carrying passengers for hire

[Flymach2]

Hi...

I realize AC 120-12 refers to Part 91 Subpart D. Where is that? Perhaps I've missed something. What it is referring to is what I mentioned earlier...§ 91.501(d).

Regards

 

[varicam]

I think the reference to 91 subpart D pertains to an ancient and obselete rule that regulated private carriage in large and turbine powered airplanes. It was cancelled and replaced by Part 125 about 15 years ago. The present 91 subpart D is unrelated to the subject.

 

[CitationLover]

tryby,

the easiest way to visualize "holding out" is whether you become an owner/operator. if you cross this line you're holding out. the two examples the asa commercial oral exam guide use show this.

example one:
you rent a plane and fly someone to point a for a fee. you're an operator getting an airplane and this is holding out.

example two:
someone hires you to fly their airplane for a fee. in this example you're just a pic getting paid and not holding out.

i also think there is a limited number of people you can fly for (3 is sticking in my mind).

 

[bigD]

Okay, so how about this? I decide I need to fly up to Dallas on a Saturday to see a women's mud wrestling competition. I have a plane rented and ready to go. After work on Friday, I go to a bar with some friends, and a totally hot blonde bartender expresses interest in joining the competition, but has no ride up to Dallas. So I agree to take her, and she pays me for my services.

Part 91, or 135?

 

[Deftone45075]

If you prowled on her desire to join and decided to offer your services, and the airplane, your 135.

If the hot blonde (brunettes are way better!) came up with the sugestion and had, or could arrange for, an airplane....your 91 and feel free to be her hero.

 

[Deftone45075]

So I agree to take her, and she pays me for my services.

The FAA was smart enough to say "...for COMPENSATION or hire." This, unfortunately rules out any other forms of payment that might have been arranged. Otherwise you could go around flying cute chicks up to mud wrestling matches for special forms of payment and you wouldn'thave to worry about collecting money for it.

 

[bigD]

(brunettes are way better!)

True - I agree. Not that I'd turn away a hot blonde by any means, but brunettes are more likely to catch my eye! So basically, if I'm flying up there anyway, and she asks if she can go with me (and pay me for it), it's 91.

So what if she "pays" me on the way up to Dallas - is that a violation of 91.13?

 

[Deftone45075]

If she asks you, then I believe that is not holding out.

Just make sure you file for 6000 so you can buy the pin from Sporty's afterwards.

 

[Flymach2]

Hi...

While I agree with part of the scenario big D related to, there may still be some question on legality.

Keep in mind that the nature and the character of the operation is of utmost importance and we, as Commercial pilots, are expected to adhere to a higher level of integrity and morality.

Granted, it is possible to engage in a flight where you may be operating in a grey area, but it may come back to bite you. Small professional world we operate in.

So this woman expresses a desire to go to the mud wrestling competition and you mention that you're already going and have made arrangements for a rental aircraft. You tell her that she can come along. Perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the Administrator. However, if this passenger pays for any part of that flight other than the pro-rata share, it becomes an illegal charter operation. She pays pro-rata.....perfectly fine.

I've always attempted to advise those interested that probably one of the most important criteria for determining whether a flight is legal or not may not be so obvious. You, as the PIC, may have to obtain a bit more information from all involved to make that decision.

Regards

 

[Eric]

So a guy I know is an independent contract instructor and the owner of the planes he flys is also part owner in the mechanic division of the FBO. One of the mechanic's clients brings a plane for an annual, lives 80 miles away and needs a ride back. If the mechanic asked the instructor to fly his client back and the mechanic is renting the plane from the plane owner/FBO owner/mechanic part owner, does this fall into a legal 91 scenario?