prop and other component O/H intervals become mandatory as well.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
It's a three party system to do that. The plane has to be owned by a leasing company, they have to lease the plane to someone who needs the scheduled service that falls under Pt 91 conditions (say hauling employees and owned equipment to and from offsite locations) and then you can contract to that company as their pilot.
Click to expand...
Good luck getting that past the FAA legal eagles' "sniff test" with the aircraft and pilot both provided by the same entity.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Don't disagree with you at all. Bureaucracy in action. While working GA I could certify a single pilot 135 Certificate in a month if the office manager would permit it, however he kept all 135 applications on hold due to "lack of manpower" as he played his game with Region to try to get more employees.

Yes, there needs to be a better system.
Click to expand...

Seriously?? A govt bureaucracy at its best!! Sad.
 
Without seeing the tax return, how would you ever know if the corp was a C or S?

Henning said:
Not sure, I'm always on the captain end of the deals watching the various permutations of operations over the years.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top