Filing a flight plan

[Weasil]

Timebuilder,

A corporate airplane in which a pilot is hired, is not a flight for hire. The pilot is operating for compensation or hire, but the flight is private carriage, unless persons or property outside the company or ownership are carried for compensation or hire. In such a case, the flight would become a Part 135 operation, and would be a for hire flight.

Actually private carriage can and has been extended to persons outside the company or ownership. Private Carriage can be extended to a few different customers so long as you can demonstrate an established relationship over a period of time. The case law makes this quite clear. This is not necessarily a 135 operation. It only becomes 135 once common carriage becomes involved. And private carriage is absolutely considered flight for hire... read the following which is straight out of the advisory circular.

_______________________________________

" Carriage for hire which does not involve "holding out" is private
carriage. Private carriers for hire are sometimes called "contract carriers," but
the term is borrowed from the Interstate Commerce Act and legally inaccurate when I*
used in connection with the Federal Aviation Act. Private carriage for hire is
carriage for one or several selected customers , generally on a long-term basis.
The number of contracts must not be too great, otherwise it implies a willingness
to make a contract with anybody. A carrier operating pursuant to 18 to 24
contracts has been held to be a common carrier because it held itself out to s,erve
the public generally to the extent of its facilities. Private carriage'has -been '
found in cases where three contracts have been the sole basis of the operator's
business. Special adaptation of the transportation service to the individual L
needs of shippers is a factor tending to establish private carriage but is not
necessarily conclusive"

AC120-12A


They make it quite clear that private carriage is still considered for hire avbug.

 

[flyingwildfires]

Required Flight Plan under VFR

Good topic. It's been a long time since I flew out of Montana, but they enacted a STATE LAW years ago that required a VFR flight plan be filed if a flight was longer than 250 nautical miles. It stemmed from the many problems when aircraft went down in such a vast area with such a sparse population. There were many hard cases where search and rescue people just had nothing to go on -- except maybe the family (in another state, yet) saying "Well, he said he was going fishing and would be back in a week" routine.... and sometimes there wasn't even that much to work with. It was always a sickening feeling to know you had no real info to go on... anyway, the state in the interest of safety passed that law, in an effort to make pilots aware of the value of position reports, survival preparedness, and, indeed, VFR flight plans. They are cheap insurance! I've done enough search and rescue stuff to know I sure want someone to start looking for me when I don't show in 30 minutes... And don't forget that ELT... we found one man in the backcountry with a broken back, trapped in his inverted wreck, and he made it to the hospital (a LONG ways away) before night even fell... it's a grand feeling when it does all work right. He was sure as hell happy.

 

[avbug]

My, my, weasil. You are one arguementative little bastard, aren't you? You've spent the evening seeking out strictly my posts, and attacking every one of them...not really in the spirit of conversation, but concentrated personal attacks...each one ignorant, ill conceived, not too well thought out, hardly researched, and quite honestly, wrong.

Nice try, though.

Who are you...you're someone who does this from time to time under different monikers...of that I have little doubt. I thought you might be the poster formerly known as clownpilot, but he was generally obnoxious, not stupid.

You'll note that the comments of mine to time builder, that you quoted, I specifically stated that my comments were addressed to a corporate airplane.

A corporate airplane, being operated as such and not under 135, can carry company materials and personnel, and guests, but cannot accept compensation for that carriage.

The operation you describe by quoting AC120-12A is of an entirely different character, and has no relevence or bearing on my former comments. Or didn't you read the quote you used in the same post?

The case law makes this quite clear.

Which case law is that, mate?

And private carriage is absolutely considered flight for hire... read the following which is straight out of the advisory circular.

No, you read it. Certain private carriage may be conducted for hire under narrow guidelines. Private carriage of it's own volition is not by nature for hire, though it can be conducted for hire. Again, narrowly applied.

A corporate operation which carries passengers or cargo for hire is illegally operating an operation which should be structured under Part 135, and is liable for doing so.

Give Part 119 a read. You may learn something. Let me guess...you bought the summit CD, you tried out the search engine using a key word and now you're an expert. Is that it?

Let's have that case law you've been touting, brightspark.

It only becomes 135 once common carriage becomes involved.

Ya sure about that? Perhaps ya better do a little more reading...at least exercise that search button once or twice more. Ya think?

 

[Weasil]

Once again Avbug is wrong.

He stated that private carriage is not for hire.

A corporate airplane in which a pilot is hired, is not a flight for hire.The pilot is operating for compensation or hire, but the flight is private carriage

The FAA advisory circular says he is dead wrong. It defines private carriage as a for hire operation.


"Carriage for hire which does not involve "holding out" is private
carriage."

It is a direct quote!

He said that private carriage is not flight for hire.

Certain private carriage may be conducted for hire under narrow guidelines. Private carriage of it's own volition is not by nature for hire

Now read the quote again straight out of the a/c.



"Carriage for hire which does not involve holding out is private carriage"

By definition private carriage is a for hire operation.

It does not involve a holding out to the general public which is what makes it not a 135 operation according to part 119.

As for the case law.. Tell me Avbug, where did you get your law degree from? Don't have one, that's what I thought? So stop arguing about something you don't know and shut up and listen.


"Richards v. Christy, 1992 WL 501655 (NTSB"

"Richards v. Carter 1992 WL 348131 (NTSB"

"Hinson v. Wagner, 1994 WL 49600 (NTSB)"

Private carriage IS a for hire operation but is not a 135 operation under any circumstance. Once it becomes a certificate operation it is no longer private carriage. You have the distinction confused or you are rambling and not making any sense.

avbug says:
.

"A corporate airplane, being operated as such and not under 135, can carry company materials and personnel, and guests, but cannot accept compensation for that carriage

Again he is quite wrong... it is not the accepting of compensation that makes an operation fall under part 135. It is the holding out to the general public

Administrator v. Plowman, 5 NTSB 957 (1987)
In this case the NTSB increased the respondent's suspension from 60 days to 270 days! The respondent claims it was a private carriage operation for hire, but the ALJ says that it was a Part 135 operation because the respondent

"deliberately held out his services and
intentionally solicited the business of a major corporation,"

Again a direct quote from case law.