commercial privileges

[Gary Drescher]

Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the part
135 drug-testing rules?

[ArtP]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:35 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
>local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
>requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the part
>135 drug-testing rules?

A commercial pilot being paid to carry passengers cannot provide the
plane (including renting one) without being an operator.

[Gary Drescher]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> A commercial pilot being paid to carry passengers cannot provide the
> plane (including renting one) without being an operator.

But if it's a local sightseeing flight, then the pilot is only an operator
for purposes of the part-135 drug-testing rules, not for purposes of any
part-119 requirements, right? (FAR 119.1e2 says that part 119 does not
apply to local sightseeing flights, and 135.1c says only that the
drug-testing sections of part 135 apply to such flights.)

--Gary

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
> Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
> local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
> 135 drug-testing rules?
>
>

Aerial photography is one of the specified exceptions to the charter rules,
as is flight instruction and such agricultural work as fish spotting or
pipeline patrol where there might be a 'passenger' on board. In each case
the 'passenger' is considered a required crew member.

[Dennis O'Connor]

This gets hashed over about every six months...
Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E R I O
D...
It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
providing aircraft...
denny
"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
> Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
> local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
> 135 drug-testing rules?
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
> > Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on
a
> > local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> > requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
> part
> > 135 drug-testing rules?
> >
> >
>
> Aerial photography is one of the specified exceptions to the charter
rules,
> as is flight instruction and such agricultural work as fish spotting or
> pipeline patrol where there might be a 'passenger' on board. In each case
> the 'passenger' is considered a required crew member.

I see that it's an exception to part 119 (as per FAR 119.1e4iii), but I
wasn't sure if it still comes under the scope of 135.1a5, which applies even
when part 119 doesn't.

Thanks,
Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> This gets hashed over about every six months...
> Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E R I
O
> D...
> It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
> providing aircraft...

Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
photography and local sightseeing?

--Gary

> denny
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
> > Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on
a
> > local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> > requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
> part
> > 135 drug-testing rules?
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:<yjK_b.113497$jk2.502928@attbi_s53>...
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This gets hashed over about every six months...
> > Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E R I
> O
> > D...
> > It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
> > providing aircraft...
>
> Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
> photography and local sightseeing?


No, you're fine if you are just doing local sightseeing. AOPA is
working to ensure this doesn't change. Make sure your insurance is ok
for sightseeing and your class 2 medical is good to go. Its common for
flight schools to sell photography flights.

[Gary Drescher]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:<yjK_b.113497$jk2.502928@attbi_s53>...
> > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This gets hashed over about every six months...
> > > Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E
R I
> > O
> > > D...
> > > It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
> > > providing aircraft...
> >
> > Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
> > photography and local sightseeing?
>
>
> No, you're fine if you are just doing local sightseeing. AOPA is
> working to ensure this doesn't change. Make sure your insurance is ok
> for sightseeing and your class 2 medical is good to go. Its common for
> flight schools to sell photography flights.

Sure, but flight schools are licensed operators; I'm not. So there seems to
be disagreement here as to whether a non-operator commercial pilot can do
this. And the relevant FARs appear to be gibberish, so I'm still uncertain
as to what the answer is in practice.

For instance, according to FAR 1.1, to be considered a "commercial
operator", you have to be engaged in "air commerce". But according to 1.1,
to be considered "air commerce", your activity has to be interstate,
international, on Federal airways, or involving mail delivery. Otherwise,
no "air commerce", hence no "commercial operator". But part 119 only
applies to "commercial operators" as defined in 1.1. And parts 121 and 135
only apply to those to whom part 119 applies--except for local sightseeing
flights, which part 135 addresses even when part 119 doesn't apply. So as
long as you stay in one state, avoid Federal airways, don't deliver mail,
and don't do local sightseeing flights (but long-range sightseeing is ok!),
nothing in 119, 121, or 135 is applicable. That can't be what the FAA
meant, but it's what they've written.

