How to whore myself out?

[rickair7777]

To the original question, you can hold out all you want as long as there is no compensation involved.

The trick here is that the FAA often considers flight time itself to be a form of compensation, if the time-builder has career aspirations. If you can convince the FAA that you are done with professional flying and have no need to build time then it should be OK.

Basically, you're just looking to go for an airplane ride with a new friend. You could run an ad along those lines, and it would be just like running a personal ad for someone to play in your band or ride motorcycles with.

And I wouldn't hold it against you as long as it stays in recreational light recips...that's not really undercutting the multi-turbine industry.

 

[A Squared]

To the original question, you can hold out all you want as long as there is no compensation involved.

No compensation? Really? OK, I gotta ask, do you understand the significance of a commercial pilot certificate? I mean, how is a commercial certificate different than a private certificate? Based on your statement, it appears that you don't.

A commercial pilot certificate allows you to fly for compensation. There is nothing illeagal about a CPL holder accepting compensation, whether it's money, flight time or beer, to fly someone's airplane. Say Mr X has a Baron, he can hire some guy (with a commercial certificate) to fly his baron, or let him fly it for free for the flight time.

The problem comes if you offer to provide or arrange the airplane, *then* you are providing charter services and you run afoul of 119/135.

But accepting compensation to act as a pilot? Of course, that's the whole purpose of a commercial pilot certificate.

 

[rickair7777]

No compensation? Really? OK, I gotta ask, do you understand the significance of a commercial pilot certificate? I mean, how is a commercial certificate different than a private certificate? Based on your statement, it appears that you don't.

A commercial pilot certificate allows you to fly for compensation. There is nothing illeagal about a CPL holder accepting compensation, whether it's money, flight time or beer, to fly someone's airplane. Say Mr X has a Baron, he can hire some guy (with a commercial certificate) to fly his baron, or let him fly it for free for the flight time.

The problem comes if you offer to provide or arrange the airplane, *then* you are providing charter services and you run afoul of 119/135.

But accepting compensation to act as a pilot? Of course, that's the whole purpose of a commercial pilot certificate.

You are flat-out wrong, your simplistic view of commercial priveleges and common carriage is exactly what a 22 year old CFI might tell you to get you through the checkride oral. Obviously you never got the graduate-level explanation of AC 120-12A.

FAA "Holding Out" is more complicated and ambiguous than you appear to realize. If you are just a commercial pilot and want to work at the local patch, you have to avoid three things to stay out of trouble:

1) Scheduled Ops (Unless you work for a 121 carrier).
2) Charter Ops (Unless you work for a 135 carrier).
3) Holding Out ( this puts you back into the 121/135 realm)

Some elaboration on holding out:

It is unusual, but you can actually provide the airplane for the customer under 91 and not be guilty of holding out. You can also hold out for customers who supply their own airplane and still be guilty of unlicensed 135 ops.

A commercial pilot can generally be employed by a part 91 owner/operator, or even several, as long there is an established written contract (not technically required, but this is the gold stanadard in enforcement). You can even solicit new business based on word of mouth, but you really need to do these things:

1) Do not appear available to the general public at the drop of a hat.
2) Don't advertise, or be known around the field as the guy in 1). If everybody on the field knows about you, the FSDO will too.
3) Be very selective about who your employers are, and how many.
4) Use written contracts and have established, longer-term relationships with your employers.


The are a few regulatory exceptions to the 135 requirements: You can carry sightseeing or photo flights within 25 NM as long as you return to the point of origin...this is not common carriage by definition (no point A to point B is involved) and is specifically excused from the 135 requirements. You can supply the airplane and (I think) advertise for this also.

If you actually want to do anything along these lines, check with your local FSDO for guidance. And read AC 120-12A.

Back to the original post, I don't think any of this applies because he wants to do recreational flying, and since flight time should not count as compensation for a non-professional pilot, it's out of the commercial realm entirely. He just needs to be able to convince the FAA that he's no longer an aspiring professional pilot.

 

[A Squared]

You are flat-out wrong, your simplistic view of commercial priveleges and common carriage is exactly what a 22 year old CFI might tell you to get you through the checkride oral. Obviously you never got the graduate-level explanation of AC 120-12A.

well, no, I am not wrong, actually. I am astonished that you have such a basic lack of understanding of commercial pilot privileges. Yes, I have read 120-12A, many times. I am equally sure you have read it. The difference between you and I is that you didn't understand it. ("Yes Otto, baboons *do* read philosophy, they just don't understand it" Extra credit if you can name that quote) 120-12A refers to commercial carriers, and defines what is and what is not common carriage. It absolutely does not speak to the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate.

OK, let's start with the basics. What are the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate? That is in Part 61.133

§61.133 Commercial pilot privileges and limitations.

