charging $ for part 91

[falcondrivr]

is there available, an if so where can i find, the faa guidance that lists specifically what a part 91 passenger can be charged for a flight before it becomes a part 135 flight. (fuel etc.)
thanks.

 

[avbug]

It doesn't work that way.

If you carry a passenger for hire from A to be, or property for hire from A to b, you're looking at a 135 operation if the person you're carrying doesn't have operational control of the flight.

For example, Mr. X owns your airpane. He flies four people on a flight from A to B. These are his employees, guests, personal gratification service workers, or his harem (the latter two being pretty darn close to the same thing). He charges them nothing, they pay nothing. He can do this. He has supplied the aircraft, is paying the bills, and has charged nothing for his services.

Mr. X tells Susy Leadbetter about the flight, and she has a need to go to destination B with her fluffy poodle rex. She pays Mr. X with a cake and gives him a small bracelet once worn to the whitehouse by Rex the fluffy wonder poodle. Mr. X is more than satisfied with this compensation, but when he becomes airborne with Susy Leadbetter as a paying passenger, he s in violation of Parts 119 and 135. He is taking passengers and/or property (some disagreement about w(h)eather Susy or Rex is the passenger or property, though for the purposes of our discussion, this is irrelevant) from A to B for compensation or hire.

Now Mr. X might try to take advantage of the provisions of the regulation, allowing a private pilot to accept a pro rata share of the expenses. But Mr. X isn't the pilot, even if he holds a private pilot certificate. He's advertised the flight by telling Susy about it. Even if she found out by word of mouth, this is holding out to the public, which is shorthand for holding out one's services as a carrier...he's advertised his services w(h)eather he meant to do so or not. He has operational control, and even if he just accepts money for fuel, he's not entitled to the same provisions of the regulation that protects the private pilot...because he arranged the flight, has control over it, and took money to transport Susy and Rex from A to B.

Another test is w(h)eather Mr. X was going there anyway. He was. He's not making a special trip for Susy (or Rex, even though he likes Rex a LOT, if you know what I mean)...so he's okay there. The FAA doesn't spell out what expenses he can capture from the passengers and what he can't...because he can't capture any expenses from the passengers. If he does, then it becomes charging for carriage and transport...and this must be done under Part 135.

Mr X is instead making the trip for business purposes, and as part of the cost to his clients when he brings them from B back to A to see the engineering drawings of their new fifteen story gingerbread house, he tacks on the cost of the flight. They can afford it, and the gingerbread project is so big that the expenses of the flight won't ammount to that of a single gigantic two story gumdrop. Who cares, he reasons Well, as it turns out, the FAA cares. A LOT. Almost more than Mr. X likes Rex, if you know what I mean. They do care, because Mr X has become an air carrier...and he doesn't even know it (much like his poetry, which is the subject for another time. A poet and doesn't even know it is far more rhyme-like, and therefore poetic, than an illegal charter operator and doesn't even know it. But, I digress...)

The FAA doesn't spell out fuel, kippers, swizzle sticks, cost of oil, toilet paper, lint removal devices, or general payment as being acceptable...if the passenger is paying for the transport of people or things (or people-things, such as Rex, whom some might argue is more people than thing, and even dogs are people too don'tchaknow?)...then the flight needs to be a 135 flight.

What are the circumstances that prompt your question?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

disagreement about w(h)eather Susy or Rex is the passenger or property, though for the purposes of our discussion, this is irrelevant) from A to B for compensation or hire.

Are you going to do this until your dead just to "save face."

I'd be curious to see how you spell "whether" in your personal life.

 

[CaptainSpaz]

is there available, an if so where can i find, the faa guidance that lists specifically what a part 91 passenger can be charged for a flight before it becomes a part 135 flight. (fuel etc.)
thanks.

Is this an Abbott and Costello routine? Ok I'll b.... on second thought, no - I
won't bite.

Edit: Ok, I can't stand it anymore after reading avbug's post.

Falcondrvr -

I am pretty sure you know how the regs read (91, 91k, 135), and are familiar with them.

