unrestricted commercial operating under part 91

[Shelly]

Hello all,


I hold an unrestricted commercial pilot's license issued in 1973. I am
not current but that's something I can take care of in a week.

My question is... I would like to fly for hire under part 91.
Specifically, I would to fly lawyers to their depos and get back home at
the end of the day. It's my understanding that I cannot do this and have
to operate under part 135? My, how times and restrictions have changed!!


My Google research indicates that all this added crap went into effect in
1993.


Might someone out there, like myself, know if I'm "grandfathered"under
part 91?

Thanks

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:12:28 -0400, "Shelly" > wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>
>I hold an unrestricted commercial pilot's license issued in 1973. I am
>not current but that's something I can take care of in a week.
>
>My question is... I would like to fly for hire under part 91.
>Specifically, I would to fly lawyers to their depos and get back home at
>the end of the day. It's my understanding that I cannot do this and have
>to operate under part 135? My, how times and restrictions have changed!!
>
>
>My Google research indicates that all this added crap went into effect in
>1993.
>
>
>Might someone out there, like myself, know if I'm "grandfathered"under
>part 91?
>

You are not grandfathered for the purpose of "holding out to the public".

And I cannot recall if the change was due to an actual change in the rules.
I thought the change was due to a different interpretation of existing
rules.

Now, if the lawyer firm owned the aircraft and used it for flying only
"firm" lawyers, and hired you as a pilot for that aircraft, then it would
probably come under Part 91.
--ron

[150flivver]

On Apr 22, 1:49*pm, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:12:28 -0400, "Shelly" > wrote:
> >Hello all,
>
> >I hold *an unrestricted commercial pilot's license issued in 1973. * I am
> >not current but that's something I can take care of in a week.
>
> >My question is... *I would like to fly for hire under part 91.
> >Specifically, *I would *to fly lawyers to their depos and *get back home at
> >the end of the day. *It's *my understanding that I cannot do this and have
> >to operate under part 135? * My, *how times and restrictions have changed!!
>
> >My Google research indicates that all this added crap went into effect in
> >1993.
>
> >Might someone *out there, like myself, *know if I'm "grandfathered"under
> >part 91?
>
> You are not grandfathered for the purpose of "holding out to the public". *
>
> And I cannot recall if the change was due to an actual change in the rules.
> I thought the change was due to a different interpretation of existing
> rules.
>
> Now, if the lawyer firm owned the aircraft and used it for flying only
> "firm" lawyers, and hired you as a pilot for that aircraft, then it would
> probably come under Part 91.
> --ron

or if the lawyer rented the aircraft and hired you to fly it.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 21, 9:12*pm, "Shelly" > wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I hold *an unrestricted commercial pilot's license issued in 1973. * I am
> not current but that's something I can take care of in a week.
>
> My question is... *I would like to fly for hire under part 91.
> Specifically, *I would *to fly lawyers to their depos and *get back home at
> the end of the day. *It's *my understanding that I cannot do this and have
> to operate under part 135? * My, *how times and restrictions have changed!!
>
> My Google research indicates that all this added crap went into effect in
> 1993.


If your boss (the lawyers) owns the airplane; they can hire you to fly
it without it being a 135 operation. You cannot supply the airplane
though, that would be holding out.

-Robert

[Shelly]

Got it, thanks.

Shelly


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 9:12 pm, "Shelly" > wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I hold an unrestricted commercial pilot's license issued in 1973. I am
> not current but that's something I can take care of in a week.
>
> My question is... I would like to fly for hire under part 91.
> Specifically, I would to fly lawyers to their depos and get back home at
> the end of the day. It's my understanding that I cannot do this and have
> to operate under part 135? My, how times and restrictions have changed!!
>
> My Google research indicates that all this added crap went into effect in
> 1993.


If your boss (the lawyers) owns the airplane; they can hire you to fly
it without it being a 135 operation. You cannot supply the airplane
though, that would be holding out.

-Robert

[Todd W. Deckard]

I thought that you could enter into a contract with a group to provide them
flying services
and it could be operated under part-91?

There were some litmus tests to see if you were providing services to the
"limits of your capability" and thus holding out, but if you were reasonably
constrained to the single contract the airplane ownership was not relevant?

Todd



"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:4b0f1c35-9a89-4584-a87b-
If your boss (the lawyers) owns the airplane; they can hire you to fly
it without it being a 135 operation. You cannot supply the airplane
though, that would be holding out.

-Robert