• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

How can I do this?

DX Rick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
19.7
I have a 182 in a remote area. I have 3 companies that want to pay me for running parts to larger cities on a daily basis. I would like to run this under 91 op's.
My best suggestion for myself is to organize a "club" or partnership and have the three companies buy time in the airplane, or buy actual shares of the plane while I fly the part runs for them.

Any other suggestions to keep this 91?
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
I have not had a chance to look at it in any detail (never had a reason to), but you probably want to look closely and get professional advice on the applicability of Subpart K of Part 91, which deals with fractional ownership operations. I think it applies to your situation.
 

Lead Sled

Sitt'n on the throne...
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Posts
2,066
Total Time
> enuf
DX Rick said:
I have a 182 in a remote area. I have 3 companies that want to pay me for running parts to larger cities on a daily basis. I would like to run this under 91 op's.
My best suggestion for myself is to organize a "club" or partnership and have the three companies buy time in the airplane, or buy actual shares of the plane while I fly the part runs for them.

Any other suggestions to keep this 91?
That will probably never pass the "smell" test as our attorney calls it.

The FAA isn't stupid and if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. When it comes to stuff like this, you're probably very wise to pass it by a good aviation attorney as oppossed to getting potientally "career altering" decisions from members of an aviation board.

'Sled
 

DX Rick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
19.7
Lead Sled said:
That will probably never pass the "smell" test as our attorney calls it.

The FAA isn't stupid and if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. When it comes to stuff like this, you're probably very wise to pass it by a good aviation attorney as oppossed to getting potientally "career altering" decisions from members of an aviation board.

'Sled

"pass it by a good aviation attorney"

I'm going to look into this.
 

viper548

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Posts
2,090
Total Time
6800
If they pay you to deliver parts without specifying what means of transportation you use, you're ok (they pay you to deliver parts, not to fly an airplane). If you're using the plane all the time, it's gonna look suspicious though. I'd suggest calling your local FSDO and ask them how this could be done legally.
 

mattpilot

Finally! Graphical TFRs!!
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
1,144
Total Time
~900
Actually, it is legal to do it under part91.

The hitch is you can't "hold out to others". If you and 3 companies make an agreement and it stays with those 3 companies, no problem. If a 4th company asks you to fly something, even if its a one time occurance, you are starting to hold out to the general public. Thats a no-no.

Read up on "private carriage" - thats what you are intending to do. THe FAA has often ruled that one company can be the private carrier of 3 or 4 companies (= part 91 rules). However, if you start holding out to anyone like the fractionals do, then Subpart K in 91 becomes an issue.

Anyhow - as i said, do your own research on "private carriage" and how you plan on operating within those rules.
 

pilotviolin

God, your sky is so big;
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Posts
108
Total Time
none
Since it is one airplane then subpart K doesn't apply, as it was explained to me by the faa. And why the he!! would you ever want to call the fisdo! Those jokers will tell you what they want to hear, and it is no everytime. They end up contradicting themselves every time I talk to them. Call a lawyer to be safe.
 
Last edited:

viper548

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2004
Posts
2,090
Total Time
6800
pilotviolin said:
Since it is one airplane then subpart K doesn't apply, as it was explained to me by the faa. And why the he!! would you ever want to call the fisdo! Those jokers will tell you what they want to hear, and it is no everytime. They end up contradicting themselves every time I talk to them. Call a lawyer to be safe.

I agree that 99% of the time it's pointless to call the FSDO because they won't answer your question, but IF they do say it's OK, get a name and have at it.
 

EatSleepFly

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2003
Posts
648
Total Time
Some
DX Rick said:
I have a 182 in a remote area. I have 3 companies that want to pay me for running parts to larger cities on a daily basis. I would like to run this under 91 op's.
My best suggestion for myself is to organize a "club" or partnership and have the three companies buy time in the airplane, or buy actual shares of the plane while I fly the part runs for them.

Any other suggestions to keep this 91?

I would say no way to keep it 91, unless you sell the airplane outright to one of the companies and they hire you as a pilot.