It is unlikely that there is a guideline, written by the FAA, pertaining to how to recieve compensation for a flight that is not being operated under 135. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

So what you are asking for are legal interpretations, specific cases, etc. FAA legal has these, and you can get them by asking. Most likely these documents will probably reference cases where the FAA tried to take action against a 91 operator for a possible violation of the regs pertaining to common carriage.

The bottom line is this: The FAA has been cracking down on folks trying to circumvent the 135 regulations, specifically piggybackers. If an owner or pilot really felt like walking the line, I would suggest hiring an experienced aviation attorney.

 

[CaptainSpaz]

avbug?

Dude, seriously - whats with the w(h)eather? :laugh:

He is taking passengers and/or property (some disagreement about w(h)eather Susy or Rex is the...

 

[climbhappy]

didn't there used to be reg 91.493? that said these charges can be equal to but cannot exceed 2 x gas, oil, ramp fees, landing fees, etc. i don't have a current aim copy.

The FAA doesn't want to run your business for you. they're not into cost accounting or profit. what they want is adherence to your op specs if you're 135 , or complaince with 91. look at netjets. for years they've operated 91 and yes they were in it for profit.

i could start a company and give five people stock in it. the company could buy an airplane. that stock since it would be a private company could be one share at one dollar and the lawyers would have it airtight. companies get to operate without oversight by the FAA unless they're seriouslyl breaking the law. so the company buys the jet and charges them an hourly rate, which reflects the cost of doing it. this ain't Enron accounting but a private company doing it their way. at the end of tha day, the shareholders get what they want and they own a piece of the company that owns a plane that flies them around. if I as the operator of this company started running billboards for direct flights to orlando or on demand charter and i didn't have a ticket, i would be a target for enforcement action.
the minute the Fed wants to take on some clever lawyers that have deep pockets, they always blink first.

134 1/2 happens when fly by nighters want to run a charter operation and fly basic charter customers who call them to go somewhere and they scud run all the parameters that govern 135. skipping maint, writeups etc. the FED wants to bust these types., not the shell companies that fly themselves around and use it for writeoffs.

you could go into five different FSDOs in the country and get five divergent opinions from five POIs on any given day.

 

[avbug]

Are you going to do this until your dead just to "save face."

I'd be curious to see how you spell "whether" in your personal life.

I have no interest in "saving face." Perhaps you might start another thread if this is all fired important for you, to addess what you mean. I have no plans to die soon. You concern yourself with my personal life now?

Have you anything to contribute to the thread?

The FAA doesn't want to run your business for you. they're not into cost accounting or profit. what they want is adherence to your op specs if you're 135 , or complaince with 91. look at netjets. for years they've operated 91 and yes they were in it for profit.

An irrelevant issue of apples and oranges. If you hold a 135 operating certificate, then the issue of w(h)eather or not you are 135 is irrelevant. If you are operating under Part 91 only, then you do not have the option of undertaking compensation or hire for moving paying persons or poperty from one location to another. Netjets was not transporting paying passengers, but owners. If an owner wanted to charge a passenger, the owner just entered into 135 territory...which is largely the reason that many fractionals have gone 135, as well as 91K.

you could go into five different FSDOs in the country and get five divergent opinions from five POIs on any given day.

Opinions at the FSDO level carry no weight and are without merit. They are not defensible, even when received in writing, as the FSDO level cannot interpret regulation, nor speak on behalf of the Administrator with respect to policy or regulation. The opinion you get is often less informed than that of those outside the FAA, and carries not one ounce more weight.

i could start a company and give five people stock in it. the company could buy an airplane. that stock since it would be a private company could be one share at one dollar and the lawyers would have it airtight.

Aaah, you haven't bothered to read 14 CFR 91K, have you??

companies get to operate without oversight by the FAA unless they're seriouslyl breaking the law.

Now there is a very dangerous, and ignorant false statement.

the minute the Fed wants to take on some clever lawyers that have deep pockets, they always blink first.

