PT 134 1/2?

If my pilot flies a plane I rented and transports me from A to B the plane is not operated 'for hire'.
 
Suppose a CFII rents a 170 just for the purposes of touch and stops. does that 170 need a 100 hour?
 
weilke said:
If my pilot flies a plane I rented and transports me from A to B the plane is not operated 'for hire'.
Click to expand...
no...Don't confuse "FOR HIRE' with what you are doing. AS long as the CFI didn't rent the plane, it is a simple rental, doesn't matter who is manipulating the controls.

FOR HIRE insinuates a 135 op, holding out to the public for transportation = 135/125, or other commercial operations.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Now you're renting your airplane out... does this not change the scenario?
Click to expand...

Aircraft rental does not require 100-hours if no flight instruction is being provided.

Rgbeard said:
This is the crap that's kept me away from wanting a commercial license.
Click to expand...

Why? Just because you have the commercial doesn't mean you suddenly have to use it. I got my commercial multi "just in case" someone offered me an opportunity that would require it and I wanted to take said opportunity. I've had the cert for a hair over a decade and have only used it twice so far, but it was worth it - The second time was right seat in a Hawker 800.

Clip4 said:
Your certificate, go for it.

91.409

b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.
Click to expand...

An aircraft that is being rented is not "for hire" unless you're a Brit. If the same entity is renting you the aircraft and providing instruction, it needs 100-hours. If different entities provide the airplane and the instructor, no 100 hours are required.
 
Tom-D said:
no...Don't confuse "FOR HIRE' with what you are doing. AS long as the CFI didn't rent the plane, it is a simple rental, doesn't matter who is manipulating the controls.

FOR HIRE insinuates a 135 op, holding out to the public for transportation = 135/125, or other commercial operations.
Click to expand...

We are saying the same thing.
 
weilke said:
If my pilot flies a plane I rented and transports me from A to B the plane is not operated 'for hire'.
Click to expand...

Not until you pay the pilot, then he is operating for hire and can’t fly the plane without 100 hour inspection. Feel free to read the AOPA link.
 
Clip4 said:
Not until you pay the pilot, then he is operating for hire and can’t fly the plane without 100 hour inspection. Feel free to read the AOPA link.
Click to expand...

Re-read you own link. If the passenger is renting the airplane and then hiring a pilot to fly it, the passenger is providing the airplane and it is not a “for hire” operation. It’s no different from a company leasing a Citation from Textron and then hiring pilots to fly it. No 100 hr. inspection required.
 
Clip4 said:
Not until you pay the pilot, then he is operating for hire and can’t fly the plane without 100 hour inspection. Feel free to read the AOPA link.
Click to expand...

I did. It refers to a photographer being carried 'for hire'. It doesn't address whether the pilot receives compensation.

Otoh, there could easily be a situation where the pilot is unpaid and the plane still needs a 100hr. For example the FBO owner tells one of his flight instructors: 'take the 210 and fly this photographer to take pictures of the flooding 80 miles down the river'. He gets paid by the photographer but doesn't pay the CFI (knowing that the CFI likes to get the complex hours).
Now, let's say the pllane carries an unmanned survey pod. The FBO gets paid but the plane doesn't need a 100hr as the reg refers to carrying persons for hire.
 
Last edited:
And if the FBO is flying the photographer without LOA (drug testing program) they in in violation of that reg.
 
Clip4 said:
And if the FBO is flying the photographer without LOA (drug testing program) they in in violation of that reg.
Click to expand...