If one of those other companies owned the airplane, and you simply flew it for them and the other two, that would be fine. You would essentially be a corporate pilot.

The fact that you own the airplane makes it a no-go. You don't have to advertise your airplane and services for it to be considered "holding out." If those companies approach you about flying their parts and you accept, that is holding out. If you approach them, and they accept, that is also holding out.

Some might argue, like mattpilot said, that you can fly for a certain number of companies exclusively and remain under Part 91. I think in those cases where the FAA allows that, one company owns the plane, and allows a couple of specific others to use it. Different from what you're talking about.

What you're suggesting would be the equivalent of my company (an on-demand freight operator) getting rid of their 135 certificate and only flying freight for our top 3 customers. Heck, the top three probably make up a good 85% of our flying anyways. Believe me, I'm sure my company would be doing this very thing if they could. Fortunately, the FAA would never allow that. For that I am glad, because they find enough ways to abuse us as it is. If we were a part 91 op., they would just keep us in a cage at the airport.

My $.02. But good luck anyways...
 
Last edited:

onthebeach

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
240
Total Time
10K+
If you really want to do this, you can.

First, you will have to convince the three companies to buy your airplane.

You/they will form a corporation (incorporate in Nevada) for the purpose of operational of control of said airplane. Each company/corporate entitity will own a share of the corporate assets, namely, the airplane. One company will own a controlling share, and the corporation you form will be a subsidiary of the company that owns the controlling share.

You will be an employee of the corporation and be paid by it. In this way you will be shielded from liability by the corporate veil.

The controlling regulation is 91.501. In order to employ a CE-182 under this regulation, the corporation joins NBAA and will thus be able to operate said small airplane under FAR 91, Subpart F, by means of what is known as the NBAA Exemption. See the NBAA website to obtain a copy.

Any competent aviation attorney can set this up easily. Contact AOPA for a referral to same.

The hitch is, you will REALLY have to sell your airplane, and REALLY be an employee of the corporation, because the FAA will REALLY look into your operation and if it's not legit, they will REALLY crawl inside your knickers and make a home there.

So, the real question boils down to: do you want to take it easy, keep your airplane, and fly a little? or, lose your airplane, work a lot, and fly a lot? If the latter, welcome to the real world of professional flying...
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
onthebeach said:
operational of control of said airplane.
I can't believe you "said" that. Do you really talk like this?

Bandit "135"
Not necessarily. Subpart K (and the sections of Subpart F that apply to Subpart K aircraft) were designed for multiple companies jointly owning, leasing or timesharing an airplane.

You sort of wonder, though, whether the fractional ownership requirements (including giving up control of your airplane) are easier or more difficult to comply with than a single-pilot, single-airplane, single-engine Part 135 op.
 
Last edited:

Fly High

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Posts
191
Total Time
7K+
I would not want to touch an attempt to do this with a 10 ft pole! It has 135 written all over it unless they own your airplane and you fly the plane for them. A guy that lives in this area tried it and he is no longer flying. Seriously! If they own the plane you are ok.
 

DX Rick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
19.7
Fly High said:
I would not want to touch an attempt to do this with a 10 ft pole! It has 135 written all over it unless they own your airplane and you fly the plane for them. A guy that lives in this area tried it and he is no longer flying. Seriously! If they own the plane you are ok.

Christ Almighty people. Some of you have to realize I haven't gone ahead or began this. I was looking for suggestions on how to keep it 91. It sounds like it can be done. I have talked to a good friend who is a Fed, and others in the industry that knows the regs inside and out.

Yes, we already have a lawyer. It will be 1000% completely legal when all said and done.

Thanks for the help from those who understood what I was looking for.
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
DX Rick said:
Christ Almighty people. Some of you have to realize I haven't gone ahead or began this.
Now, now. Remember, you posted this online.
You have to expect that there will be thread creep with any issue, especially to the "this is awful, you're a jerk" area.

Good luck. I for one would be curious how the deal gets structured.
 

