Flying Freight / Cargo for hire???

[Mark S Conway]

I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
you know, just stuff.....
I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
pilots, just operators.....

Thanks, Mark

[Robert Moore]

"Mark S Conway" wrote

> I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people
> if I could bring things over for them....

Over where???

> I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops
> for commercial pilots, just operators.....

Might lead one to think that you need to be a commercial operator.

Part 119 probably answers your questiopns.

Bob Moore

[Big John]

Mark

Had a tour in Panama (USAF) and we would have a bird go AOCP (Acronym
for "Aircraft Out of Commission for Part) someplace down country. We'd
get on the radio (SSB) and tell the organization at Albrook AFB, CZ,
and they would take the part out to Tucuman (Civilian Airport for
Panama City) and give to a Commercial Airline Pilot coming our way and
they would carry in cockpit and hand off to us at BA or Lima or some
other place where we were stranded.

Think the airlines helped each other the same way if they had a bird
AOCP.

These parts did not go through customs so no 2-3 day delay getting to
broke bird.

Big John


On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 22:14:10 GMT, "Mark S Conway"
> wrote:

>I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
>bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
>you know, just stuff.....
>I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
>pilots, just operators.....
>
>Thanks, Mark
>

[John Gaquin]

"Big John" > wrote in message

> .....give to a Commercial Airline Pilot coming our way and
> they would carry in cockpit and hand off to us

We used to do that also, up to a point. You couldn't be too blatant about
things. I used to regularly carry personal stuff back and forth to Sydney
for a family in my town whose daughter was doing one year there in college.
We carried a new inflatable to a guy in Pago Pago.

[Rick Durden]

Mark,

Take a look at Part 135. If you are getting any compensation for it,
whatsoever, it's a commercial operation. All of the freight haulers
are operating as commercial operators under 135, 121 or one of the
other applicable parts, not 91.

All the best,
Rick

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02>...
> I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
> bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
> you know, just stuff.....
> I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
> pilots, just operators.....
>
> Thanks, Mark

[Mark]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02>...
> I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
> bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
> you know, just stuff.....
> I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
> pilots, just operators.....
>
> Thanks, Mark

well, it depends on what you call "bring things over" (need more
information). If you operate a schedualed service then you would be
"holding yourself out" for hire and then you would be operating under
a different FAR. However, if this service is non-regular and you don't
provide the airplane, then you might be able to do this. (make sure
you seperate yourself from the airplane. As in, the person who "hired"
you writes one check for the airplane and one check for your time) I
would suggest (strongly suggest!!) that you contact your local FSDO
and let them know what you want to do, they will be willing to work
with you and let you know what you need to do to make this legal.

The reason you can't find this under the "normal" FARs is a Commercial
pilot is limited in what they can do (mainly Flight instruction (if
CFI), banner towing, crop dusting, sight seeing to name a few). They
don't want some yahoo who just got his Commercial license setting up
his own airline. That's why they have the 121 section of the regs.
Oh, for the most part the FAA don't care if your carrying Tires,
Apples or People. Just make sure your "stuff" is legal. ;-)

[Ron Natalie]

"Mark" > wrote in message om...

> well, it depends on what you call "bring things over" (need more
> information). If you operate a schedualed service then you would be
> "holding yourself out" for hire and then you would be operating under
> a different FAR.

Scheduled service isn't the determining factor. The question is whether
you are operating as a common carrier (will generally take shipments from
the public) or as a contract carrier (people you have a specific and limited
arrangement with). It's a real dicey subject and the FAA always leans towards
making things common carriage (commercial operators).

[Robert M. Gary]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02>...
> I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
> bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
> you know, just stuff.....
> I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
> pilots, just operators.....

Its best to write (not talk) to the local FSDO. They're the ones that
are likely to be deciding if it is right or wrong after the fact, so
you might want their opinion beforehand. Having it in writing will be
helpful. There is a guy here in Sacramento that goes up and takes
pictures of property and sells them to developers. He only has a
private pilot's certificate but the local FSDO wrote him and said he's
fine as a private.