(a) Privileges -- (1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft --

(i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and

(ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.

OK, you see that bold, underlined part? A commercial pilot may act as PIC for compensation or hire. That means that you can accept compensation for flying airplanes. There are more conditions, of course, you also must be qualified under the applicable regs. OK so what does that mean? Let's use the example of a Baron. Well, you're flying the Baron owner around in his own plane so it's a Part 91 flight, your qualifications are those listed in Part 61. That means that you must have a multiengine rating, high performance and complex endorsements, 3 t/o and landings in the last 90 days, IFR currency if it's an IFR flight. All perfectly legal, and you can d@mn well advertise to provide this service to aircraft owners. Notice that 61.133(a) does not say anything about not advertising your services, nothing, nada, zip. It say you can fly for compensation or hire. Period.

Look, take out a copy of Trade-a-Plane. Look under ferrying services. You will see any number of ads offering ferrying service. They are "holding out" to the public pilot services. You will also see this at any GA airport, handbills on the bulletin boards offering to ferry aircraft, sometimes for free, sometimes for money. Now, if this was illegal, as you suggest, don't you think the FAA would contact those folks publicly advertising commercial pilot services and suspend their commercial pilot certificates? Huh? Why is that? think about it. Mull that one over in your mind.

Now, let's say that hypothetically you are right, that "holding out" for pilot services is illegal.

I hang up a flyer on all hte bulletin boards at my airport (holding out to the public) which says "I will ferry your aircraft anywhere for $XXX/day and/or I will be your co-pilot in your aircraft for $xxx/day"

According to you this is illegal, because I am "holding out"

You are an FAA inspector, you see my flyer and you say to yourself, hey this @sshole is "holding out" I'm going to bust his @ss. So you hang out at the airport, in your dodge K-Car with tinted windows. You see me (and record on video) meeting with a local baron owner, him handing me the keys to the airplane and a wad of cash, and you see me (and record on video) get in the Baron (after a thorough preflight) take off and fly over the horizon. Coincidentally, you have one of your inspector buddies staking out my airport of destination. He gets video of me landing in the Baron, taxiing in and handing the keys to a mechanic at the FBO.

OK, you have a copy of my flyer. You have sworn testimony that it was hanging on a public bulletin board, you have irrefutable video proof of exactly what I've done. You're seething in self -righteous anger, you're going to take me down, big time.


OK there, Mr. regulations expert. Here's the $64,000 QUESTION. What regulation are you going to charge me with violating?

Serious question. A violation has to have a regulation. So tell me which regulation you're going to charge me with?

Waiting.

Waiting.


Right, you can't find a single regulation I have violated, because I haven't violated a single regulation.

That's why you see pilot "holding out" for ferry services for compensation, or co-pilot services, because it is perfectly legal.

What you do *not* see is pilots putting up flyers offering: "I'll fly you in my plane to anywhere for $xxx/hour" (or at least, you don't see it for long because the FAA has a chat with the pilot) Why don't you see that? You don't see that because that *is* illegal, when you are "holding out" to provide air transportation, you are a common carrier, and you must have a 135 certificate (or 121 certificate, depending on the operation and aircraft)

FAA "Holding Out" is more complicated and ambiguous than you appear to realize. If you are just a commercial pilot and want to work at the local patch, you have to avoid three things to stay out of trouble:

1) Scheduled Ops (Unless you work for a 121 carrier).
2) Charter Ops (Unless you work for a 135 carrier).
3) Holding Out ( this puts you back into the 121/135 realm)

Uhhh, nope, as wrong as you can be.

What you have to avoid is "holding out" for scheduled operations and "holding out" for charter services. You may "hold out" for pilot services, you may "hold out" for flight instruction (provided you have an instructor’s certificate) you may "hold out" to wash airplanes. In short you may "hold out" for anything for which you have the proper certification, and if you have a commercial pilot certificate, you are have the proper certification to provide pilot services.

It is unusual, but you can actually provide the airplane for the customer under 91 and not be guilty of holding out.

I agree, to an extent. But one has to be *extremely* careful how this is arranged, and it is very difficult to get this to pass the sniff test. I.e.: if it looks like a charter, and smells like a charter and sounds like a charter, it probably *is* a charter. Even if you are not "holding out" if you are providing air transportation for hire, it is probably private carriage and you still need a 135 certificate. See 119.23(b)

119.23

(a).......
(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.

I can point you to NTSB decisions involving people who "*thought* they had this set up to get around having a 135 certificate, yet still got violated. Read Amin. v Nix


http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4825.PDF

For an example of a guy like you who though he had it all figured out with a "lease" arrangement and a contract for pilot services. He still got violated. Her's what the NTSB had to say: read it carefully because it's an important concept:

Nothing in respondent’s brief warrants a departure from our precedent that the provision of both plane and crew from a single source generally is deemed to be conclusive proof of carriage for compensation or hire.