--Gary

[Peter Gottlieb]

Why don't you call the local FSDO and ask them? There seems to be a lot of
variation between them so you want to know what the one for your area
thinks.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:_WQ_b.399631$na.765403@attbi_s04...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:<yjK_b.113497$jk2.502928@attbi_s53>...
> > > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > This gets hashed over about every six months...
> > > > Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P
E
> R I
> > > O
> > > > D...
> > > > It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
> > > > providing aircraft...
> > >
> > > Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
> > > photography and local sightseeing?
> >
> >
> > No, you're fine if you are just doing local sightseeing. AOPA is
> > working to ensure this doesn't change. Make sure your insurance is ok
> > for sightseeing and your class 2 medical is good to go. Its common for
> > flight schools to sell photography flights.
>
> Sure, but flight schools are licensed operators; I'm not. So there seems
to
> be disagreement here as to whether a non-operator commercial pilot can do
> this. And the relevant FARs appear to be gibberish, so I'm still
uncertain
> as to what the answer is in practice.
>
> For instance, according to FAR 1.1, to be considered a "commercial
> operator", you have to be engaged in "air commerce". But according to
1.1,
> to be considered "air commerce", your activity has to be interstate,
> international, on Federal airways, or involving mail delivery. Otherwise,
> no "air commerce", hence no "commercial operator". But part 119 only
> applies to "commercial operators" as defined in 1.1. And parts 121 and
135
> only apply to those to whom part 119 applies--except for local sightseeing
> flights, which part 135 addresses even when part 119 doesn't apply. So as
> long as you stay in one state, avoid Federal airways, don't deliver mail,
> and don't do local sightseeing flights (but long-range sightseeing is
ok!),
> nothing in 119, 121, or 135 is applicable. That can't be what the FAA
> meant, but it's what they've written.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> Why don't you call the local FSDO and ask them? There seems to be a lot
of
> variation between them so you want to know what the one for your area
> thinks.

That's a good idea. But I'd have to get a written opinion if I want to rely
on it. It's frustrating to have a system where each FSDO makes up its own
unpublished rules because the published ones don't make sense.

--Gary

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:_WQ_b.399631$na.765403@attbi_s04...
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > news:<yjK_b.113497$jk2.502928@attbi_s53>...
> > > > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > This gets hashed over about every six months...
> > > > > Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay,
P
> E
> > R I
> > > > O
> > > > > D...
> > > > > It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service
by
> > > > > providing aircraft...
> > > >
> > > > Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
> > > > photography and local sightseeing?
> > >
> > >
> > > No, you're fine if you are just doing local sightseeing. AOPA is
> > > working to ensure this doesn't change. Make sure your insurance is ok
> > > for sightseeing and your class 2 medical is good to go. Its common for
> > > flight schools to sell photography flights.
> >
> > Sure, but flight schools are licensed operators; I'm not. So there
seems
> to
> > be disagreement here as to whether a non-operator commercial pilot can
do
> > this. And the relevant FARs appear to be gibberish, so I'm still
> uncertain
> > as to what the answer is in practice.
> >
> > For instance, according to FAR 1.1, to be considered a "commercial
> > operator", you have to be engaged in "air commerce". But according to
> 1.1,
> > to be considered "air commerce", your activity has to be interstate,
> > international, on Federal airways, or involving mail delivery.
Otherwise,
> > no "air commerce", hence no "commercial operator". But part 119 only
> > applies to "commercial operators" as defined in 1.1. And parts 121 and
> 135
> > only apply to those to whom part 119 applies--except for local
sightseeing
> > flights, which part 135 addresses even when part 119 doesn't apply. So
as
> > long as you stay in one state, avoid Federal airways, don't deliver
mail,
> > and don't do local sightseeing flights (but long-range sightseeing is
> ok!),
> > nothing in 119, 121, or 135 is applicable. That can't be what the FAA
> > meant, but it's what they've written.
> >
> > --Gary
> >
> >
>
>

[Gordon Young]

Have the journalist rent the aircraft and then pay you to fly it.

[Gary Drescher]

"Gordon Young" > wrote in message
...
> Have the journalist rent the aircraft and then pay you to fly it.

The FBO won't rent to a non-pilot.

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Have the journalist rent the aircraft and then pay you to fly it.

The FBO won't rent to a non-pilot.
<<

Have the FBO rent to a pilot who can act as stupidvisor, but not fly. Have the
journalist hire you to fly the plane. Then have the journalist write an
article about FARs.

Then leave the country for a while. :)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:_WQ_b.399631$na.765403@attbi_s04...
>
> Sure, but flight schools are licensed operators; I'm not.

Not all flight schools are, either.

[C J Campbell]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> This gets hashed over about every six months...
> Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E R I
O
> D...
> It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
> providing aircraft...

An air taxi service is specifically defined in part 135. Aerial photography
is not providing an air taxi service. Where are you getting this stuff,
anyway?

[C J Campbell]

"Gordon Young" > wrote in message
...
> Have the journalist rent the aircraft and then pay you to fly it.