-Robert

[Salem Farm & Garden]

Interesting thread. What if you were flying your own freight? i.e. you were
in the import business and flew your DC-6 over to China a couple times a
week to pick up products you intended to sell here? I would assume that it
would still fall under part 121.


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
m...
> "Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:<RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02>...
> > I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
> > bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
> > you know, just stuff.....
> > I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for
commercial
> > pilots, just operators.....
>
> Its best to write (not talk) to the local FSDO. They're the ones that
> are likely to be deciding if it is right or wrong after the fact, so
> you might want their opinion beforehand. Having it in writing will be
> helpful. There is a guy here in Sacramento that goes up and takes
> pictures of property and sells them to developers. He only has a
> private pilot's certificate but the local FSDO wrote him and said he's
> fine as a private.
>
> -Robert

[John Gaquin]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message

> I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
> bring things over for them....

Clarify, please. When you say "...I'm a commercial pilot...", do you mean
that you are employed as a pilot for an airline or other commercial
operator, or do you only mean to say that you hold a Commercial Certificate?

JG

[Mark S Conway]

OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
every day for work.
I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
$14,000.00..
Now, what do you guys think????

Mark

[Gig Giacona]

"Salem Farm & Garden" > wrote in message
news:_9TVb.206301$Rc4.1686511@attbi_s54...
> Interesting thread. What if you were flying your own freight? i.e. you
were
> in the import business and flew your DC-6 over to China a couple times a
> week to pick up products you intended to sell here? I would assume that
it
> would still fall under part 121.
>

How would flying to China to pick up your companies on product be any
different than flying to China to pick up the president of the company which
can be done under part 91.?

[Peter Duniho]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
> Now, what do you guys think????

Assuming you stick to just that one customer, based on the limited and vague
information that I've seen from the FAA on these things, it does not sound
to me like you'd have any trouble operating under Part 91, since you would
not be a common carrier, nor would you be operating one of the larger
aircraft that require adherence to Part 121 or 135 regardless of the common
carriage issue.

By the way, I also think you need three more questions to go with all those
question marks you used. :)

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Salem Farm & Garden" > wrote in message
news:_9TVb.206301$Rc4.1686511@attbi_s54...
| Interesting thread. What if you were flying your own freight? i.e. you
were
| in the import business and flew your DC-6 over to China a couple times a
| week to pick up products you intended to sell here? I would assume that
it
| would still fall under part 121.

No, it is still part 91. You are not holding yourself out for common
carriage of passengers or property for hire.

[C J Campbell]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02...
| I'm a commercial pilot and have been asked by several people if I could
| bring things over for them.... tires for a business, etc....
| you know, just stuff.....
| I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
| pilots, just operators.....

You cannot hold yourself out for common carriage of persons or property for
hire without complying with the requirements of part 119. Basically, you
have to be some kind of airline certified under part 121 (scheduled
airlines) or part 135 (charters and air taxis). "Holding out" generally
means that you are telling people that you are a commercial pilot and that
you are willing to do this, either through some sort of advertising or
through word of mouth.

If the individual hires you as a pilot to fly his stuff or his people in his
airplane then that is conducted under part 91. You can do that. He can even
have you carry people or property for others provided that is 'incidental'
to his own aviation requirements. He cannot rent the airplane from you and
then hire you to fly it; that dodge has been tried before. You probably
could not get away with him renting the plane from your flying club, either.

Commercial operators are extremely jealous of their privileges and if they
think you are violating the regs they will report you in a heartbeat. It
costs a lot of money to become certified as a commercial operator and it
really irritates them to have some guy undercutting them because he chooses
not to comply with the experience, insurance, maintenance, operating rules,
training and other requirements that they have. I know places where they
don't report you, though. They just beat you up and leave you out in the
desert somewhere.

[John Gaquin]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
> OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
> every day for work.

> He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...

If you want to do this, make damn sure you check it out and have all your
ducks lined up properly, because that guy who is about to lose 25K of
revenue to you, a part 91 operator, will probably be on the phone to the Fed
before you have your wheels in the wells.