Translation, unless there are very unusual circumstances, if the plane and the pilot come from the same source, it's an illegal 135 charter.

You can also hold out for customers who supply their own airplane and still be guilty of unlicensed 135 ops.

Describe a scenario in which this is true and quote the specific regulations which prohibit it.

 

[A Squared]

Continued

continuing on......

A commercial pilot can generally be employed by a part 91 owner/operator, or even several, as long there is an established written contract (not technically required, but this is the gold stanadard in enforcement). You can even solicit new business based on word of mouth, but you really need to do these things:

1) Do not appear available to the general public at the drop of a hat.

Quote the regulation which prohibits this.

2) Don't advertise, or be known around the field as the guy in 1). If everybody on the field knows about you, the FSDO will too.

Quote the regulation which prohibits this.

3) Be very selective about who your employers are, and how many.
4) Use written contracts and have established, longer-term relationships with your employers.

Quote the regulation which prohibits this.

So far you haven’t offered a shred of official documentation which supports your position. You’ve only made a vague reference to AC120-12A, which I will address soon.

The are a few regulatory exceptions to the 135 requirements: You can carry sightseeing or photo flights within 25 NM as long as you return to the point of origin...this is not common carriage by definition (no point A to point B is involved) and is specifically excused from the 135 requirements. You can supply the airplane and (I think) advertise for this also.

Partially correct, non-stop sightseeing flights within 25 NM are exempt from *most* (but not all) of the provisions of Part 135, but it is *not* because they are considered non-common carriage. Nor does Common carriage have anything to do with whether point to point transportation is provided. A non-stop flight could still be considered common carriage. WOW!, you really did completely miss the boat on AC120-12A! The sole purpose of AC120-12A is to clarify exactly what Common Carriage is and how it differs from Private carriage., and you still haven’t a clue. Notice that nowhere in AC120-12A does it mention point to point carriage or any similar concept. That aside, non-common carriage for compensation or hire still requires a 135 certificate. See the previously quoted 119.23(b) This only underscores that you really do *not* understand common carriage, private carriage, air-transportation, the provisions of Part 119, nor the content and intent of AC120-12A


On to AC120-12A:

You mention this AC, thinking that somehow, the mere mention of the AC number supports your position. It only serves to underscore your *lack* of understanding. I’ll take your word that you’ve actually read this AC, but obviously, like Otto and the baboons, it went sailing right over your head.

"The central message of Buddhism is *not* every man for himself, the London Underground is *not* a political movement"

(more clues for your trivia question)

Again, we’ll start with the basics. Look at the number of the AC. It has meaning, They don’t just pull those numbers out of thin air. I would refer you to AC 00-2.13, Appendix 1. Advisory Circulars having to do with airman certification are numbered 60-XX. This is your first clue that AC-120-12A does not address commercial pilot privileges, it’s not a 60 series AC. The 120 series of ACs address "Air Carriers, Air Travel Clubs and Operators for Compensation or Hire : Certification and Operations"

This should tell you that AC 120-12A is about what operators and carriers may and may not do, not what individual pilots may or may not do.


Now, if you didn’t catch the significance of the AC number (which you obviously didn’t) your second clue is the title of the AC: PRIVATE CARRIAGE VERSUS COMMON
CARRIAGE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY.

Notice that the title says nothing about pilot privileges. You missed the first two clues, so your third clue to the purpose of the AC is the very first sentence, the one that begins with the word "Purpose".

1 0 PURPOSE. This advisory circular furnishes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel and interested segments of industry with general guidelines for determining whether current or proposed transportation operations by air constitute private or common carriage.

OK, read that carefully, and note the italicized words "transportation operations". Notice that it doesn’t say "pilot operations" This AC clarifies and sets policy regarding air transportation operations, that is operators who provide air transportation. A pilot, by himself is not a commercial operation, nor is he providing "air transportation" If you are offering pilot services, you are offering a warm , breathing (but apparently not thinking) body, probably a set of David Clarks, and maybe a Jepp case. That’s it. No airplane. A pilot without an airplane does not provide air transportation, you need an airplane. Look up the definition "air transportation" in Part 1 You’ll see that it is not something a pilot with no airplane can provide.

OK, continuing on. You missed the first three clues, but there’s more. Let’s go straight to the smoking gun, the part where "holding out" is addressed:

A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out" to the public, or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it.

