Anyone wanna discuss the faa requirements of renting an aircraft?

[hmmm]

Anyone wanna discuss the faa requirements of renting an aircraft under 12500 lbs and or over.

 

[Tired Soul]

There are none......
The regs don't deal with renting, they deal with acting as PIC.
And for that you need to be appropriately certificated in Category and Class.
There are some regs as far as airplane ownership and a school or 135 operator using aircraft they lease, is that what you mean?

 

[hmmm]

Hey... Yes well one guy A renting his aircraft to a company B or private individual B to use it for whatever means required. That company then hiring a appropriately rate commercial pilot to fly it.

Doesn't guy A's airplane need to have a 100 inspection.

Doesn't the aircraft have to have all SB's complied with. AD's don't enter because any aircraft has to have AD's complied with.

I imagine insurance company would hae to be notified and adjusted.

Also Mr. Pilot if he is checked out and or on the policy of many different owners aircraft if someone solicits him to pilot them he can say well here is a list of aircraft owners that I am checked out on their airplanes. Go to any of them and make a deal and that would show you are not in cahoots with just one owner.

Trying to get an education in Part 91 commercial pilot ops to make sure within the regs so my family can eat.

I haven't gotten a whole lot of help talking to the people at the FSDO directly and have been learning more from people actually in a particular regulated operation.

Thanks anyone continuing this thread.

 

[CaptSeth]

All of the described operations in the above post appear to be prohibited by the FAR's in that they require 135 certification. "Renting" an airplane with a pilot is considered a "Charter" and should be operated under the appropriate part.

If, however, an individual owns an airplane, or leases one and can demonstrate operational control, they may operate it under part 91 and hire pilots for that purpose, but they may not hold themselves out as providing any services to a third party involving that aircraft in air transportation.

A simple rental on a daily or hourly basis would raise eyebrows at the FSDO eventually. Avoid operations that will jeopordize your pilot certificate.

 

[hmmm]

I appreciate your post Capt Seth but it may be that you are like me mostly 121. I have been hoping for a week that someone would play devils advocate with me or teach me about how these things are done legally.

Please re read my post and see what you think.

I have been in aviation in every facet since I was a kid.

I will not jeapordize my license.

These things are being done daily with many operators around the country in private 91 ops and I have to learn how it is being done correctly.

I wish someone had not been so adverse in the past and close minded because I found out these things are being done and done legally.


Here is what I said.

"one guy A renting his aircraft to company B or a private individual B to use it for whatever means required. That company then hiring a appropriately rate commercial pilot to fly it."

I did not say the entity renting out the aircraft also provided a pilot or rented out a pilot..... If he did that definitely would be 135.

If the entity that is renting the airplane to do with as they want (not hold out for carriage) but using it to haul their privately owned car parts or medical supplies to do a job or go on a vacation or transport his executies to a meeting that is not held out common carriage as I see it...... but that is my un-edumucated opinion.

If then the entity renting out the plane goes to Mr. Pilot and rents him to operate the aircraft as his agent and Mr/ Pilot hands a paper to the renter saying that he is not relinquishing control of the aircraft and is responsible for its use and operation and the pilot is acting as his agent or part time employee and the employer is responsible for the actions of the employee then it is still not a 135.


"Doesn't guy A's airplane need to have a 100 inspection."

I think if the aircraft is being rented out it has to have a 100 hour done per regs... but I am not sure about SB's

(I am also an I.A.) A mandatory SB does not need to be complied with under part 91 (yes I am absolutely correct on this one) but a mandatory SB will be a AD within a very short time so might as well comply.

On the other hand if the aircraft were not rented out and the aircraft was bought into fractionally by the original would have been renter then because it is part 91 the 100 hr and not rented out SB would not need to be required unless an insurance company required it.

And are there limits on how much has to be owned by partners or what may be a legal word which is a totally different situation ... "fractionally".

But if the partial ownership is under a leasing company and leases it back to the owner of the shares would that then require 100 hr and SB's

I think this would also bring in excise tax if it were being leased back as opposed to somple part ownership use.