JG

[Mark S Conway]

OK guys, i get the picture...
I guess the only thing is, i dont want to **** off the local commuter
company...i know they will see me loading and unloading...it's a busy
airport.
I have a better understanding of the Regs now..
If i had a single customer or a select few, i guess it would be ok..

Thanks, Mark

[Rick Durden]

Mark,

What you described is a Part 135 compensation. You are being
compensated for flying and you don't meet one of the exceptions. It's
that simple. Believe me, this has all been tried before. If a person
pays to have cargo or people moved by airplane, the FAR and the NTSB's
interpretation of them have been consistent, it is a for-hire
operation and the person paying for the operation is entitled to a
much higher level of qualification for the operator he is paying than
normal Part 91 ops.

The sanction you face is suspension or revocation of your certificate
and/or a civil penalty (fine) for each and every infraction, at a max
of $1,100 per infraction which can be interpreted as every flight you
make.

If you want to carry cargo for hire, you are going to have to get a
135 air taxi certificate.

Otherwise, if you are making the flight and if you are paying for it,
you can carry stuff for a friend as a favor, but you cannot charge
anything for it.

This issue comes in front of the FAA all the time from pilots trying
to find a way to build time for less money and the pilots get hammered
each time.

All the best,
Rick

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01>...
> OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
> every day for work.
> I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
> A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
> He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
> I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
> He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
> He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
> $14,000.00..
> Now, what do you guys think????
>
> Mark

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02>...

> I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for commercial
> pilots, just operators.....

Only operators can perform freight operations, per part 119.1.

Also, have a look at 61.133, which is conveniently titled "Commercial
pilot privileges and limitations." You can be pilot in command for an
operation to which parts 121 / 125 / 135 etc. apply.

[Gary Drescher]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:<RwyVb.252706$xy6.1317027@attbi_s02>...
>
> > I cant find anything in the regs about freight or cargo ops for
commercial
> > pilots, just operators.....
>
> Only operators can perform freight operations, per part 119.1.

Brian, could you elaborate, please? I just re-read 119.1 and could not find
any statement restricting freight ops to commercial operators.

Thanks,
Gary

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01>...

> I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
> A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
> He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...

Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would be "holding
out to others" (119.3, "noncommon carriage") and performing an
"all-cargo operation" (119.3), and would require an air carrier
certificate (119.5(a)).

[Rick Durden]

Mark,


> If i had a single customer or a select few, i guess it would be ok..

No, it would make no difference how many customers you had. It is an
operation for hire and not legal under Part 91. If the customer pays
you anything to carry something, it is a for hire operation. Please
go read FAR Part 119 carefully before you get yourself in a jam.

All the best,
Rick

[John Gaquin]

Been a while, but maybe.....

1.1 Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire,
engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or
property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under
the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an
operation is for ``compensation or hire'', the test applied is whether
the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business
or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.

91.501(b)

119.21(a)5

119.23(b)






"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message >
> Brian, could you elaborate, please? I just re-read 119.1 and could not
find
> any statement restricting freight ops to commercial operators.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message om...
> "Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01>...
>
> > I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
> > A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
> > He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
>
> Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would be "holding
> out to others" (119.3, "noncommon carriage")

Holding out is common carriage. Any solicitation of business, no matter
how small the market is holding out.

There's an AC 120-12A on the subject.

[Doug]

Uh, this guy I knew once flew up to Alaska and landed his airplane on
a private strip near a lake. The guy taking care of the closed hunting
lodge made a deal with him. If the pilot would go get some steaks and
beer, the caretaker would let him stay in the lodge for a couple of
nights. So he dutifully went back to the nearest town, loaded up on
beer and steak, and got to enjoy the lake and lodge.

I guess it was a commercial operation, but it sure wasn't part 135. In
some ways it was a humanitarian flight, as the caretaker was SICK of
eating trout and moose meat, but most of all he NEEDED beer. So
obviously there is THAT to consider as well. And after all, it WAS
Alaska. I hope the FAA understands these fine points, I'm sure I
don't.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
> Holding out is common carriage. Any solicitation of business, no matter
> how small the market is holding out.
>
> There's an AC 120-12A on the subject.