That was funny, but can you say that with a straight face?

 

[Otter]

91.501 as applicable.

Not to start the ball rolling on a long and fruitless discussion, but you would'nt be wasting time to read up on "common carraige (spelling?)" and "holding out". Both are terms of art in aviation, specifically in regard to the FAA and commercial, for hire, operations.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Dude, seriously - whats with the w(h)eather? :laugh:

Well, Mr. Avbug made the grammatical error eons ago around the message board and won't fess up that he spelled something wrong (he confused the spelling of weather/whether), so therefore he has created his own version of how one spells whether. ANYTIME the word is used, he'll spell it as seen above. If you care to do a search (who really would) you'll find that he's a stubborn one who wouldn't admit his mistake when this was addressed to him by a poster.

 

[Princedietrich]

Fractionals like Netjets are a completely different animal from standard 91 operations, which is why 91K was drafted to put them into perspective.

Hopefully this will clarify things a little bit along with avbug's examples.

If I own the airplane and I am the pilot, I can carry whoever or whatever I want from point a to point b but I CANNOT get paid for it. I can, however, evenly split the costs of the operation with the passengers who went with me.

If I own the plane but I'm just riding along, I can have anyone or anything I want go with me from point a to point b but I CANNOT get paid in any way shape or form for it. This would include someone buying my lunch, although I know for a fact the Feds aren't going to get bent out of shape over a cheeseburger and fries.

If I don't own the plane, but I own the company that owns the plane, I can ride in it as I wish and can carry anyone or anything I wish from point a to point b, but again I CANNOT get paid in any way shape or form for it.

If I don't own the plane, but I own the company that owns the plane, the employees of that company or the guests of that company can ride along as they wish and can carry anything or anyone they want (within company guidelines of course), but neither I nor the company can get paid in any way shape or form.

The mention of 91.501 would apply if:
1. I own the plane and am giving a demonstration flight to a prospective buyer.
2. I own the plane and a company wants me to carry supplies for them, like boxes of forms or pens or something.
3. I own the plane and I lease it along with a crew to someone else.

Under these circumstances I could "expense" the other party for things like crew travel and ramp fees and customs fees, and I could "expense" the other party for double the cost of fuel and oil and PRIST.

 

[bell47]

What if an FBO, that has a couple of rental aircraft, rents one to a non-pilot individual and then that individual in turn hires a qualified pilot to fly him and his dog from point a to b in this rented aircraft? Now the pilot does NOT work for the FBO but does meet the open insurance policy to act as PIC of said rental aircraft and has previously been checked out in the airplane. The non-pilot renter pays the FBO and the pilot seperately when he and his dog get back from his point "b" trip. The pilot and the FBO are seperate and neither advertise as any sort of charter service. The FBO just says we rent aircraft if you are qualified, or have a qualified person flying you. The pilot just by word of mouth says he will fly you in your aircraft or one that you can use for say $50 bucks an hour. The FBO, when asked about pilots says they don't provide pilots just airplane rental, although we can give you the names of some of our happy rental customers to see who flew them. The previous customers gladly give out the pilots name and phone number. talk about 134 1/2!

 

[Seat 0A]

Just fly passenger X from A to B at no charge.

When you get to B agree to drive X from the FBO to his hotel (and carry his bags) for a sum that is fair (I would say an amount greater than the flight cost plus 20%, you are an exceptionally good driver after all ).

Report your "limo driver" income to the IRS and all is well.

 

[avbug]

I spell the word one way because that's how I've always typed it, and couldn't give a damn. I add the spelling I do here for the benifit of TonyC, who is no longer here, as he was the spelling cop among us. He still gives me grief elsewhere. Nothing to do with saving face, nothing to do with you, and clearly you're still not prepared, nor capable, of providing something useful to this thread.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I spell the word one way because that's how I've always typed it, and couldn't give a dang. I add the spelling I do here for the benifit of TonyC, who is no longer here, as he was the spelling cop among us. He still gives me grief elsewhere. Nothing to do with saving face, nothing to do with you, and clearly you're still not prepared, nor capable, of providing something useful to this thread.