Except that the reg that requires drug testing refers to 14 CFR 119.1 (e)(2) yet airwork is spelled out under 14 CFR 119.1 (e)(4) in that reg. Taking up a photographer or wildlife biologist is not a 'non stop commercial air tour', as such it doesn't fall under other restrictions that apply to those operations either. For example I can take off from A, fly to the wildlife refuge, survey for spotted caribou for 3hrs and land at B for fuel and lunch. Then take off at B, survey for another 3hrs and fly back to A.
 
weilke said:
Except that the reg that requires drug testing refers to 14 CFR 119.1 (e)(2) yet airwork is spelled out under 14 CFR 119.1 (e)(4) in that reg. Taking up a photographer or wildlife biologist is not a 'non stop commercial air tour', as such it doesn't fall under other restrictions that apply to those operations either. For example I can take off from A, fly to the wildlife refuge, survey for spotted caribou for 3hrs and land at B for fuel and lunch. Then take off at B, survey for another 3hrs and fly back to A.
Click to expand...

You might want to look at 91.147 before you haul that photographer. You need an LOA and to get that you need a drug test program.
 
Clip4 said:
You might want to look at 91.147 before you haul that photographer. You need an LOA and to get that you need a drug test program.
Click to expand...

You might want to look at 91.147 yourself:

"(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing, Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with §§119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport."

Obviously 135 and 121 do not apply here, and 119.1(e)(2) refers to nonstop commercial air tours. In fact, 119.1(e)(4)(iii) specifically states that Part 119 does not apply to aerial photography operations.
 
Clip4 said:
You might want to look at 91.147 before you haul that photographer. You need an LOA and to get that you need a drug test program.
Click to expand...

I looked at it and told you why it doesn't apply to hauling a photographer or wildlife biologist. Those activities don't fall under the paragraph in 119.1 that 91.147 includes by reference.

I wouldn't even have to be an FBO or anything else to use an aircraft carrying passengers who paid for the ride. I am partner in a A36. If I had a commercial and a second class medical, I could take up the chief of my fire department or a photographer to plot out a large brush-fire and it would be a-ok with the FAA. It's not an air-tour, its either aerial survey 119.1 (e)(4)(iii) or firefighting 119.1 (e)(4)(iv) (just to add another tangent, the requirement for firefighting lead-planes to be operated by a 135 certificate holder is a forest service contract requirement, not an FAA reg. State forestry or a non-federal entity is free to hire whoever provides them a plane).
 
Last edited:
It’s kind of hilarious that the regs are so convoluted we can’t even agree on their interpretation.... :/
 
Doc Holliday said:
It’s not the regulations that are the problem here.
Click to expand...

Usually, the problem is reading comprehension.

The FARs aren't really that hard to understand, if you learn how they're written: Definitions in 1.1, applicability of each part is generally in *.1, there's an "Or" or an "And" in the second-to-last chunk of multi-part regs...

Other than that, it's English. It shouldn't be so dang hard as it seems to be for so many people.
 
dans2992 said:
It’s kind of hilarious that the regs are so convoluted we can’t even agree on their interpretation.... :/
Click to expand...

Well, you have to read them, understand what the terms mean and apply them correctly. But its hard to convince someone who has internalized 'everything is illegal' and tries to pick and choose from the regs to justify his position. This entire 91.147 tangent has very little to do with the question at the top of the thread anyway.
Now sometimes, the FAA chief counsel or a NTSB appeals board decision provides a binding interpretation and may expand the reg into something that it doesn't say. So far, nobody has posted either of those when it comes to:
- part 91 dry lease operations
- aerial photography
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I looked at it and told you why it doesn't apply to hauling a photographer or wildlife biologist. Those activities don't fall under the paragraph in 119.1 that 91.147 includes by reference.

I wouldn't even have to be an FBO or anything else to use an aircraft carrying passengers who paid for the ride. I am partner in a A36. If I had a commercial and a second class medical, I could take up the chief of my fire department or a photographer to plot out a large brush-fire and it would be a-ok with the FAA. It's not an air-tour, its either aerial survey 119.1 (e)(4)(iii) or firefighting 119.1 (e)(4)(iv) (just to add another tangent, the requirement for firefighting lead-planes to be operated by a 135 certificate holder is a forest service contract requirement, not an FAA reg. State forestry or a non-federal entity is free to hire whoever provides them a plane).
Click to expand...