You should read it. It specifically contradicts your claim that "any
solicitation of business, no matter how small the market is holding out".

In particular, it stipulates that maintaining as few as three contracts has
been held to be private carriage, not common. Unfortunately, it doesn't go
so far as to tell us exactly how many contracts put you over the common
carriage boundary, but from the AC we do know that it's somewhere between
three at the low end and eighteen to twenty-four on the high end.

I agree that open solicitation to no particular individual would be "holding
out". But having a friend to whom you offer your services, and offering
them ONLY to that friend is definitely private carriage. Just because a
pilot proposes the operation does not mean the operation is common. The
determining factor is how the proposal is made, and to what extent it is
extended to the general public.

Your interpretation sounds a lot like the private pilot restriction against
taking friends flying when they ask you to, but these are completely
different issues.

There remains open the question of whether private carriage is also subject
to 119 and related rules, or if it can be done under Part 91. Some here
have argued that even private carriage needs to be done under Part 135 or
121, but I have yet to see a convincing argument to that effect. That is, I
have seen no reference that clearly says that.

IMHO, either the difference in private and common carriage is important, in
which case the AC to which you refer clearly shows that Mark can move tires
for his friend for pay, or the difference is NOT important, in which case I
feel that the FAA is doing us all a disservice by making us worry about
what's private and what's common (even to the point of writing a detailed AC
about the subject!)

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Holding out is common carriage. Any solicitation of business, no matter
> > how small the market is holding out.
> >
> > There's an AC 120-12A on the subject.
>
> You should read it. It specifically contradicts your claim that "any
> solicitation of business, no matter how small the market is holding out".
>
> In particular, it stipulates that maintaining as few as three contracts has
> been held to be private carriage, not common.

I have read it. Now you go back and read carefully what I said.
"Soliciting to a small market" is what I said. Holding out doesn't
have to mean the offer is extended to the general public. I was
commenting on Brien's (the post I was immediately following up)
odd statement that "Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would
be 'holding out to others.'" Which we would both agree isn't true.


A point I didn't make, but the AC does, is that going after new contracts
also puts you on the edge of being in common carriage.

>
> Your interpretation sounds a lot like the private pilot restriction against
> taking friends flying when they ask you to, but these are completely
> different issues.

Not intended to sound anything like it
>
> There remains open the question of whether private carriage is also subject
> to 119 and related rules, or if it can be done under Part 91. Some here
> have argued that even private carriage needs to be done under Part 135 or
> 121, but I have yet to see a convincing argument to that effect.

There are certain private carriages (larger aircraft) that must play the part 119
game, but in general no.

[Mark S Conway]

Guys, this is crazy!!!!!

Now, i was told by a 135 operation here in Nantucket...
I fly from Cape Cod to Nantucket every day for work...
I could get 3 other people, an electrician, a carpenter and a
plumber... and charge them $50.00 round trip everyday AND DO IT PART 91
!!!!!
Because i have chosen a select few people... i can do it!!!!
Or even select 5 people and whoever shows up that day .. fine...
But i cannot advertise or HOLD OUT.... just a select few....

WHAT'S THE DEAL...

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

Mark

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...

> > Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would be "holding
> > out to others" (119.3, "noncommon carriage")
>
> Holding out is common carriage.

Yes, that's my point.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Doug wrote:
>
> I hope the FAA understands these fine points, I'm sure I don't.

Just don't tell the FAA your friend's name.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have read it. Now you go back and read carefully what I said.
> "Soliciting to a small market" is what I said.

Actually, you wrote "no matter how small the market". It's to that that I
objected. Solicitation of business does not in and of itself imply "holding
out". It's true that most solicitation of business winds up being "holding
out", but if the market is small enough, and the solicitation directed
enough, the solicitation does not automatically create a situation of
"holding out".