OK, again notice the italicized word, "carrier" a carrier is an entity which transports people or things, a pilot doesn’t carry things, a pilot flies airplanes. From there, the AC goes on to define and clarify "holding out"

Here’s your final clue that AC120-12A clarifies what "carriers" may do, but does not address what an individual pilot may or may not do: Nowhere in AC120-12A does the word "pilot" appear, not one single time. Don’t you think if the AC was intended to regulate pilots, they would be mentioned *somewhere* in the AC? Chew on that for a minute. Enough about AC120-12A. It should be sufficiently clear at this point that the AC addresses the actions of air carriers and commercial operators, not individual pilots. Once you offer an airplane with yourself as the pilot, you are offering air transportation, and you are an operator, not a pilot, and AC120-12A is applicable.

Now, if you post a flyer offering to fly people to other destinations in your 172 for hire, you are in violation of the regulations. I can point to the specific regulations you are violating. Just the act of advertising, by itself, is expressly prohibited, even if you never actually provide the service.. See 119.5(k)

119.5
(k) No person may advertise or otherwise offer to perform an operation subject to this part unless that person is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct that operation.

Piloting airplanes under Part 91 is not "an operation subject to this part" (Part 119)

From there the list of regulations violated grows if you actually do provide transportation for hire.

However, If I post a flyer offering to ferry airplanes or act as your copilot (or PIC for that matter) in your airplane for compensation, I am violating no regulations.

Basically you have two options here:

a) Name a specific regulation my pilot services flyer is violating .

b) Concede that you don’t know what you are talking about.

You won’t be able to do a, so you may as well start with b.

 

[rickair7777]

well, no, I am not wrong, actually. I am astonished that you have such a basic lack of understanding of commercial pilot privileges. Yes, I have read 120-12A, many times. I am equally sure you have read it. The difference between you and I is that you didn't understand it. ("Yes Otto, baboons *do* read philosophy, they just don't understand it" Extra credit if you can name that quote) 120-12A refers to commercial carriers, and defines what is and what is not common carriage. It absolutely does not speak to the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate.

OK, let's start with the basics. What are the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate? That is in Part 61.133



OK, you see that bold, underlined part? A commercial pilot may act as PIC for compensation or hire. That means that you can accept compensation for flying airplanes. There are more conditions, of course, you also must be qualified under the applicable regs. OK so what does that mean? Let's use the example of a Baron. Well, you're flying the Baron owner around in his own plane so it's a Part 91 flight, your qualifications are those listed in Part 61. That means that you must have a multiengine rating, high performance and complex endorsements, 3 t/o and landings in the last 90 days, IFR currency if it's an IFR flight. All perfectly legal, and you can d@mn well advertise to provide this service to aircraft owners. Notice that 61.133(a) does not say anything about not advertising your services, nothing, nada, zip. It say you can fly for compensation or hire. Period.

Look, take out a copy of Trade-a-Plane. Look under ferrying services. You will see any number of ads offering ferrying service. They are "holding out" to the public pilot services. You will also see this at any GA airport, handbills on the bulletin boards offering to ferry aircraft, sometimes for free, sometimes for money. Now, if this was illegal, as you suggest, don't you think the FAA would contact those folks publicly advertising commercial pilot services and suspend their commercial pilot certificates? Huh? Why is that? think about it. Mull that one over in your mind.

You obviously need to re-read 120-12A. Ferrying airplanes is fine, as long as people or property don't go with the airplane. The original post seemed to be asking about flying somewhere with the owner.

Now, let's say that hypothetically you are right, that "holding out" for pilot services is illegal.

It's not illegal, but the TYPE of pilot service in question puts you into 135 (or maybe 121). Do you have a 121 or 135 cert in your wallet?

Despite the long elaboration, I'm still right and you're wrong. The original poster was looking to fly people's airplanes, and he didn't really specify ferry flights, so I addressed the question assuming the owner would be along for the ride.

And next time, lay off the attitude, it's non-productive and you're still wrong anyway.

 

[A Squared]

You obviously need to re-read 120-12A.

Specifically which part? Merely repeating without explanation that I need to re-read 120-12A only underscores that you haven't a clue.

Ferrying airplanes is fine, as long as people or property don't go with the airplane. The original post seemed to be asking about flying somewhere with the owner.

Right, what is the regulatory difference between flying someplace with the owner and ferrying an aircraft?

Specific regulation please.

Are you by *any* chance familliar with corporate aviation? It does constitute a significant portion of the aviation that goes on in this country. That's where a company hires pilots to fly company employees around in the company's airplane. There is no regulatory difference between a company owner hiring pilots to fly him and his employees around in his Lear and some guy hiring a pilot to fly him around in that guy's (the owner's, not the pilots) own Baron. From a regulatory standpoint those situations are identical.

So tell us, why isn't the FAA taking down corporate part 91 flight departments left and right?

What regulations are being violated?

It's not illegal, but the TYPE of pilot service in question puts you into 135 (or maybe 121).

