135 operations

[Don]

An aircraft is privately owned.

The local FBO manages the aircraft (hangers it, does maintenance in an in house shop, provides a pilot for the owner)

A local company pays the FBO for say 100 hours of flight time and the FBO provides (with the owner's consent) the airplane and one of the pilots.

Smells like a charter service to me. What do the experts say?

On another note; how much liability does the pilot take on? If you work for the FBO (I don't) as a pilot and it turns out that someone at the FSDO decides that flight was an illegal charter do they go after the poor helpless pilot that had no idea who owned the airplane or what arrangements were made by the FBO?

 

[FN FAL]

An aircraft is privately owned.

The local FBO manages the aircraft (hangers it, does maintenance in an in house shop, provides a pilot for the owner)

A local company pays the FBO for say 100 hours of flight time and the FBO provides (with the owner's consent) the airplane and one of the pilots.

Smells like a charter service to me. What do the experts say?

On another note; how much liability does the pilot take on? If you work for the FBO (I don't) as a pilot and it turns out that someone at the FSDO decides that flight was an illegal charter do they go after the poor helpless pilot that had no idea who owned the airplane or what arrangements were made by the FBO?

Is there really such a thing as an "illegal charter"?

Isn't that the same as using the term "illegal weapon" when there is no such thing?

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Well, if you want to be sure ask the boss or customer if there is a signed lease for the 100 hours of usage. Might be a good idea to see it also. If no lease, then this is a 134 1/2 flight, unless you are a charter company with checkrides and all the BS taken care of.

AOPA has a book that you can buy called "91 vs. 135" or something like that. In it there is an article about a flight instructor in WI that came back from a lesson and then the boss came out and said take this guy to such and such place. The guy turned at to be the local police chief, not that it really matters. Well this instructor gets a call from the FAA a few weeks later. Somebody turned him in or the boss set him up, who knows. The instructor said he was just doing what he was told by the owner and thought this guy was a friend or relative. He also mentioned that he did not even receive any compensation for the flight, so how could he be in violation. Well in the end, he was violated and lost his ticket for a year or so. Think it went on to say they did nothing to the operator.

Goes to show ya, cover your backside.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Same book mentions that the FAA views "good will" as a form of compensation these days.

 

[Rick1128]

Sorry guys but that is a charter. Even if the customer signs a 'lease' for 100 hours. There are specific requirements for a lease for it not to be charter. And the FAA will normally go after everyone they can.

 

[pilotyip]

Yep it looks like charter, the FBO is providing for a fee for all of the pieces you need to move something from point A to point B. to include, airplane, pilot, insurance etc. The FBO is being compensated in the form of a fee. Fits the definition of holding out.

 

[LJDRVR]

It's a charter. Don't go anywhere near it. (The fuzz will violate the crew for dozens of regulations when they find out.)

 

[avbug]

On another note; how much liability does the pilot take on? If you work for the FBO (I don't) as a pilot and it turns out that someone at the FSDO decides that flight was an illegal charter do they go after the poor helpless pilot that had no idea who owned the airplane or what arrangements were made by the FBO?

The issue of holding out isn't really relevant, but the issue of operational control certainly is.

As a pilot, you always share in operational control. How much liability does a pilot take on? If you're the PIC, all of it, all the time. That's why you're PIC...you assume ultimate authority for the flight, for the safe outcome of the flight, for the legality of the flight, for the airworthiness of the aircraft, for the actions of the aircraft, and the resulting fallout of all of it.

If you flew cargo and didn't ask what was aboard, and upon landing learned that you'd just hauled a hundred kilos of cocaine, do you think you might be held responsible, even though you didn't know what was aboard? Of course you would. You are responsible for knowing what's on board.

Is a pilot who doesn't know he's flying an illegal charter (yes, there is absolutely such a thing, and yes, there is absolutely an illegal weapon) responsible merely because he failed in his duty to determine the legality of the flight before agreeing to undertake it? Absolutely, yes. You're required by regulation to become familiar with all aspects of the flight before you accept it or undertake the operation. Remember 14 CFR 91.103? It doesn't just apply to runway lengths and fuel. It applies to EVERYTHING.

The FBO providing the aircraft and pilot, and accepting money or compensation to transport persons or property from one point to another. This is the essence of a 135 operation, being performed without a 135 certificate...lacking the certificate, this becomes an illegal operation.

