Anyone wanna discuss the faa requirements of renting an aircraft?

[CaptSeth]

Operational control does not mean merely having posession of the aircraft. I strongly advise that in the absence of evidence of an ownership share, there should be some type of lease agreement that includes stipulations for how the airplane is maintained, the duration of the lease, and specifics regarding just who is leasing the airplane.

I don't want to harp on this - if you want to really explore the legality of operating under Part 91, print out a copy of this thread, bring it to your local General Aviation Operations Inspector at the FSDO, and ask him what he thinks.

There is also sufficient information in the FAR's themselves for you to determine what is legal. Daily rentals with pilot services will get you into trouble - and I don't think it will take long at that.

 

[hmmm]

Yes...... a rental, daily, nightly, few day-ly or weekly "WITH" pilot services (that is to say the aircraft and pilot services are supplied by one entity in the simplest form) is a 135 operation and would be illegal if operated without a 135 certificate.

Thanks for discussing all of you.

 

[BoilerUP]

If you are an AOPA member, it would be very much within your best interest to spend the $29/year AOPA Legal Services Plan costs, and ask these questions to an experienced aviation paralegal or attorney.

 

[Flex-ible]

I'll jump in here, as a former owner/operator under Part 135.

What hmmm is proposing is what 135 operators routinely call "Part 134 1/2". It smells a lot like 135, but with efforts to avoid all the regulation that comes with being a charter operator.

hmmm is correct that it is theoretically possible for one party to rent an airplane without a pilot, hire a pilot from another source, and legally operate it under Part 91. The owner would be giving the renter operational control, and the renter can then do as he/she pleases. But here are the "sticky wickets" that get in the way:
1. At no time may the owner of the plane advertise that he has a plane available for hire, nor may he restrict the use of the plane (beyond compliance with FAR's).
2. At no time may the pilot advertise that he is available to pilot a particular plane for hire. The prospective owner must find the pilot and plane independent of each other.
3. The owner may not exercise ANY control over the pilot the renter hires (except to say the pilot must be a commercial pilot with appropriate medical and type rating). Giving a list of "approved" pilots crosses the charter line.
4. If the owner of a piston plane is renting it out, he must have 100 hour inspections and approriate insurance. I am willing to bet the insurance of a Part 91 Navajo or Baron would QUADRUPLE if its usage was changed from "business and pleasure" to "rental". Of course should you choose not to change the insurance, the policy would be voided in the event of an accident or incident. (Turbines are another story alltogether in terms of inspection requirements.)
5. "Shared expenses" is another sticky wicket. It is only a legal procedure if both of the parties have a legitimate reason to go to the location. For example, two lawyers are going to a town to take a deposition. One owns a plane, and invites the other to go alone if he shares expenses. Legal. The other example: Joe Pilot wants to build flight time so he offers to take the lawyers to the deposition if they share his expenses. Not legal. The pilot did not have a legitimate reason to make the trip.

The guy who bought my 135 certificate got himself in a world of hurt with the feds for making this kind of arrangement in a King Air. He claimed it was a Part 91 flight, feds disagreed. He lost ALL his certificates.

Caveat emptor, my friend.

 

[hmmm]

Thank you for a good discussion.

5. "Shared expenses" is another sticky wicket. It is only a legal procedure if both of the parties have a legitimate reason to go to the location. For example, two lawyers are going to a town to take a deposition. One owns a plane, and invites the other to go alone if he shares expenses. Legal. The other example: Joe Pilot wants to build flight time so he offers to take the lawyers to the deposition if they share his expenses. Not legal. The pilot did not have a legitimate reason to make the trip.

-------

My come back on that is if the one lawyer owns the plane he can legally hire joe pilot to fly lawyer one and two to the deposition. If the two lawyers are of the same firm. Legal If they are two firms and are partners on the case. Legal. If the are working on separate cases and separate law firms still legal as long as lawyer two doesn't pay lawyer one for the trip and lawyer one is just giving him a ride.
It is even legal if lawyer one owns the plane and pays joe pilot to fly it and lawyer two who does not own the plane or pay for its services enjoys getting a free ride. Although the IRS might believe it is worth value and want to tax him on it just like the IRS taxes us when we use our pass riding privileges on our 121 carrier on our days off.

What do you think.

And how much did you sell the 135 certificate for.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Isn't that how corporations do it? Normally, in pt. 91 ops, the corporation owns/operates the aircraft and employs it's own pilot(s), right? If a commercial pilot was the employee of a corporation, say a law firm in this case, couldn't he fly the owner's aircraft or be tasked to find an aircraft for lease or rent for the purposes of conducting the company's business?

 

[ultrarunner]

I would only suggest that Hmmm and his group of "joint King Air 90" owners sit down with an aviation attorney that has experience and is knowleagable in putting together and advising you on exactly it is that you want.

Just a thought

 

[BoilerAV8TR]

Back in the 90's I flew at an airport where an individual owned a couple of airplanes. A few of us on the field flew for him as independent contractors, that is we were not employees of him. He would occasionally "sell" hours on his king air to friends. They would in turn contact one of us to fly the airplane. We then were paid directly by the third party, the "share owners" of the plane. Definitely 134.5 and a couple of local charter guys called the fsdo on it. We, the pilots, however approached the fsdo with the EXACT details of the situation and they agreed it was legal. So when the 135 operators called, the FAA could say "we know all about it, thank you." It helps to have a working relationship with the local authorities.

 

[LNKav8R]

I would agree, speak with a GOOD aviation atty. I had a situation with a plane we were dry leasing that someone's atty thought was suspicious so we had to stop doing it. I know it was legal, but convincing the other atty that it was was like pulling teeth. AOPA offers legal advice, and they've got a bunch of the AC's on the website. I found a good one about the fact that if you're not 'Holding out' you could fly a 135 type operation for 3 or 4 companies/people. I guess take that AC in and ask the Feds for an interpretation. I currently fly for some people that own their own planes and it's PERFECTLY legal. I also have a friend that flies for people and other companies LEASE their plane and carry their own insurance. Remember, you need to be in compliance with the FAA but also with your insurance company lest something happen and you end up holding all the liability.