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:t3fWb.968$yE5.4525@attbi_s54...
> [...]
> I could get 3 other people, an electrician, a carpenter and a
> plumber... and charge them $50.00 round trip everyday AND DO IT PART 91
> !!!!!
> Because i have chosen a select few people... i can do it!!!!
> [...]
> THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

Why? The regulations are (relatively) clear. There's no cut-and-dried
definition of "holding out", but one key component is how many people you're
doing business with, and another is what your relationship with them is
otherwise.

Note that it's not just a question of advertising. Your client list needs
to be small, and if your only contact with them is with respect to your
transportation contract, you may still be found to be holding out.

That said, if you're considering a particular kind of operation, I wouldn't
ask a neighboring Part 135 operator. Go to the FSDO, since they are the
people who are enforcing the rules in your area.

Pete

[Captain Wubba]

OK. So what if the tire company bought a 1/10th ownership of the
airplane...for an Apache that should be $5000 or so. The tire guy has
a legitimate, fractional ownership of the plane and hires the pilot to
fly the *tire companys* plane, which he also happens to own. I know
you can't get away with having Joe Customer rent a plen the Fred Pilot
owns then turn around and hire Fred Pilot to fly it, but what part
prevents Joe Customer from hiring Fred Pilot to fly a plane that Joe
Customer already owns part of? The tire guy would still save quite a
bit of money over the long run. Why would this be different from a
fractional ownership?

Cap


(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> Mark,
>
> What you described is a Part 135 compensation. You are being
> compensated for flying and you don't meet one of the exceptions. It's
> that simple. Believe me, this has all been tried before. If a person
> pays to have cargo or people moved by airplane, the FAR and the NTSB's
> interpretation of them have been consistent, it is a for-hire
> operation and the person paying for the operation is entitled to a
> much higher level of qualification for the operator he is paying than
> normal Part 91 ops.
>
> The sanction you face is suspension or revocation of your certificate
> and/or a civil penalty (fine) for each and every infraction, at a max
> of $1,100 per infraction which can be interpreted as every flight you
> make.
>
> If you want to carry cargo for hire, you are going to have to get a
> 135 air taxi certificate.
>
> Otherwise, if you are making the flight and if you are paying for it,
> you can carry stuff for a friend as a favor, but you cannot charge
> anything for it.
>
> This issue comes in front of the FAA all the time from pilots trying
> to find a way to build time for less money and the pilots get hammered
> each time.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>
> "Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01>...
> > OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
> > every day for work.
> > I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
> > A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
> > He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
> > I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
> > He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
> > He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
> > $14,000.00..
> > Now, what do you guys think????
> >
> > Mark

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:<KE7Wb.271797$xy6.1381578@attbi_s02>...

> Brian, could you elaborate, please? I just re-read 119.1 and could not find
> any statement restricting freight ops to commercial operators.

Well, the first half of the very first sentence says that the entire
Part 119 applies to this situation. 119.1(a) and 119.1(a)(1).

119.1 Applicability: (a) This part applies to each person operating or
intending to operate a civil aircraft (1) as an air carrier or
commercial operator, or both, in air commerce[.]

The operation described is that of a direct air carrier and commercial
operator, so this part applies. To see how it applies, just read the
rest of part 119.

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> I was
> commenting on Brien's (the post I was immediately following up)
> odd statement that "Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would
> be 'holding out to others.'" Which we would both agree isn't true.

That's a pretty common definition of holding out to others in other
contexts, but apparently not the one described in the advisory
circular, which I didn't realize. I stand corrected, and also agree
that it isn't true.

> There are certain private carriages (larger aircraft) that must play the part > 119 game, but in general no.

119.23(b) indicates that Mark would still have to play a large part of
the Part 119 and Part 135 game, i.e. be "certifiable" under part 119
and conduct operations in accordance with part 135 (including
limitations and qualifications). Is there another AC that I haven't
read that contradicts this? ;-)

[Gary Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
> Been a while, but maybe.....
>
> 1.1 Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or
hire,
> engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or
> property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under
> the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an
> operation is for ``compensation or hire'', the test applied is whether
> the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business
> or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.