I am way out of league here but I can't just throw up my hands and walk away ... I have to learn this to stay legal. I have seen no where that I can go to learn the interpretation or see precedent setting cases. NBAA doesn't seem to be of much help unless you can afford a membership.


"Also Mr. Pilot if he is checked out and or on the policy of many different owners aircraft if someone solicits him to pilot them he can say well here is a list of aircraft owners that I am checked out on their airplanes. Go to any of them and make a deal and that would show you are not in cahoots with just one owner."

I can't see anything wrong with Mr. Pilot having a list of aircraft to show someone all the aircraft he is checked out on and listed on their insurance policy for rental. I don't know of anything prohibiting Mr. Pilot from soliciting his services as a pilot and telling and prospective employer what aircraft he is checked out in. As long as he does not directly work for any of the rental companies owners. For example Mr. Flight Instructor cannot solicit his services as a pilot and tell someone that they can rent an airplane at the flight school he directly works at and then the renter hires him to be a pilot on that aircraft.
That can be construed as 135.
On the other hand if he is checked out on a Baron across the field owned by a private owner as well as many other aircraft and the Flt Instructor says yes I can fly you over to so and so and back. Here's is a list of aircraft that I am checked out on and are rentable. And here is a contract that makes me your agent / employee and my pay rate and you can pick any one of those aircraft on this list and make your own deal with the owner to rent.

That I see as Part 91.


Thanks anyone continuing this thread.

 

[CaptSeth]

The problem lies in operational control. If the operator is responsible for maintenance and scheduling, and employs the pilot, then it can be construed as operational control and they may operate under part 91.

If, however, it is a third party that is renting the airplane and they are not exercizing control over how the airplane is maintained or scheduled - then what you have is a can of worms. Now, I fully understand that such arrangements take place on a daily basis - but I also understand that legitimate operators that spend a great deal of time and resources on compliance take exception to such operations and will report them to the local FSDO.

It happened to a good friend of mine a while back, and LOI's and violations were distributed liberally.

So, if you're going to do this, please ensure that the client has some ownership interest or long-term (three months is a good minimum) lease agreement for the aircraft. If it is a turbine aircraft, you may find yourself under 91K instead of 91 - 91K is almost as restrictive as 135.

As far as maintenance goes, commercial operation will require 100 hour inspections - 91 will not (I assume we are actually discussing a piston aircraft), but bear in mind that commercial operation under 91 will only permit such operations as sightseeing, flight instruction, rental (without pilot services!), pipeline inspection, banner towing, etc..

 

[hmmm]

Ok..... Thinking and thanks for playing devil.... Its still daylight so working out in the shop trying to get my aircraft tools ready in case I get some work.

It would be along the lines of a Baron Navajo or King Air 90 through 200.

Getting some 90 SimCom training maybe in Jan. The 90 is owned by either some joint partners or regular partners.

The same partners own another LLC that owns a Baron.

They would hire me when their regular pilot is busy.

I just want to understand ALL the legality in every way. I tried understanding giving static and transponder checks from regs and FSDO and the latter was no help. But a man that does it full time as a business off shoot from a avionics shop explained everything perfectly.

Just knowing reg verbage doesn't always help in interpretation.

If some people ask me if I would fly them because I have my resume out everywhere looking for work as a pilot just like all of us do I believe I can tell them well yes I can fly you but I can't fly you in my plane. That would be 135.

But if I tell them I am checked out on that Baron over there or that Navajo over at that other place who has me on their insurance or that Cheyenne I am checked out on insurance wise at this other airport they may wet lease it to you as an aircraft that is airworthy and ready to go and needs no maintenance to go and you sgn this contract paper here that makes me your employee or agent and says that you are completey responsible for operational control and I am only your employee/representative and you rent/lease the aircraft separately from me .... pay me directly and pay the rented airraft fo its use to the owner of the aircraft then this would be legal. If they ask who will be the pilot you tell them who because they need to make sure the pilot is approvable on the insurance.

