PT 134 1/2?

[BarryCooper]

Joe asks Commercial Pilot Larry if he can fly him to KXXX. Larry gives him number where he can rent a plane. Then flies him to KXXX in said plane.

Is this legal or not? I'm confused

 

[Tom-D]

yes

 

[flyingron]

As long as Larry does not secure the aircraft for the operation and doesn't hold out to the public, it is legal.

 

[Tom-D]

As long as Larry does not secure the aircraft for the operation and doesn't hold out to the public, it is legal.

The pilot is a Commercial Pilot.. They can charge, no matter who rented the A/C.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The pilot is a Commercial Pilot.. They can charge, no matter who rented the A/C.

But if the pilot rents the airplane, the trip becomes illegal, regardless of compensation.

 

[flyingron]

The pilot is a Commercial Pilot.. They can charge, no matter who rented the A/C.

Bullpoop. If the pilot provides the aircraft, this is not just an operation requiring a private pilot, but likely requires a commercial operator certificate. There are a few exceptions for private carriage, but it's not universal (and fraught with enforcement peril). My assumption based on the subject line of (134 1/2) was that the Larry is not part of an entity with such a certificate.

 

[Tom-D]

But if the pilot rents the airplane, the trip becomes illegal, regardless of compensation.

That's not what the first post says.

 

[Tom-D]

Bullpoop. If the pilot provides the aircraft,

That's not what the first post says.

"Larry gives him number where he can rent a plane.""

IOWs Joe is renting the plane.

 

[flyingron]

That's not what the first post says.

"Larry gives him number where he can rent a plane.""

IOWs Joe is renting the plane.

I was responding to your post "The pilot is a Commercial Pilot.. They can charge, no matter who rented the A/C."

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's not what the first post says.

You're correct...but your post expanded that to include the possibility of Larry renting the airplane ("no matter who").

 

[BarryCooper]

As long as Larry does not secure the aircraft for the operation and doesn't hold out to the public, it is legal.

This is what I was thinking

 

[Tom-D]

I was responding to your post "The pilot is a Commercial Pilot.. They can charge, no matter who rented the A/C."

I'll buy that.

 

[Tom-D]

Gotta remember, many pilots operate on demand air taxi, single pilot, with rented aircraft.

This would not be the case here.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Joe asks Commercial Pilot Larry if he can fly him to KXXX. Larry gives him number where he can rent a plane. Then flies him to KXXX in said plane.

Is this legal or not? I'm confused

Who is going to rent an airplane to a non-rated pilot, let alone some schmuck coming in off the street?

 

[dans2992]

Gotta remember, many pilots operate on demand air taxi, single pilot, with rented aircraft.

This would not be the case here.

Really? How would that work?

 

[Tom-D]

Really? How would that work?

They operate in part 135. they have done the paper work and gotten the certificate.
Point to Point Aviation is one example operating here in Puget Sound.

 

[dans2992]

So, the company they rent from has to keep the aircraft 135 certified?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Who is going to rent an airplane to a non-rated pilot, let alone some schmuck coming in off the street?

You'd be amazed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So, the company they rent from has to keep the aircraft 135 certified?

That would depend on the specific agreement, but yes.

Maintenance would at least be overseen by the 135 operator's D.M.

 

[weilke]

Who is going to rent an airplane to a non-rated pilot, let alone some schmuck coming in off the street?

Lots of FBOs will do that. If the schmuck provides them with information on who the pilot will be who does the flying. Chances are 'Larry' is already a flight instructor or contract pilot who has worked with the FBO.

- two phonecalls
- two written invoices, one from the FBO for 'aircraft rental', one from the pilot for 'piloting services on x/x/2019
...and all the parties have to be in agreement that schmuck is the operator of the flight who employs the professional services of 'Larry' as the pilot. 'FBO' is only involved as the lessor of the plane. Now as the operator of the flight, schmuck would probably want to carry insurance coverage for his risk exposure, particularly if schmuck does this flight on behalf of 'schmucks general contracting'. But that's what commercial non-owned insurance is for.

If this becomes an ongoing setup in the sense that 'Schmuck' has a standing agreement with the FBO to use the plane with 'Larry' or any other suitably qualified pilot, it can be advisable to submit the lease to the local FSDO for their review. They tend not to like a setup where more than 5 lessees have an ongoing rental on the same aircraft.

 

[weilke]

That would depend on the specific agreement, but yes.

Maintenance would at least be overseen by the 135 operator's D.M.

They operate in part 135. they have done the paper work and gotten the certificate.
Point to Point Aviation is one example operating here in Puget Sound.

That's an entire different ball of wax and not really related to the question as posed in the original post.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's an entire different ball of wax and not really related to the question as posed in the original post.

True, but the question was asked, so why not answer it?

 

[Tom-D]

So, the company they rent from has to keep the aircraft 135 certified?

When it is listed on the certificate for the part 135 doesn't matter who owns it.

Investigate Cessna leasing, and how they work.

 

[Tom-D]

Who is going to rent an airplane to a non-rated pilot, let alone some schmuck coming in off the street?

Show are renters insurance, I'd rent to any one, you want to commit stupid, it's insured.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Lots of FBOs will do that. If the schmuck provides them with information on who the pilot will be who does the flying. Chances are 'Larry' is already a flight instructor or contract pilot who has worked with the FBO.

