carrying passengers for hire

[trybysky]

Is there a difference in someone comming up to you and asking if you'll take them to point x for $Y. versus you comming up to a person and saying, yeah, I can take you to x for $y, under part 91. -(with just a comm. cert.)

I'm confused on this and can't find in the regs an answer. It mentions noncommon carriage which doesn't involve holding out...

is private carriage allowed?
is the senerio above the difference?

I have a checkride comming up and would like to know this stuff inside and out. The very end of 119.3 talks a bit about it, but just isn't clear (to me)

 

[Deftone45075]

Under Part 91 you cannot fly passanges from A to B, or X for compensation. You would then be 135. There is another thread running that explains what you can legally do for hire under 91 with a Commercial license.

 

[Deftone45075]

(as posted by tarp, on "commercial pilot limitations)

This is very good information.

e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to --

(1) Student instruction;

(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport; however, for nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2 of this part or 14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;

(3) Ferry or training flights;

(4) Aerial work operations, including --

(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;

(ii) Banner towing;

(iii) Aerial photography or survey;

(iv) Fire fighting;

 

[172driver]

Under Part 91 you cannot fly passanges from A to B, or X for compensation. You would then be 135.

Not necessarily true. With a commercial license you may engage in private carriage of persons or property for hire under Part 91.

The differences between common and private carriage are often blurry and should be examined carefully if one is to operate for hire. The reference you're looking for is not in the FAR/AIM but in AC 120-12.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...65B548D01A3DFEC3862569BA0068955E?OpenDocument

 

[trybysky]

The reference you're looking for is not in the FAR/AIM but in AC 120-12.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...65B548D01A3DFEC3862569BA0068955E?OpenDocument

ok, i read this and i can't decide my first question.... if one person asked me --just one person, to take them from x to y for whatever $, is it legal for me to do that in a c-172? It's not holding out. It should fall under private carriage, but it's still transporting someone. Is any type of transporting from x to y not allowed?

I'm sorry if I just am not interpreting Faa language very well.

 

[tarp]

Tryby...

If the person owns the C-172 (but for some reason cannot fly it) and asks you to fly it for him for x compensation, then this is a Part 91 operation and you are a commercial pilot flying but not holding yourself out.

If the person doesn't own the C-172 but asks you rent or otherwise provide the aircraft, now you are holding out and will have arranged the transportation deal.

I used to have a list of a series of questions that went something like this:

You are a commercial pilot. A businessman comes up to you and says, "I'm buying a small GA aircraft and want you to fly it". Can you do it? Well maybe.

1.) Businessman is transported to various places - yes.
2.) Businessman and his cargo to various places - yes.
3.) His cargo delivered to various places - ummmmm - define the cargo.
3a.) His cargo is supplies for his business machines sold to customers - yes.
3b.) His cargo is supplies he arranged to deliver for other companies - danger, danger, danger!
4.) He transports customers - yes.
5.) He arranges transport and accepts reimbursment from customers to make his plane available - danger, danger, danger.

As you can see there is nothing "cut and dry" about this business and asking simple questions is not enough. YOU, the pilot, have to be constantly aware of the business that is transpiring and understand that you can never "hold out" (i.e. you can not be the person who arranges a transportation deal of somebody or something for compensation.) In my example, you may be working for an employer who steps over the line and you basically have to know when to say "no". Number 3b above is pretty slippery stuff and you may never know those details, but if your boss started accepting compensation for delivering materials for someone else, you just stepped over the line.

And the best rule is better to be safe than sorry. Get caught in a "Part 135 and a half" operation and you won't be flying commercial for anybody.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I used to have a list of a series of questions that went something like this:

This is an excellent set of questions to illustrate the traps in the grey areas between "private carriage" and holding out or performing public carriage.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Call the experts

If you are really in a bind, call the FAA in Washington at 1-202-267-8212. This is the FAA Certification and General Operating Rules department - they write the books!

I called them yesterday to get an interpretation of a charity flying question. They were quite helpful. They are a resource.

 

[Flymach2]

Hi...

Quite a few good responses to the original question, but I am getting the impression that there is still some confusion when differentiating between "Common Carriage" and "Private Carriage".

As stipulated in the AC that 172Driver referred to, there are four very specific elements which make a carrier a "Common Carrier". They are:

1) A "holding out" of a willingness
2) To transport persons or property
3) From place to place
4) For compensation

This holding out to the public or a willingness to furnish transportation to anyone who wants it is the basis of the definition of Common Carriage.

Private Carriage, or carriage for hire which does not involve holding out, is still an operation which requires the aircraft to be certificated under part 125 or 119, (depending on seat configuration and payload capacity), and operated under the rules of part 135. (Exceptions are listed in 91.501). The main difference is that there is no holding out to the public, therefore, not a common carrier. Refer to §119.23.

Do not confuse Private Carriage with part 91 operations.

Regards

 

[172driver]

From AC 120-12:

Private carriage may be conducted under FAR Part 125 or 91, Subpart D.

 

[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?