Totally unnecessary.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
> Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
> local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
> 135 drug-testing rules?
>
>

OK. Part 119 prescribes who has to register as an air carrier, that is
someone who is doing air taxi or some similar service. It specifically does
not apply to certain operations:

Part 119.1 (b) (6):
(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—

(1) Student instruction;

(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger
seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a
payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same
airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport;
however, for nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted
in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements
of SFAR 50–2 of this part or 14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;

(3) Ferry or training flights;

(4) Aerial work operations, including—

(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;

(ii) Banner towing;

(iii) Aerial photography or survey;

(and several other types of operations).

Part 135 specifically says it applies to sightseeing flights as follows:

§ 135.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes rules governing—

(5) Nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire that begin and end
at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of
that airport; however, except for operations subject to SFAR 50–2, these
operations, when conducted for compensation or hire, must comply only with
§§135.249, 135.251, 135.253, 135.255, and 135.353. (basically, drug testing
and alcohol abuse requirements).

Nowhere is there any regulation that says you have to conduct aerial
photography under part 135, do a drug test, or any other such thing. Anyone
who tells you otherwise had better be able to cite chapter and verse as to
why.

[C J Campbell]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:<yjK_b.113497$jk2.502928@attbi_s53>...
> > "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > This gets hashed over about every six months...
> > > Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E
R I
> > O
> > > D...
> > > It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
> > > providing aircraft...
> >
> > Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
> > photography and local sightseeing?
>
>
> No, you're fine if you are just doing local sightseeing.

Or aerial photography. Or fire fighting. Or agricultural work, etc.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:kfK_b.113484$jk2.502865@attbi_s53...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
> > > Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist
on
> a
> > > local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> > > requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking
the
> > part
> > > 135 drug-testing rules?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Aerial photography is one of the specified exceptions to the charter
> rules,
> > as is flight instruction and such agricultural work as fish spotting or
> > pipeline patrol where there might be a 'passenger' on board. In each
case
> > the 'passenger' is considered a required crew member.
>
> I see that it's an exception to part 119 (as per FAR 119.1e4iii), but I
> wasn't sure if it still comes under the scope of 135.1a5, which applies
even
> when part 119 doesn't.

Part 135.1 says what part 135 applies to. Aerial photography is not listed
there. Neither are any of the other exceptions that are listed in part 119,
except for sightseeing flights, and part 135 says those have to comply with
the drug testing requirements.

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Part 135.1 says what part 135 applies to. Aerial photography is not listed
> there. Neither are any of the other exceptions that are listed in part
119,
> except for sightseeing flights, and part 135 says those have to comply
with
> the drug testing requirements.

Right, I'm just unsure where the boundary between sightseeing and aerial
photography lies. If someone hires me to fly and take pictures myself,
that's obviously aerial photography. But if someone hires me to fly *them*
to take pictures, it seems less clear. If that always counts as photography
rather than sightseeing, then the part-135 sightseeing rules could be
circumvented entirely as long as the sightseer brings a camera and wants to
take photos. That's probably not what the FAA intends, but who knows?

--Gary

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:zTT_b.54889$4o.71914@attbi_s52...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Part 135.1 says what part 135 applies to. Aerial photography is not
listed
> > there. Neither are any of the other exceptions that are listed in part
> 119,
> > except for sightseeing flights, and part 135 says those have to comply
> with
> > the drug testing requirements.
>
> Right, I'm just unsure where the boundary between sightseeing and aerial
> photography lies. If someone hires me to fly and take pictures myself,
> that's obviously aerial photography. But if someone hires me to fly
*them*
> to take pictures, it seems less clear. If that always counts as
photography
> rather than sightseeing, then the part-135 sightseeing rules could be
> circumvented entirely as long as the sightseer brings a camera and wants
to
> take photos. That's probably not what the FAA intends, but who knows?

The distinction is fairly obvious. If someone is claiming a flight is for
commercial aerial photography purposes, all an inspector has to do is ask
who is buying or publishing the pictures. If the pictures are for your own
use or are not being used for publication, then an inspector is probably
going to claim that it was a sightseeing flight. Even then, if the flight's
purpose was to take a picture of some area, such as a house or ranch (even
the client's own house), or if the picture was going to be used for survey
purposes, and if the flight was a simple out and back to take a picture and
return, it is aerial photography. Take a side trip to Mt. Rainier and you
just might be sightseeing. Carry non-essential passengers and you might be
sightseeing. The cameraman shows up with a case full of expensive
photography equipment and a press card and says, "I need some file photos of
Mt. Rainier," then you probably have a strong case that it is aerial
photography. If the client says, "Oh look, George, there's our house. Take a
picture," and finishes with "We had a wonderful time," then you probably
were sightseeing.