Thanks for playing.

ahhhh.....

Nevermind.

 

[climbhappy]

quote: opinions at the FSDOs carry no weight.

well, they do if they're your POI. i have played the game.

quote: Now, there is avery dangerous and ignorant false statement.

i believe in real world politics not theory. there aren't enough POIs to go around , never has been. they have two base inspections a year to check the box and look at the files. otherwise , you never see them. oversight is carefully monitoring an operation with daily or weekly presence. this never happens. that's why guys are forced to fly broke airplanes for fear of losing their jobs. mainly at the bottom feeders than operate 20 to 30 old king airs, piston, etc.

quote: that was funny , but can you say that with a straight face.

yep, proving a case in court , when it comes to proof for what that flight was or who it was for is hard. you sound very informed and respect that, but i'm drawing on real world experience with many FSDOs in the southeast. even worked for a frim that operated 10 turboprops.

my POI once said , there is alot "gray" area in the regs for good reason. as long as it isn't in your GOM, we don't care. the debate for charging people money is endless. the "acid test" has been and always will be, "are you holding yourself out to the public?"

i did want to play some more and this is all i can contribute. have a merry and safe christmas to you all.

 

[avbug]

quote: opinions at the FSDOs carry no weight.

well, they do if they're your POI. i have played the game.

Your POI has no authority to interpret the regulation and is bound by both the regulation, any legal interpretations thereof by the regional or chief legal counsel, and preambles to the federal register. These are defensible, and you may rely on them fully when dealing with your POI...the POI has no flexibility there. Being tactful about it is another matter.

my POI once said , there is alot "gray" area in the regs for good reason. as long as it isn't in your GOM, we don't care. the debate for charging people money is endless. the "acid test" has been and always will be, "are you holding yourself out to the public?"

Your POI, of course, was wrong, as the regulations aren't grey, just misunderstood. The regulation is intended to be changable and adaptable with time as circumstances change and new issues arise. For this reason we continually see notices of proposed rule making as changes occur. For this reason we continue to see establishments of policy through legal interpretations. What is usually lacking is effort on the part of individuals, including frequent failures at the FSDO level, to understand the regulation and put in the effort required.

The acid test is not about holding yourself out to the public, as one may hold out if one doesn't charge...one may offer to transport someone else if not for compensation or hire. One may hold out to do that. The acid test is really dependent upon the circumstances, and too few variables for a given flight have been discussed here. One may hold out. One may not hold out for compensation when taking someone or something from A to B. One may not shell out one dollar shares in an aircraft and circumvent the regulation...ample legal interpretation exists on that count to completely dismiss the idea.

Not discussed here yet are other issues such as an approved drug testing program, etc. What has been brought up, and is irrelevant, is what the IRS has to say on the matter. The issue of what you can take, with respect to the FAA, is purely an issue of what you're allowed to do as a pilot and operator given your specific operation.

 

[Princedietrich]

If you are afraid of the flying/working conditions and want the FAA to intervene, just grab the phone and call them. I'm sure there's at least one phone at your base or FBO.

 

[CaptainSpaz]

If you are afraid of the flying/working conditions and want the FAA to intervene, just grab the phone and call them. I'm sure there's at least one phone at your base or FBO.

Indeed!

Or on the flip side: If you are looking for guidance on how to bend/break the rules that you know to be true - don't go asking the FAA for it! Just go do it and get yourself a good aviation attorney to attempt to back you up.

 

[falcondrivr]

91.501 was what i was looking for. thanks guys.
and amish, get a hobby.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

91.501 was what i was looking for. thanks guys.
and amish, get a hobby.

Thanks, but I won't get into the "why" of it as it accomplishes nothing. It spilled over from another thread which I felt to be futile to dispute. Suffice it to say that others around here enjoy making unprovoked attacks when someone offers opinion. Just a taste of ones own medicine.

Sorry if it disrupted your thread. I do need some new hobbies in general though.

Happy New Year.