Fly High

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Posts
191
Total Time
7K+
Wow Dude! Take a pill or something. You came to this site for some advice and that is what we tried to give you. Sorry for trying I guess. HAVE FUN!
 

flyifrvfr

Banned
CFII/MEI right seater
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Posts
495
Total Time
725
Christ Almighty people. Some of you have to realize I haven't gone ahead or began this. I was looking for suggestions on how to keep it 91.

The FAA passed a law last year making it a federal offense to even dream up of ways to skirt the 135 issue. In a case FAA v.s. Jones, Mr. Jones imagined a way to deliver horse carcasses to the local rendering plant using a highly modified cessna 150. The courts ruled that even though Mr. jones never owned a Cessna 150 nor lived anywhere near a farm, the conceived thought of doing this amounted to unforseen competition. Mr Jones contended that he never communicated this thought out loud to anyone so therefor the thought is not in violation of the law.

The court furhter ruled that even though it was not said out loud, it is still a thought and is in violation of the rule. Mr. Jones was sentenced to 45 years in prison with no possibility of parole. He is appealing his case to the people of Salem who have said this amounted to a Witch Hunt.

Man, I ran this joke as far as I could. It just ran out of gas.
 

DX Rick

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
19.7
flyifrvfr said:
Christ Almighty people. Some of you have to realize I haven't gone ahead or began this. I was looking for suggestions on how to keep it 91.

The FAA passed a law last year making it a federal offense to even dream up of ways to skirt the 135 issue. In a case FAA v.s. Jones, Mr. Jones imagined a way to deliver horse carcasses to the local rendering plant using a highly modified cessna 150. The courts ruled that even though Mr. jones never owned a Cessna 150 nor lived anywhere near a farm, the conceived thought of doing this amounted to unforseen competition. Mr Jones contended that he never communicated this thought out loud to anyone so therefor the thought is not in violation of the law.

The court furhter ruled that even though it was not said out loud, it is still a thought and is in violation of the rule. Mr. Jones was sentenced to 45 years in prison with no possibility of parole. He is appealing his case to the people of Salem who have said this amounted to a Witch Hunt.

Man, I ran this joke as far as I could. It just ran out of gas.

That pretty good.
Do you have a link where you can find the other pics that go with your avatar?

Sorry about blowing up. I got some messages from people saying that the Fed's are going to bust me and own my arse, as if I had already been doing this.
I'm not trying to sneak around the FAA or break any regs. I dislike the fed's just as much as anyone else, I want it to be as clean as possible to keep them away.
We have a lawyer and will work with him to get it operational in the next 3-4 months....if we're lucky. If need be, we'll operate it 135, we just think it could be done 91 as well.

Thanks for the info and help.
 

flyifrvfr

Banned
CFII/MEI right seater
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Posts
495
Total Time
725
I took this picture from a thread here about a year ago. I believe the thread has since been deleted. I don't have a link and the avatar is available to anyone who wants it. I think you can right click your mouse on the pic and save it.
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
mattpilot said:
Actually, it is legal to do it under part91.

The hitch is you can't "hold out to others". If you and 3 companies make an agreement and it stays with those 3 companies, no problem. If a 4th company asks you to fly something, even if its a one time occurance, you are starting to hold out to the general public. Thats a no-no.

Read up on "private carriage" - thats what you are intending to do. THe FAA has often ruled that one company can be the private carrier of 3 or 4 companies (= part 91 rules). However, if you start holding out to anyone like the fractionals do, then Subpart K in 91 becomes an issue.

Anyhow - as i said, do your own research on "private carriage" and how you plan on operating within those rules.

Being Private Carriage doesn't make it legal. Take a look at 119.23(b)



119.23(b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in §91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall --

(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part;

(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only to commuter operations; and

(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.


OK, is it private carriage for hire? In your scenario, yes.


Is it an airplane with less than 20 seats and a payload capacity of less than 6000 lb? Yes.


So, you need to 1) get a certificate, 2) operate in accordance with part 135, and 3) get operations specifications.


Private carriage isn't a way around the rules.
 
Top