Please re-read this seemingly ambiguous but direct as clear I can make it without making someone fall to sleep.

I know everyone thinks it is but there has to be a cut and dried legal way to do this. It can't be that ambiguous. There has got to be some direct guidance or available precedent setting cases and exact direction somewhere.

You can't say someone can rent and airplane and hire a pilot to fly them legally and not have a cookie cutter in stone way to do it properly.

They can't tell you as a pilot you cannot solicit to operate under your commercial license. Thats how we all got our first job. I want to do it right IAW the book and there has to be a way.

As time goes on I would like to make a 135 just for training on how to make a 135. Not to make money. If it works ok. But I want to understand every bit of the regs in ev ery step of the way.

I gotta get outside.

 

[hmmm]

Mannnnn... I should have proof read that... Will re do it now.
--------------


Ok.... Thinking about what was last said Seth...and thanks for playing devil advocate.... Its still daylight so working out in the shop trying to get my aircraft tools ready in case I get some work. I'll try to write something quick. Although it probably won't be.

This would be along the lines of a Baron, Navajo or King Air 90 through 200.

Getting some 90 SimCom training maybe in Jan for insurance requirements. The 90 is owned by either a "joint ownership" or "co-ownership" or just regular partners. Don't know yet. Hope to be edumucated.

The same partners own another LLC that owns a Baron.

They would hire me when their regular pilot is busy.

I just want to understand ALL the legality in every way.

But the above is not the point. We're talking about understanding the reags about when someone goes out and rents an airplane and hires a pilot to fly it for him.

That is legal as long as he understands the full ramifications of his operational control.

But who's to say and judge whetehr the person or entity truly understands their operational control of the aircraft he rented.

Nothing in the regs dileniates what proves that he is in operational control.

There is not a certificate or license obtainable by a private individual who wants to be a renter and hire a pilot that proves that this renter understands their operational control.

The only person that I could conceive would be able to explain it to him would be the pilot which will be his employee.

The employee would train have to train the entity that would rent an airplane to understand what responsibility of operational control he has.

At that point there is still nothing to prove that the renter understands other than to have it written on paper and signed by the entity that the entity understands what operational control means.

Okay that's done.

Now there needs to be an airplane obtained by the would be renter.

Being that the renter needs to be checked out on the insurance of an airplane that needs to be rented one of two things have to happen.

1. as a directly paid employee of the renter the renter and his employee go to an aircraft owner and the renter makes a contract and payment agreement to rent the airplane and then the aircraft owner calls his insurance company to obtain the proper insurance and checkout procedures to cover the renters employee/pilot.

-OR-
2. as a matter of course of regular private flight operations for himself for whatever reason the would be employee may have already gone out and obtained a checkout on various myriad types of aircraft and is already listed as a pilot who may from time to time rent and operate an aircraft through private rental "for himself" around the field. NONE of these places he works at as a pilot.
After the would be entity that wants to hire him as a employee/pilot who now the pilot establishes via sugned paper that says the employe/pilot has trained the employer what operational control is and of which the employer also signed that they are taking operational control goes to the leasing renting aircraft owner and says they would like to wet lease an aircraft to fly from PDK to ROA and back and my employee/pilot I am hiring to fly me there is Joe Blow of which I hear he is already listed as a renter.
I would like to rent the aircraft and I have hired Joe Blow to fly me there. The Aircraft owner leasor then calls the insurance company to get approval or already has approval to lease out the aircraft and since he has already checked out Joe Blow he knows he is covered for the operation as pilot and rents the aircraft to the operationally trained renter.

Most flight schools would not do this. Not because its not legal. But because they don't understand it and it is not their business and this little rental is not worht much to him and the person at the desk doesn't understand the regs and notifies the FAA and gives them b.s. informationa and then the FAA talks to Joe Blow who may not be versed and trained at these ops and gets violated by not saying the right things becuase he is not trained at it and lets them do it because he doesn't know how to properly express his compliance with the regs.