Really, how? Specific regulation please.

Despite the long elaboration, I'm still right and you're wrong.

Wow, that was intelligent!!!!!!!!

I'm utterly unimpressed with you reiterating that you think I'm wrong while offering not one single word to support your position. You aren't arguing you're just contradicting, and that is the intellectual domain of two year-olds.

The original poster was looking to fly people's airplanes, and he didn't really specify ferry flights, so I addressed the question assuming the owner would be along for the ride.

Again, point to one single regulatioln which would make it illegal to take the owner for a ride in his own airplane.

One single regulation,

You have yet to point to ONE SINGLE REGULATION which supports your statement

we're waiting for you to point to one single regulation which makes offering pilot services illegal.

You won't do it, becuse you *can't* do it.

 

[onthebeach]

A Squared is right, Rick.

Let's look at this way, Rick.

Say I have some experience and schooling in a King Air 200. I put an ad in the paper: "Corporate King Air pilot available."

(OK, here comes the fictional part) Then I get a call from Mr. Smith whose company just bought a King Air 200 but they don't have a pilot to fly it. Mr. Smith hires me as his corporate pilot. I fly him, and his employees and/or guests on this King Air (NONE of which are charged IN ANY WAY for said transportation), on his company's business and/or his personal business/pleasure flights. In return, he pays me handsomely. (NOTE: He will also have to pay an accountant handsomely to sort out the taxes which may be applicable to each flight; I don't go there).

Rick, this is called "corporate aviation," and it's just as legal as it can be, with a commercial pilot certificate.

Of course, usually Mr. Smith puts out the ad and I answer it, but it COULD work the other way around. All perfectly legal. Trust me on this one...or not...but either way, A Squared is correct. Listen to him.

 

[CJCCapt]

14 CFR part 119.1(e)

The flight activities a low-time commercial pilot may do (hold out for) are specifically listed in 14 CFR Part 119.1 (e) (which includes ferry work). Anything else will most likely fall into parts 121, 125, or 135 and the pilot must meet the additional requirements of those parts.

To answer the original question, if you let it be known you are available to fly someone in their airplane "for free" you are being compensated at least by valuable flight time (FAA point-of-view). You won't see that activity listed in 119.1(e). Even an instructor needs to be careful and make sure that he/she is actually giving instruction, not just riding along and "calling it dual" (the FAA recently pulled the certificates of a MEI who was doing this. The NTSB upheld the action).

 

[CJCCapt]

Let's look at this way, Rick.

Say I have some experience and schooling in a King Air 200. I put an ad in the paper: "Corporate King Air pilot available."

(OK, here comes the fictional part) Then I get a call from Mr. Smith whose company just bought a King Air 200 but they don't have a pilot to fly it. Mr. Smith hires me as his corporate pilot. I fly him, and his employees and/or guests on this King Air (NONE of which are charged IN ANY WAY for said transportation), on his company's business and/or his personal business/pleasure flights. In return, he pays me handsomely. (NOTE: He will also have to pay an accountant handsomely to sort out the taxes which may be applicable to each flight; I don't go there).

Rick, this is called "corporate aviation," and it's just as legal as it can be, with a commercial pilot certificate.

Of course, usually Mr. Smith puts out the ad and I answer it, but it COULD work the other way around. All perfectly legal. Trust me on this one...or not...but either way, A Squared is correct. Listen to him.

No. It's call private carriage or noncommon carriage. And it's allowed under Part 91. It does not fall under part 119.1. It's not "common carriage" and as long as you do it under contract for one or maybe two owners, you are not "holding out". As long as the owner and insurance company approve, you may fly as a private corporate pilot.

So yes. He may fly as a corporate pilot. He needs an employment contract (1099) or be hired and carried by his employer as an employee (W-2). He can fly his employer's C-172 on company business or as directed by the boss. He could even do it for several employers, but not just "hang" around the airport and offer his commercial services "for free".

 

[aerobaticspilot]

i wouldnt get in a plane with you

 

[A Squared]

Even an instructor needs to be careful and make sure that he/she is actually giving instruction, not just riding along and "calling it dual" (the FAA recently pulled the certificates of a MEI who was doing this. The NTSB upheld the action).

Would you post a link to this NTSB decision? I'd be interested to see this. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that he didn't get violated for flying with someone in thier own aircraft.

More likely he got violated because it was "instruction" in a rental aircraft that he "arranged" and the FAA considered it an illegal charter. Or perhaps it was because he was signing off instruction which he didn't actually give. (falsification)

I would ask you the same as I asked Rick (although much more politely, as you haven't acted like a two year old contradicting his parents) that you show me the regulation that prohibits a commercial pilot flying for compensation, or prohibits that pilot from advertising his willingness to provide that service.