I know what you told me, but if a photographer shows up and asks to pay you to take a local flight the 91 reg is applicable. It is still a sight seeing flight. Your certificate, do as you please.
 
Clip4 said:
I know what you told me, but if a photographer shows up and asks to pay you to take a local flight the 91 reg is applicable. It is still a sight seeing flight. Your certificate, do as you please.
Click to expand...

What makes it so ?
 
weilke said:
What makes it so ?
Click to expand...

Read the reg. It is a local sight seeing flight. The fact he has a camera has no effect.

Edit: I think where we are differing is a person renting a plane totally independent of the pilot and the person showing up to use you and your plane.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Who is going to rent an airplane to a non-rated pilot, let alone some schmuck coming in off the street?
Click to expand...

You would be surprised how common that is. If anything, it's more common with larger aircraft that are generally professionally flown. The understanding is that Joe Passenger is not going to be flying it, but he rents the plane and then Jim Pilot flies it. I flew a couple of corporate Navajos back in Pennsylvania for multiple owners. Since I was the named pilot on the insurance and airplanes break, the owners all had agreements with eachother to rent the planes out as needed and I flew them. The owners were all paying me to fly, and they were renting the planes from eachother.
 
Clip4 said:
Read the reg. It is a local sight seeing flight. The fact he has a camera has no effect.

Edit: I think where we are differing is a person renting a plane totally independent of the pilot and the person showing up to use you and your plane.
Click to expand...

You have added your interpretation of what you think the reg means here.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You would be surprised how common that is. If anything, it's more common with larger aircraft that are generally professionally flown. The understanding is that Joe Passenger is not going to be flying it, but he rents the plane and then Jim Pilot flies it. I flew a couple of corporate Navajos back in Pennsylvania for multiple owners. Since I was the named pilot on the insurance and airplanes break, the owners all had agreements with eachother to rent the planes out as needed and I flew them. The owners were all paying me to fly, and they were renting the planes from eachother.
Click to expand...

bbbut thats clearly illegal. Everything is illegal. How could you possibly have done that without a 119,121,135,127,141,125 certificate ???? That's clearly reckless conduct under 91.13 to boot (because everything is illegal under 91.13) !


/sarcasm
 
weilke said:
bbbut thats clearly illegal. Everything is illegal. How could you possibly have done that without a 119,121,135,127,141,125 certificate ???? That's clearly reckless conduct under 91.13 to boot (because everything is illegal under 91.13) !


/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Oops, you're clearly right. Sorry, I'll go back in my hole and live under a rock.

/sarcasm
 
The whole thing about this issue is,, understanding what a Commercial operation is.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Please note an operation which is “air work” isn’t a photographer walking in and wanting you to fly him.


https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2015/ragland-double eagle aviation - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...

It's not saying that.

It says you can't do air tours and claim that you are exempt because the passengers are also taking pictures. Even the opinion you quote states so:

We further note that the exception in §119.1(e)(4) for certain "aerial work operations," such as banner towing, aerial photography or survey, and powerline or pipeline patrol, does not extend to air tour operations in which the primary purpose is sightseeing.

The newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO and wants to rent an aircraft is not calling to go sightseeing. The soil conservation district that needs pictures of ditches is not calling to go sightseeing.
 
I don't know why some are so upset by this. If you were a real pilot with half a heart would simply give the guy ride.
 
weilke said:
It's not saying that.

It says you can't do air tours and claim that you are exempt because the passengers are also taking pictures. Even the opinion you quote states so:

We further note that the exception in §119.1(e)(4) for certain "aerial work operations," such as banner towing, aerial photography or survey, and powerline or pipeline patrol, does not extend to air tour operations in which the primary purpose is sightseeing.

The newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO and wants to rent an aircraft is not calling to go sightseeing. The soil conservation district that needs pictures of ditches is not calling to go sightseeing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I disagree. If the n
weilke said:
It's not saying that.

It says you can't do air tours and claim that you are exempt because the passengers are also taking pictures. Even the opinion you quote states so:

We further note that the exception in §119.1(e)(4) for certain "aerial work operations," such as banner towing, aerial photography or survey, and powerline or pipeline patrol, does not extend to air tour operations in which the primary purpose is sightseeing.

The newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO and wants to rent an aircraft is not calling to go sightseeing. The soil conservation district that needs pictures of ditches is not calling to go sightseeing.
Click to expand...

The newspaper photographer may in fact be calling to go sight seeing. The site can be a natural disaster or an event. Sightseeing is not defined. I will concede a radio station wanting to do traffic watch is excluded.

But your original example was a guy show up with a camera. It is a sightseeing flight.
 
Clip4 said:
The newspaper photographer may in fact be calling to go sight seeing. The site can be a natural disaster or an event. Sightseeing is not defined. I will concede a radio station wanting to do traffic watch is excluded.
Click to expand...

Again, that is your interpretation. A newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO to take pictures of an incident like a flood, avalanche, exploding rail-cars or a traffic pileup doesn't do so in order to say 'hey, I just got the most amazing tour of the valley' . He does this so he can email a batch of pictures to his editor and get paid if they print or syndicate.

Its ok if you dont understand the difference.

But your original example was a guy show up with a camera. It is a sightseeing flight.
Click to expand...

My initial post that brought up air-work said no such thing.
 
This discussion is making me sad. I thought I understood all this crap and now I doubt I will want to look it all up to satisfy an answer...

Carry on without me...
 
weilke said:
Again, that is your interpretation. A newspaper photographer who calls up the FBO to take pictures of an incident like a flood, avalanche, exploding rail-cars or a traffic pileup doesn't do so in order to say 'hey, I just got the most amazing tour of the valley' . He does this so he can email a batch of pictures to his editor and get paid if they print or syndicate.

Its ok if you dont understand the difference.



My initial post that brought up air-work said no such thing.
Click to expand...

Your certificate. Do as you want.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Now you're renting your airplane out... does this not change the scenario? I get it, it is kind of like you know guy at the airport that lets you use (wink - wink) his 182, has you on the policy, and with the exception of gas and oil, money (wink - wink) in the form of green pieces of paper with an old Quaker inventor or a past president here and there never changes hands... (wink - wink) technically the plane is not being rented out.. But is that going to pass the odor test should someone come sniffing around?
Click to expand...
Ben wasn’t a Quaker.
 
Tom-D said:
no...Don't confuse "FOR HIRE' with what you are doing. AS long as the CFI didn't rent the plane, it is a simple rental, doesn't matter who is manipulating the controls.

FOR HIRE insinuates a 135 op, holding out to the public for transportation = 135/125, or other commercial operations.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t, for hire also includes flying Part 91. If you are going to hire a pilot to fly part 91, the pilot may not operate unless the plane has 100 hour inspections. The reg prohibits the pilot from operation.
 
Clip4 said:
No it doesn’t, for hire also includes flying Part 91. If you are going to hire a pilot to fly part 91, the pilot may not operate unless the plane has 100 hour inspections. The reg prohibits the pilot from operation.
Click to expand...

Show me that rule:

no ... understand what a commercial operation is.
If the commercial pilot is not providing the aircraft, it is not a commercial operation.
When a CP operates their own aircraft for their own pleasure or transportation without compensation, it is not a commercial operation.
When a Commercial pilot operates their own aircraft for transportation of others for compensation That is a part 135 operation and requires a 135 certificate.
When a Commercial pilot is teaching in an aircraft that they did not provide it is not a commercial operation.
When you rent your aircraft to any other person/pilot that is not a commercial operation.
Part 91 is owner operator, rules not for hire. You can not operate for hire in part 91.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top