Hm, I'm confused. First of all, this says you have to be engaged in "air
commerce" to be a commercial operator. And 1.1 defines "air commerce" as
"interstate, overseas, or foreign", or mail transport, or navigation on
Federal airways. So if you stay within one state and avoid Federal airways,
then does that mean you're not a commercial operator, according to this
definition?

Secondly, why isn't a corporate pilot who transports company executives a
"commercial operator" by this defintion? (Provided that the pilot travels
between states or on airways, that is.) The definition says nothing about
who provides the plane or whether there's any holding out.

--Gary


>
> 91.501(b)
>
> 119.21(a)5
>
> 119.23(b)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message >
> > Brian, could you elaborate, please? I just re-read 119.1 and could not
> find
> > any statement restricting freight ops to commercial operators.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gary
> >
> >
>
>

[John Gaquin]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>
> Hm, I'm confused. First of all, this says you have to be engaged in "air
> commerce" to be a commercial operator. And 1.1 defines "air commerce" as
> "interstate, overseas, or foreign", or mail transport, or navigation on
> Federal airways. So if you stay within one state and avoid Federal
airways,
> then does that mean you're not a commercial operator, according to this
> definition?

that's a pointless question, in any practical application.

>
> Secondly, why isn't a corporate pilot who transports company executives a
> "commercial operator" by this defintion? (Provided that the pilot travels
> between states or on airways, that is.) The definition says nothing about
> who provides the plane or whether there's any holding out.

<sigh...> You're being argumentative, Gary.

[Gary Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > Secondly, why isn't a corporate pilot who transports company executives
a
> > "commercial operator" by this defintion? (Provided that the pilot
travels
> > between states or on airways, that is.) The definition says nothing
about
> > who provides the plane or whether there's any holding out.
>
> <sigh...> You're being argumentative, Gary.

Huh? Arguing with whom about what? I haven't even formed an opinion on the
matter. I'm just asking a straightforward question to try to understand the
FAA's definition.

--Gary

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<t3fWb.968$yE5.4525@attbi_s54>...

> THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

You haven't even scratched the surface.

[John Gaquin]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message >
> Huh? Arguing with whom about what? I haven't even formed an opinion on
the
> matter. I'm just asking a straightforward question to try to understand
the
> FAA's definition.

OK, let me expand. When you're trying to ascertain or clarify a regulatory
circumstance in the FARs, and that circumstance is any more complicated
than, for example, the most rudimentary student pilot experience question,
then you most often have to interpret and construct your applicable guidance
using the appropriate references from several separate paragraphs and
sub-paragraphs of a section or Part, and occasionally from multiple Parts.
Thus my earlier reference to 1.1, 91.501(b), 119.21(a)5, and 119.23(b). I
don't even know if my references provide the correct answer -- just my guess
at the OP's query.

I thought you would have understood this already, and thus my suggestion of
argumentativeness when you implied that you expected a neat, complete
explanation and definition all within one paragraph. So sorry.

[John Gaquin]

"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
>
> WHAT'S THE DEAL...
>
> THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

You simply don't understand the purpose and utility of the FARs. In
addition to regulating air transportation and training, the FARs are
designed such that any pilot, at any time, can be found to have been in
violation of some regulation, somewhere. This little feature has been found
by the FAA to be very useful from time to time over the years.

[Big John]

John

Thou speakest the truth.

If you fly, you break rules on every flight.

Big John

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:50:04 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
>>
>> WHAT'S THE DEAL...
>>
>> THIS IS CRAZY!!!!
>
>You simply don't understand the purpose and utility of the FARs. In
>addition to regulating air transportation and training, the FARs are
>designed such that any pilot, at any time, can be found to have been in
>violation of some regulation, somewhere. This little feature has been found
>by the FAA to be very useful from time to time over the years.
>

[N7155A]

Mark,
I'll try to stir things up.

If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.

In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
risks, and the general public is not put at risk.

Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
(fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
stay part 91.

As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
part 135.

Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
certificate....

[Mark S Conway]

Mitch....
My wife owns the airplane in a leasing company / corporation.
I rent it from the leasing co, to commute to work, etc....
Is that enough separation?