It is probably unnecessary to point htis out, if you have read the thread, but I'll mention it anyway, Rick has been completely and utterly unable to point to any regulation which prohibits this. There's a reason for that. It doesn't exist.

 

[A Squared]

No. It's call private carriage or noncommon carriage. And it's allowed under Part 91. It does not fall under part 119.1. It's not "common carriage" and as long as you do it under contract for one or maybe two owners, you are not "holding out". As long as the owner and insurance company approve, you may fly as a private corporate pilot.

No, what the pilot is doing is not carriage, in any way shape or form. What the pilot is doing is offering pilot services, which is a privilege of the commercial certificate. With all due respect, you're beginning to sound like Rick7777, making assertions without anything to back it up. Would you please provide a regulatory refernce that supports this.

 

[A Squared]

So Rick, no word on which regulation would be violated?

Why not?

Personally, I'd be *very* embarrased to find myself in the position of insisting that something is Illegal, yet unable to point to a regulation which makes it so.

Perhaps you thought people would be so impressed by you repeating "I'm still right and you're wrong" that you didin't need to post any reasons?

Anytime you're ready to post the regulation you think is being violated, I'm ready to listen. I see you lurking on this thread, so we know you're not out in the woods away from internet access.

 

[rickair7777]

OK, I had to go fly an airplane there, but let me clarify (one last time) what I was trying to say in the first place...

"Holding out" in aviation-land is slang for "holding out as a common carrier", that's the issue that gets people in trouble and that is the activity I was addressing. Holding out as a common carrier is in fact illegal if you don't possess an appropriate operating cert.

ASqrd: The real affect and meaning of our often ambigious FARs is determined by their wording, the interpretation of that wording by the enforcement agencies, and finally the interpretation by the applicable folks on the federal bench. Unless you happen to an admin law judge, your interpretation of 91/61/135 doesn't mean a thing. Hopefully it doesn't get you in any trouble.

In this case the issue is not commercial pilot priveleges or private carriage at all. A commercial pilot can answer as many employment ads as he likes, and I'm sure post numerous ads seeking the type of employment which falls under private carriage. He can solicit every warm body on the field for that type of employment.

The issue is how to avoid common carriage and the related requirement to posses a 121/135 ticket: AC120 specifies that common carriage consists of 4 elements: 1) Holding Out, to 2)transport persons or property from 3) place to place for 4) compensation or hire. Note: while the AC may not be regulatory, it certainly serves as fair warning as to how the FAA will interpret and then attempt to enforce the regs.

1) This gets tricky, but basically seeking on-going employment piloting someone else's airplane seems to be OK (the written contract for an on-going relationship is the gold standard...works at my FSDO anyway). You can even be employed in this manner by several people at one time.
2) This is where ferry flights come in...apparently an airplane is not considered a person or property being transported...the property would have to be cargo carried in the airplane, so a ferry flight is missing this required component of common carriage.
3) Place to place is part of the basis for the sightseeing and photo op exemptions...assuming they return to the point of origin.
4) Compensation is the part where time builders can get in trouble...the FAA considers flight time to be compensation

Keep in mind that an individual pilot can be a common or a private carrier, he doesn't need to have his own company or an operating certificate to be defined as a "carrier", his actions in seeking business and the type of work he seeks determine his status.

Publicly expressed willingness to fly most people most of the time is common carriage, which does require a 135/121 ticket. The fact that the public expression may be covert or on the Down-Lo doesn't make it legal...ask hookers and dope dealers about that.

I think Ninja's original title "How to Whore Myself Out" leans in the direction of common carriage as it implies a broad willingness to fly anybody anytime...that is clearly common carriage per the FAA. Ninja may or may not be able to get off the hook based on his assertion that the flight time he accumulates is not compensation since he is a recreational-only pilot. That would probably depend on the Fed in question.

Also, I take a conservative approach...ie I suggest how to avoid the violation in the first place, based partly on my own 91/135 experiences and the observed misfortunes of others. I do not advocate how to win the supreme court appeal based on ambigous wording in 14CRF.

 

[rickair7777]

So Rick, no word on which regulation would be violated?

Why not?

Personally, I'd be *very* embarrased to find myself in the position of insisting that something is Illegal, yet unable to point to a regulation which makes it so.

Perhaps you thought people would be so impressed by you repeating "I'm still right and you're wrong" that you didin't need to post any reasons?

Anytime you're ready to post the regulation you think is being violated, I'm ready to listen. I see you lurking on this thread, so we know you're not out in the woods away from internet access.

This is the last time I'm going to address you. I just got back from flying, which interupted my participation last night. (FLYING: is this something you even do?) and replied to your previous rants (see above).

