How can I do this?

[trip]

Bandit "135"

 

[midlifeflyer]

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.

 

[Fly High]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.