Mark



"N7155A" > wrote in message
om...
> Mark,
> I'll try to stir things up.
>
> If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
> may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
> the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.
>
> In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
> risks, and the general public is not put at risk.
>
> Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
> (fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
> stay part 91.
>
> As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
> part 135.
>
> Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
> certificate....

[N7155A]

Mark,
The bad news here is "YOU rent it". If the customer rents the plane,
then you are probably ok. The customer (by directly renting the
plane) is intimately familiar with the risks involved and does not
need the additional 135 supervision.

If a customer calls you and you supply both airplane and pilot - it
looks like part 135; If you supply airplane and Pilot, the you are
making the risk decision for the customer and the FAA will impose part
135.

To be part 91, the company must arrange for the airplane and provide
the pilot. A freelance pilot who provides the airplane (by renting or
other) looks like 135.

I know an FBO that seems to be getting around this by signing long
term contracts with their customers. The contract specifies
operations to avoid 135 requirements. Each customer would have to
sign such a contract, and he has limited customers.

I read (probably urban legend) of a pilot who sold his services, and
his wife (under a rental company) rented the planes. This supposedly
drew FAA action. Someone could walk in and say, I want to go to XXX.
He would direct them to rent from his wife's company, and he flew
them. They paid two bills, one for pilot and one for airplane rental.
This was viewed as holding out.

Mitch – if the new sightseeing NOPR goes through, I may start on a 135
certificate.



"Mark S Conway" > wrote in message news:<ZNeYb.46867$uV3.95404@attbi_s51>...
> Mitch....
> My wife owns the airplane in a leasing company / corporation.
> I rent it from the leasing co, to commute to work, etc....
> Is that enough separation?
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> "N7155A" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Mark,
> > I'll try to stir things up.
> >
> > If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
> > may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
> > the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.
> >
> > In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
> > risks, and the general public is not put at risk.
> >
> > Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
> > (fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
> > stay part 91.
> >
> > As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
> > part 135.
> >
> > Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
> > certificate....

[Gig Giacona]

"N7155A" > wrote in message
om...
> Mark,
> The bad news here is "YOU rent it". If the customer rents the plane,
> then you are probably ok. The customer (by directly renting the
> plane) is intimately familiar with the risks involved and does not
> need the additional 135 supervision.
>
> If a customer calls you and you supply both airplane and pilot - it
> looks like part 135; If you supply airplane and Pilot, the you are
> making the risk decision for the customer and the FAA will impose part
> 135.
>
> To be part 91, the company must arrange for the airplane and provide
> the pilot. A freelance pilot who provides the airplane (by renting or
> other) looks like 135.
>
> I know an FBO that seems to be getting around this by signing long
> term contracts with their customers. The contract specifies
> operations to avoid 135 requirements. Each customer would have to
> sign such a contract, and he has limited customers.
>
> I read (probably urban legend) of a pilot who sold his services, and
> his wife (under a rental company) rented the planes. This supposedly
> drew FAA action. Someone could walk in and say, I want to go to XXX.
> He would direct them to rent from his wife's company, and he flew
> them. They paid two bills, one for pilot and one for airplane rental.
> This was viewed as holding out.
>
> Mitch - if the new sightseeing NOPR goes through, I may start on a 135
> certificate.
>
>
>
> "Mark S Conway" > wrote in message
news:<ZNeYb.46867$uV3.95404@attbi_s51>...
> > Mitch....
> > My wife owns the airplane in a leasing company / corporation.
> > I rent it from the leasing co, to commute to work, etc....
> > Is that enough separation?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > "N7155A" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Mark,
> > > I'll try to stir things up.
> > >
> > > If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
> > > may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
> > > the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.
> > >
> > > In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
> > > risks, and the general public is not put at risk.
> > >
> > > Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
> > > (fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
> > > stay part 91.
> > >
> > > As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
> > > part 135.
> > >
> > > Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
> > > certificate....


Not an Urban Legend it was in AOPA's Mag or Flying a few months back. FAA
didn't buy it.