Instead of going to a flight school the renter goes over to Jetsons Aircraft Sales and here we have very knowledgable people who have been in business many years and know the regs. They have checked out well trained Joe Blow now educated from his violation who now understands the regs and how to express compliance. The renter rents this Navajo and his employee/pilot flies him to Roanoke and back.

The next problem which was previously discussed is how did the renter pick out the rental agency.
Joe Blow pilot does not deal exclusively with just one leasor. He has went about and been checked out with the insurance of many corporate aircraft owners who would rent out their airplane.
He hands a list of those leasors to his employer and the renter picks out the person he wants to rent from after going and checking out the various aircraft and owners.

A.In this way Joe Blow demonstrates via proof of training signed by his employer that he trained the employer in operationa control.
B. He also obtained signature from the employer that the employer not only is trained at it but that he also is accepting the responsibilty of operational control.
C. And Joe blow has shown he is not in collusion with any one leasing agency in that he is checked out on many different aircraft leasing entities.
D. Possible problem is the lessee now likes this one Navajo and only wants to rent that one. Well that is not the employee/pilots problem or should it be because the employer should by now have shown operational control on that he only trusts the maintenance of jut this one aircraft maintenace group and its lessor/owner.
------------------------------

For example in trying to understand another ambiguous legality of the FAR's in another arena. I tried understanding giving static and transponder checks by reading regs and calls to the FSDO and the latter was no help. Or maybe I just don'r reag good or am heaing impaired but I have been one that people come to for proper understanding in previous jobs even being asked for guidance from the check airmen.

The only person that was able to explain it correctly backing up his interpretation and my perception by showing me the regs and how he interprets them which fell exactly into known practices I see in the maintenance world was a man that does it full time as a business off shoot as a contractor to avionics shop explained everything perfectly.

Just knowing reg verbage doesn't always help in interpretation.

This is why I am looking for someone to teach me about this that is actually involved in this and can cite precedent setting cases as well as the regs and daily dealings with the FAA.

Thanks Seth and anyone else for working with me here hashing this out.

 

[hmmm]

I do however take offense to this... "but I also understand that legitimate operators that spend a great deal of time and resources on compliance take exception to such operations and will report them to the local FSDO."

If the above described operations are done correctly they are leagle and within the regs and per the regs.

If the ability to operate legally within and per the regs is written in the regs they must be there for a reason.

Reason for the regs being there permitting someone to operate within Part 91 is to mean that operating per the regs withing 91 is why they put the regs there in the first place.

The lessee would be a legitimate operator under the regs of Part 91 as long as it is proven that the lessee understands the responsibility of being operator and the responsibility of his emloyee/pilot.

But who is the designated person in the lessee's organization. Would it be the CEO? The CFO? His executive assistant or secretary? This is not specified.

135 and 121 take a lot more time and experience or at least work to be able to "hold out" a sign for common carriage.

That is an "operator" holding out for "common carriage".

If the lessee above held out for common carriage to carry the public and charge for it and wants you to be the pilot then he is committing a 135 operation under Part 91.

On the other hand if the lessee is renting for his own use and understands his operators responsibility and is not "holding out" for common carriage and using it for his own private use and not carrying cargo or passengers for pay then it is legal.

The pilot can always "hold out" because he is a licensed commercial pilot certified to operate under 91 and can hold himself out to be hired by any operator to fly them. But he cannot be an operator holding out for common carriage and supply the aircraft for then he would be an operator as well as commercial pilot at the same time and would need a 135 certificate and trained under that 135 certificates requirements that was applied for which would then be approved regulation that needs to adhered to in order to operate under that certificate.

 

[nosehair]

I do however take offense to this... "but I also understand that legitimate operators that spend a great deal of time and resources on compliance take exception to such operations and will report them to the local FSDO."

hmmm, you have the correct concept; as long as an entity has operational control of the aircraft, be it own, lease, rent, borrow, or steal, and the entity hires a pilot for the aircraft, it is part 91.

The above quoted remark is how some part 135 operators may try to find some illegality, so you will have to be squeaky clean,...and then some.

 

[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.