It is the same question of whether a flight is being conducted for flight
instruction or for sightseeing. The sightseeing flight limitations are
sometimes circumvented by shady operators who claim that the flight is
really flight instruction. Again, it is fairly easy to tell. If an
instructor is flying a long cross country with a student on his first
flight, it is going to be tough to sell an inspector on the idea that it is
not a sightseeing flight or even a charter flight. Somebody going more than
25 miles from the airport with a 'student' had better be prepared to show a
bunch of logbook entries showing some other training.

It is fairly obvious that taking a journalist up for the specific purpose of
aerial photography is an aerial photography flight.

It is like your logbook. You can pencil in all kinds of flights that you
never made and probably never get caught. You know what the real purpose of
the flight is. If it is really a sightseeing flight then you probably know
it. Even if you convince some inspector otherwise you still have to get up
in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror. Then again, as J.R. Ewing
said, "Once your ethics go, the rest is easy."

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The distinction is fairly obvious. If someone is claiming a flight is for
> commercial aerial photography purposes, all an inspector has to do is ask
> who is buying or publishing the pictures. If the pictures are for your own
> use or are not being used for publication, then an inspector is probably
> going to claim that it was a sightseeing flight. Even then, if the
flight's
> purpose was to take a picture of some area, such as a house or ranch (even
> the client's own house), or if the picture was going to be used for survey
> purposes, and if the flight was a simple out and back to take a picture
and
> return, it is aerial photography. Take a side trip to Mt. Rainier and you
> just might be sightseeing. Carry non-essential passengers and you might be
> sightseeing. The cameraman shows up with a case full of expensive
> photography equipment and a press card and says, "I need some file photos
of
> Mt. Rainier," then you probably have a strong case that it is aerial
> photography. If the client says, "Oh look, George, there's our house. Take
a
> picture," and finishes with "We had a wonderful time," then you probably
> were sightseeing.

CJ, that makes a lot of sense as a guideline for distinguishing whether the
passenger has a more or less commercial purpose for taking the pictures (as
opposed to just wanting to put some scenic photos in a personal album, for
example). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FAA draws the same
distinction. But the problem I still have here regarding the FARs, as
written, is that nothing in the FARs' exemption for aerial photography
suggests that it makes any difference whether the passenger's purpose is
commercial or not. I'd probably draw the line just as you suggest, but I
still wish the rules said what they meant, and vice versa.

--Gary

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message news:Fg0%b.399249>
> CJ, that makes a lot of sense as a guideline for distinguishing whether
the
> passenger has a more or less commercial purpose for taking the pictures
(as
> opposed to just wanting to put some scenic photos in a personal album, for
> example). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FAA draws the same
> distinction. But the problem I still have here regarding the FARs, as
> written, is that nothing in the FARs' exemption for aerial photography
> suggests that it makes any difference whether the passenger's purpose is
> commercial or not. I'd probably draw the line just as you suggest, but I
> still wish the rules said what they meant, and vice versa.

The rules don't draw a distinction between commercial photography and
private photography for a very good reason. The FAA has enough trouble
defining commercial and private aviation. Attempting to add such a
distinction would introduce enormous complexity to a relatively small area
of aviation.

If the purpose of the flight is so questionable that I cannot tell whether
it is really an aerial photography flight or not, I would have to assume
that it is not.

[Greg Esres]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:35 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
>local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
>requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the part
>135 drug-testing rules?
>

It's not clear to me that the drug testing of Part 135 applies to
sightseeing tours for little airplanes. Part 119 exempts little
airplane sightseeing from Part 135; the implication to me is that the
sightseeing flights in Part 135 must be only for big airplanes. I
could find no letters of interp for this.

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:35 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> >Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
> >local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> >requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
> >135 drug-testing rules?
> >
>
> It's not clear to me that the drug testing of Part 135 applies to
> sightseeing tours for little airplanes. Part 119 exempts little
> airplane sightseeing from Part 135; the implication to me is that the
> sightseeing flights in Part 135 must be only for big airplanes. I
> could find no letters of interp for this.

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with no
mention of part 119.

--Gary

[Greg Esres]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:37:20 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
>part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does exempt
>them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope also
>includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with no
>mention of part 119.

My vague understanding is that Part 119's purpose is to determine the
applicability of Part 135/121 to flights. So being exempted from Part
119 is to be exempted from Part 135/121.

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:37:20 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> >It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
> >part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does
exempt
> >them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope
also
> >includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with
no
> >mention of part 119.
>
> My vague understanding is that Part 119's purpose is to determine the
> applicability of Part 135/121 to flights.