What is your major malfunction? Have you noticed that most of the people on this forum are able to have rational and productive dialogue without insulting or deliberately antagonizing others (unless they REALLY deserve it ie PFT, scabs, etc)...there's nothing about the FARs that are worth getting emotional about. Really.

You obviously have some serious personality shortcomings that lead you to deliberately antagonize people on the internet...I mean WTF! I don't even want to imagine what you must be like in person. I'm not going to waste time speculating on what your issues may be, but do me a huge favor and don't respond to any of my future posts...even if I am wrong about some minor technical point, I'm sure someone else can point that out without getting personal about the FARs. I will extend the same courtesy to you.

BTW, I'm going to the gym now...it's good for you, and being fit and toned will help me get to get laid by some litte hottie in LA this weekend...HINT, HINT.

OUT.

 

[onthebeach]

aerobaticspilot....who were you talking to?

 

[A Squared]

"Holding out" in aviation-land is slang for "holding out as a common carrier", that's the issue that gets people in trouble and that is the activity I was addressing. Holding out as a common carrier is in fact illegal if you don't possess an appropriate operating cert.

Correct, I agree 100%. However, you have a completely incorrect idea of what constitutes Common Carriage.

Common Carriage is not "anytime you advertise anything remotely connected with an aircraft" which seems to be your erroneous understanding of the concept. Common carriage is first and foremost, transportation.

From AC120-12A:

There are four elements in defining a common carrier; (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation.

In order to be a common carrier, you have to be providing transportation of persons or property for hire. A pilot being hired to pilot an airplane for a private individual is not providing transportation.

Look, let’s say you and I both were going somewhere, perhaps a football game in the next state. I told you, hey give me $50 and I’ll provide the transportation. On the day of our departure I show up at your door with nothing but my driver’s license. I took a taxi there. I say, "hey dood, toss me the keys to your car and we’ll get going." Now, am I providing you with transportation? Obviously not. All I’m providing is a driver, that’s not transportation. Not in any sense of the word. Neither is a pilot, flying someone around in that person’s own airplane, providing transportation. If transportation isn’t provided for hire, it’s not common carriage.

I don’t know where you came up with the idea that piloting can be common carriage, but your mistaken. That is not supported in any way by the regulations, AC120-12A, legal counsel interpretations or case law. (and yes, I have read those sources, extensively; I suspect far more so than you)


Maybe some examples will help illustrate your misconception. Let’s say Frank in Atlanta owns a C-182, what are the various operations he might engage in?

1) Frank flies himself and his dog and a box of tools to Savannah .

That is Private carriage, not for hire. No persons or property are carried for hire. Frank controls when and where the airplane flies, and only Frank and his property are carried.

2) Frank loses his medical. He hires Jeff, who holds a commercial pilot certificate to fly him his dog and a box of tools in his 182 to Savannah .

That is Private carriage, not for hire. No persons or property are carried for hire. Frank controls when and where the airplane flies, and only Frank and his property are carried, and the carriage is not for hire. The fact that Frank is paying Jeff to pilot the airplane does not make it a transportation for hire operation. The *piloting* is for hire, but the carriage is *not* for hire. No commercial operator certificate is needed. This situation is identical to corporate aviation.

3) Betty approaches Frank and offers to pay Frank to transport her and her dog to Savannah .

That is Private Carriage for hire. (there is no holding out) Frank is providing transportation to betty for compensation. That makes Frank a commercial operator. (part 1 definition of commercial operator) Frank will need a 135 certificate. 119.23 (b) requires it.

4) Frank puts up flyers around Atlanta, advertising air service to Savannah for $150. This is Common Carriage. Frank will need a 135 certificate as per 119.21(a) Notice that this operation has all 4 of the elements Common carriage. Note also that operations 1,2, and 3 are missing one or more of the 4 essential elements of common carriage.

Now the original question centers around situation 2. Frank is engaging in private carriage, not for hire. Jeff is engaged in *piloting* for hire. Piloting isn’t transportation, and it isn’t carriage. The fact that Jeff may hold out his piloting services *still* doesn’t make piloting either transportation or carriage. Once you grasp what the terms carriage and transportation mean, (and clearly, you don’t) it becomes obvious that Jeff is not engaging in either, hence no "common carriage".

continued......

 

[A Squared]

Now, let’s take a look at some of the official interpretations from the FAA’s Office of Chief Counsel

FAA legal opinion (Note, FAR 61.51(c)(2)(i) is now codified as 61.51(e)(1)):
"December 9, 1992
Mr. Renato Simone

Dear Mr. Simone:

This is in response to your November 7, 1991, letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Chief Counsel, in which you pose questions relating to certain requirements in Parts 61, 71, 91, and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

.......Edited for relevance, addresses control zones, and logging.......

