135 vs. 91 Question

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The flight is -135. However, LOTS of owners, companies, pilots, and FAA officials look the other way and pretend that these and other -135 flights are -91, and there is no problem.

If you get caught/incident/accident, you are screwed. If you don't fly the flight as -91, you might get fired. Nice!

cliff
NBO

 

[mike1mc]

The FAA Chief Counsel has issued a legal interpretation saying that a company with no business other than operating a flight department may not fly under Part 91; rather, it must obtain an FAA certificate and comply with Part 135.

This relates more to an aircraft holding company to manage or "hide" the airplane & expenses. That company's only business is the airplane and therefore trips for the "parent" company would not be incidental to the holding company's business.

 

[avbug]

If an owner of an aircraft management company decides to fly on one of the aircraft his company manages, but does not own the particular aircraft, is that flight considered to be Part 91 or Part 135?

Not remotely enough information has been given to discuss the matter. You're going to need to be a lot more specific than that.

 

[woog315]

Hi!

The flight is -135. However, LOTS of owners, companies, pilots, and FAA officials look the other way and pretend that these and other -135 flights are -91, and there is no problem.

If you get caught/incident/accident, you are screwed. If you don't fly the flight as -91, you might get fired. Nice!

cliff
NBO

135 regs and the extremely selective enforcement of them by the FAA are the single most employee unfriendly thing I've ever encountered.