Right, and that's reflected by 135.1a1, which explicitly brings part 135 to
bear on flights covered by part 119.

>So being exempted from Part119
>is to be exempted from Part 135/121.

Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of part 135
(just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights, irrespective of part
119.

The key point is that the criteria enumerated in a1 through a7 needn't apply
all at once (or else, for instance, only mail-delivery flights would be
covered by part 135, as per a3). The listed criteria are distinct ways for
135 to be applicable. So being covered by part 119 is one way for part 135
to be applicable (as per a1); but being a local sight-seeing flight is
another way (as per a5).

At least, that's how it's written. I have no clue how it works in practice.
:)

--Gary

[Greg Esres]

<<Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of
part 135 (just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights,
irrespective of part 119.>>

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I don't buy it. Flight
instructors often take people for sight seeing tours, which is
permitted in Part 119. What sort of free lance flight instructor
would have a alcohol testing policy? Doesn't make sense.

If this were truly the case, the 119 exemption should be removed, and
135.1a5 would limit applicability to the drug testing stuff, and the
result would be the same.

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of
> part 135 (just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights,
> irrespective of part 119.>>
>
> Do you have any evidence that this is true? I don't buy it. Flight
> instructors often take people for sight seeing tours, which is
> permitted in Part 119. What sort of free lance flight instructor
> would have a alcohol testing policy? Doesn't make sense.

If you mean evidence as to what's done in practice, then no, I don't have
any. As I said, I'm only addressing what the regs say, not how the FAA
actually behaves, which I have little knowledge of. FAR 135.1a5, unlike
1a1, does not assert any contingency on part 119; that's my only point here.

Come to think of it, though, I do have one piece of anecdotal evidence, for
whatever it's worth. I've been told by a local flight school that the
reason the flight schools in the area all offer "introductory lessons", but
none offer sightseeing flights, is precisely to circumvent that part of the
regulations that would otherwise impose a drug-testing requirement.

> If this were truly the case, the 119 exemption should be removed, and
> 135.1a5 would limit applicability to the drug testing stuff, and the
> result would be the same.

It would be the same result only if there's no other consequence to falling
under part 119. I don't know if that's the case.

--Gary

[Greg Esres]

I did some scanning of the 14 CFR Preambles, which make it clear that
you're right on this. An excerpt:

-----------<snip>----------------

The FAA does not agree that some or all commercial sightseeing flights
in airplanes or rotorcraft should be excluded from application of the
rule. Commercial sightseeing operations usually involve members of the
general public who have paid for a ride in an airplane or rotorcraft.
For purposes of the antidrug rule, the FAA has determined that the
safety implications of such operations are comparable to that of other
operations that routinely involve carriage of passengers. These
passengers should be given the protection inherent in other
passenger-carrying operations for compensation or hire that have an
approved antidrug program, without regard to size or scope of the
operations or the number of flights per year a particular operator
might conduct.

-----------<snip>----------------

[Gary Drescher]

Cool, thanks for digging that up.

--Gary

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> I did some scanning of the 14 CFR Preambles, which make it clear that
> you're right on this. An excerpt:
>
> -----------<snip>----------------
>
> The FAA does not agree that some or all commercial sightseeing flights
> in airplanes or rotorcraft should be excluded from application of the
> rule. Commercial sightseeing operations usually involve members of the
> general public who have paid for a ride in an airplane or rotorcraft.
> For purposes of the antidrug rule, the FAA has determined that the
> safety implications of such operations are comparable to that of other
> operations that routinely involve carriage of passengers. These
> passengers should be given the protection inherent in other
> passenger-carrying operations for compensation or hire that have an
> approved antidrug program, without regard to size or scope of the
> operations or the number of flights per year a particular operator
> might conduct.
>
> -----------<snip>----------------

[C J Campbell]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:35 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> >Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
> >local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
> >requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
> >135 drug-testing rules?
> >
>
> It's not clear to me that the drug testing of Part 135 applies to
> sightseeing tours for little airplanes.

Part 135 declares itself as having jurisdiction over sightseeing flights. It
does not need permission from part 119 to do that.

Flight instructors and everybody else who gives sightseeing flights get drug
testing if they are doing it legally. It is not a big deal. Most flight
schools sign up with a consortium that does the testing on a random basis
among all its members. The cost is fairly minimal and so is the paperwork.
That is about to change, though.

More FSDOs are demanding control of the drug testing program themselves.
Seattle FSDO recently told all the flight schools that they will now be
running drug testing for everybody.