- two phonecalls
- two written invoices, one from the FBO for 'aircraft rental', one from the pilot for 'piloting services on x/x/2019
...and all the parties have to be in agreement that schmuck is the operator of the flight who employs the professional services of 'Larry' as the pilot. 'FBO' is only involved as the lessor of the plane. Now as the operator of the flight, schmuck would probably want to carry insurance coverage for his risk exposure, particularly if schmuck does this flight on behalf of 'schmucks general contracting'. But that's what commercial non-owned insurance is for.

If this becomes an ongoing setup in the sense that 'Schmuck' has a standing agreement with the FBO to use the plane with 'Larry' or any other suitably qualified pilot, it can be advisable to submit the lease to the local FSDO for their review. They tend not to like a setup where more than 5 lessees have an ongoing rental on the same aircraft.

If they are looking to skirt the 135 requirements, why doesn't Schmuck just get a flying lesson... who says you can't do your cross country first?

 

[Unit74]

Joe asks Commercial Pilot Larry if he can fly him to KXXX. Larry gives him number where he can rent a plane. Then flies him to KXXX in said plane.

Is this legal or not? I'm confused

Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work? Joe rents the plane and Larry pushes and pulls on the levers for money. Perfectly legal.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Show are renters insurance, I'd rent to any one, you want to commit stupid, it's insured.

Wait until you get the call from from law firm of Dewy Screwem, & Howe.. Why would you expose yourself to stupid?

 

[weilke]

If they are looking to skirt the 135 requirements, why doesn't Schmuck just get a flying lesson... who says you can't do your cross country first?

Why do you think Schmuck would want to sit up front ?

What I describe is a perfectly legal and insurable dry-lease arrangement. Schmuck rents plane, Schmuck hires pilot, pilot flies plane when and where Schmuck wants to go. Nothing being skirted. None of the parties involved is providing transportation to Schmuck or is holding out to provide transportation to 'any willing party'. Its a part 91 operation no different from Schmuck hiring the pilot as his employee and leasing the aircraft from 'Mo's aircraft leasing Inc'.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If they are looking to skirt the 135 requirements, why doesn't Schmuck just get a flying lesson... who says you can't do your cross country first?

There used to be a guy who did that..."used to" and "did" being the key terms...FAA determined he was holding out without an operating certificate.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Why do you think Schmuck would want to sit up front ?

What I describe is a perfectly legal and insurable dry-lease arrangement. Schmuck rents plane, Schmuck hires pilot, pilot flies plane when and where Schmuck wants to go. Nothing being skirted. None of the parties involved is providing transportation to Schmuck or is holding out to provide transportation to 'any willing party'. Its a part 91 operation no different from Schmuck hiring the pilot as his employee and leasing the aircraft from 'Mo's aircraft leasing Inc'.

Who wouldn't want to sit up front... urruuuppp scratch that, there are these creatures among us..

OK... I see the point now... I got to get out of the 172 world once in a while..

 

[Tom-D]

There used to be a guy who did that..."used to" and "did" being the key terms...FAA determined he was holding out without an operating certificate.

I Remember that,, FAA said it was about "INTENT"

 

[weilke]

Who wouldn't want to sit up front... urruuuppp scratch that, there are these creatures among us..

OK... I see the point now... I got to get out of the 172 world once in a while..

This starts in the Cirrus SR22 world and up. The lessor is often not an FBO but another business that wants to increase utilization of their plane. It gets sticky when 'Larry' for example is an employee of the lessor company and this starts to look like the lessor provides both plane&pilot.

 

[Clip4]

Joe asks Commercial Pilot Larry if he can fly him to KXXX. Larry gives him number where he can rent a plane. Then flies him to KXXX in said plane.

Is this legal or not? I'm confused

Maybe.

If the pilot has no relationship with where the plane is rented (Employee or owner) and the plane has a 100 hour inspection the flight is legal.

If the pilot directs Joe to place he works or has an ownership interest, no it is not legal.

 

[Tom-D]

Maybe.

If the pilot has no relationship with where the plane is rented (Employee or owner) and the plane has a 100 hour inspection the flight is legal.

If the pilot directs Joe to place he works or has an ownership interest, no it is not legal.

When He rents my Privately owned aircraft why would it require a 100 Hours inspection? (it is in annual)

 

[Ventucky Red]

When He rents my Privately owned aircraft why would it require a 100 Hours inspection? (it is in annual)

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?

 

[Rgbeard]

This is the crap that's kept me away from wanting a commercial license.

I'm happy to take the occasional friend somewhere, if they kick in a little gas money.

(I'd have to have friends, first....)

 

[BarryCooper]

If the pilot has no relationship with where the plane is rented (Employee or owner) and the plane has a 100 hour inspection the flight is legal.

This

 

[falconkidding]

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?

Airplane rentals dont require 100hrs only if your also providing instruction.

 

[Clip4]

Airplane rentals dont require 100hrs only if your also providing instruction.

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.

https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/maintenance-and-inspections/aircraft-inspections

 

[Tom-D]

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?

Point being, simply renting an aircraft is not a commercial operation. The aircraft will not require a 100 hour.
Were a CFI to rent an aircraft and give flight instruction in it, That is a commercial operation and requires a 100 hour or an annual with in the last 100 hours.