The fact that another company owns the aircraft (other than the FBO) is largely irrelevant, except that the other company that owns the aircraft shares in the liability. The ownership doesn't affect the legality of the charter operation. The FBO has obtained by lease or agreement an aircraft, and is providing flight services to a client. Those flight services include provision of aircraft and pilot; the services are transportation by air for compensation or hire from one point to another. The FBO enjoys operational control.

A company for whom I flew some years ago was affiliated with another company that did something similiar to this. The affiliate company (I'll call Company B) was approached by the CEO of a major insurance company with a request for corporate services. Company B leased an Astra and a Lear, and performed in the capacity of a corporate aircraft for the insurance company. Company B held a 135 certificate for small piston airplanes, but did not attempt to include the turbojets on the 135 certificate. Company B asserted that the turbojet operation was for one client who had full operational control, called the shots, made the arrangements, and flew only their own personnel on company missions, and didn't accept compensation from any passenger.

Company B provided the aircraft to the insurance company, for a fee. Company B's position was that they were leasing the aircraft to the insurance company. Company B also provided the pilots, and later attempted to have the insurance company pay the pilots to get around any issues there.

The FAA proposed very large fines, revocation of the pilot certificates, revocation of Company B's 135 certificate, and shut the operation down.

The soloution for company B was to get rid of the Astra, and take a Lear from the company for whom I flew. From then on all flights were conducted under 135, on our company certificate, using pilots on our certificate, and the FAA was happy.

I don't have time to research them right now, but numerous legal precedents are available regarding this issue...especially companies trying to form loopholes or dodge the regulation by setting up their own avenues to avoid Part 135 certification and cost.

Regardless, the pilot most certainly can be violated for taking the flight. Ignorance is no excuse, and is a poor reflection on the pilot. It's the pilots JOB to know what's going on, and most absolutely will the pilot be held accountable for that knowledge. Ignorance in a pilot is never a positive attribute.

 

[FN FAL]

(yes, there is absolutely such a thing, and yes, there is absolutely an illegal weapon)

Avbug, I finally got you on something you SOB! Hahahahahah.

There is no such thing as an illegal weapon. You're telling me a cop comes up to an M-60 sitting behind a tree and arrests it for being illegal and give it some miranda warnings?

Find me one law, federal or state, from the CFR's or the state codes, that even uses the language... "illegal weapon".

I'm not talking about some news story, I'm talking about the law. The law regulates the possession as illegal, not the firearm.

Freeze you illegal M-60, you're under arrest! Hahahahahahahaha...

 

[avbug]

No, you really don't "have" something on me, or the weapon, for that matter. If a weapon is outlawed or restricted, or in other ways controlled, and exists contrary to that regulation, it is illegal. While the government may not "arrest" the weapon (don't be an idiot), the government may certainly confiscate and destroy it.

While regulations and codes exist that make use or ownership or sale or posession of that weapon illegal, the weapon itself may also be illegal.

In most jurisdictions a destructive device, such as a bomb, is illegal. Building it, owning it, using it, posessing it, yes...but the weapon itself is prohibited. When found, it's not given a good home or put in a museum. The builder, owner, user, is arrested, and the bomb destroyed. Because it's illegal.

An unairworthy aircraft won't be issued a violation. The person who flies it, or the owner who allows it's unairworthy operation, or the operator who fails to make it airworthy will be violated. But the unairworthy aircraft is still unairworthy, and illegal.

A charter flight which is not conducted in accordance with charter regulation (ie Parts 119 and 135, in this case) is an illegal operation, and the FAA refers to it in exactly that terminology in numerous legal interpretations and enforcement proceedings.

If a charter flight is not legal, it is illegal. No, the FAA doesn't arrest the flight. The FAA doesn't arrest anybody. The pilot may be fined or may suffer certificate or administrative action. The owner may suffer the same, and the operator may suffer the same. But the essence and basis of each sanction is the operation itself, which is illegal...an illegal charter to which all penalties, sanctions, revocations, suspensions, fines, etc, may be attached and upon which each is predicated.

A weapon banned by law is an illegal weapon. Posession of the weapon is another matter entirely. A charter operation not conducted in accordance with the regulation is an illegal operation. Any prosecution stemming from that operation is another matter entirely, and doesn't negate or change the fact that the operation is conducted illegally, and is therefore an illegal operation. Spin it any way you like, and it won't change that fact.