carrying passengers for hire

[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?

 

[varicam]

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?

If the passenger rents the airplane, it's not air transportation for hire because the passenger is the operator. If the mechanic rents the airplane and provides free transportation, it's not air transportation for hire because the "for hire test" isn't met. If the mechanic rents the airplane and the charge is passed along to the passenger directly or indirectly, it's illegal under Part 91. The underlying purpose of the air transportation regulations is to provide a higher level of safety for those who pay for air transportation of persons or property.

 

[TAG2]

If you are getting paid to fly somebody from point "a" to point "b" on your commercial certificate and the person paying you does not own the airplane (does not have operational control), and you are not doing the sightseeing within 25 nm thing or instructing or etc.,etc., you WILL get popped for doing illegal charter flying. Don't mess with this one. It will take a whole bunch of money and a team of attorneys to try to prove the technicalities of the regulations AND you may never work in the business again. NOT WORTH IT!

It comes down to who is paying you. Is it the owner of the airplane or is it the passenger/owner of the cargo(non-owner of the airplane). The first is ok, the latter is not. The non-owner passenger may not pay for the airplane or pilot except for expense sharing or interchange.

 

[avbug]

Tag2 is correct, as are many other postings here.

One comment:

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.

.

With respect to this, if someone asks you to fly them from A to B, you are not necessarily holding out if you provide the airplane. You are holding out if you advertise by any media, including reputation or word of mouth, that you can make the flight. You cannot make the flight without a 135 certificate, but you are not holding out.