Your third question asks, "Can a commercially certificated pilot fly a friend for full compensation or hire under Part 91?" The answer is that there are some limited circumstances when it is permissible. From the standpoint of Part 61, the holder of a commercial pilot certificate is permitted to accept compensation for piloting (See FAR 61.139). There is a question, however, whether the operation can be conducted under Part 91 as opposed to Part 135.

A pilot flying under Part 91 may not carry persons or property in air commerce for compensation or hire. This means that the aircraft owner may only transport passengers and property that pertain to the owner or the owner's business, as long as that business is not air transportation (See FAR 91.501). One example of this Part 91 operation is the corporate pilot flying a company airplane carrying company property and passengers. The corporate pilot is paid for his work, and therefore must have a commercial pilot certificate. Another example is pilot service, where a commercial pilot is paid by an airplane owner to fly the airplane for the owner. As long as there is no "carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire", the commercial pilot can operate under Part 91 and be paid for his services.

We stress that FAR 135.1(3), FAR 135.5, and FAR 135.7 make it clear that the "carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire" requires an air taxi/commercial operator operating certificate.

.....edited, addresses CFIs logging landings......

We trust the above response will prove helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information in this regard.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division"

OK, now go back and read the bold portion. It’s "pilot service", not common carriage. Notice that the criteria is "as long as there is no carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire" Notice also that the is no mention of "holding out", exclusive contracts or anything else. If you’re not carrying persons or property for hire you’re good to go.


Here’s an excerpt from another

........With regard to your final question, that is, whether the pilot may work for more than one company as an employee providing pilot services only, and still be considered a Part 91 operation, it is our opinion that, so long as each respective company procures its plane, and the pilot does not procure the plane, this may be done under Part 91. . This opinion is limited to a situation in which the company would not be charging the passengers. If the company were to procure the plane and pilot, and charge passengers any amount for the transportation, then the company would be providing air transportation for compensation, requiring Part 135 certification.. (full text provided below)

Again there we have that term popping up again, "pilot services" Did you happen to recall that "pilot services" was never mentioned in AC120-12A? Notice here, that the chief counsel specifically states that you are not limited to providing pilot services to one company. No mention of it being forbidden to advertise. It’s "pilot services" not air commerce, not carriage for hire. Also notice that if the company makes charges it is the *company* (who has operational control of the aircraft) who is providing air transportation.

"......then the company would be providing air transportation for compensation...."

The pilot is not providing air transportation, he’s providing pilot services.



Here’s another excerpt from a related Chief Counsel interpretation:

Finally, you ask about the situation where the same business rents an airplane from a local FBO and you are hired to fly the rental aircraft as a commercial pilot. We see no conflict with Part 135 in this situation as long as you are strictly the pilot, and play no part in procurement, payment, or operational control of the airplane. The business would have to understand that it is responsible for operational control which includes, among other things, responsibility for compliance with the FAR and susceptibility to enforcement actions.

The full text of the interpretation is provided below. Notice that it is once again, not a violation of the provisions of Part 135 to provide pilot services. Advertising those services doesn’t change that. Notice that the concept of operational control is brought into the discussion. That is another fundamental concept, one that is used to determine whether an someone is acting as a commercial operator. If you had read the Admin. v Nix decision, you would have seen that much of the discussion centered around who effectively had operational control of the aircraft, Nix or his client company. If the client has operational control of the aircraft, all you’re providing is pilot services. In our previous example, Jeff does not have operational control of Frank’s 182, it belongs to Frank, and Frank determines when and where the airplane is flown. Frank has operational control. Without operational control of the aircraft, Jeff will never be considered a common carrier, no matter how much he advertises pilot services. (as long as it’s just pilot services he advertises.)

Now, lets summarize: I’ve provided regulatory references, Chief counsel interpretations and case law. My view is entirely consistent with all of these (and with 1AC120-12A)

You have provided nothing but misinformed opinion, repeated over and over, no regulations, no interpretations, no case law.

Personally, I know which I find more persuasive.

 

[A Squared]

The interpretations

The interpretations

FAA Legal Opinion:
"December 10, 1990
In Reply Refer To: ACE-7

Mr. Daniel E. Ferris

Dear Mr. Ferris:

This is in response to your letter requesting our opinion as to whether certain operations may be conducted under Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Your first question is, if a company were to hire a pilot to fly men and equipment, could the pilot rent the plane for the company, or would the company have to rent the plane?

It is our opinion that if the pilot were to rent the plane, he would then be providing both the plane and pilot services to transport people and property, and, assuming he receives compensation for this, he would be required to hold a Part 135 certificate, since he would be engaging in air transportation for compensation. On the other hand, if the company were to procure a plane, and retain the pilot to transport the company personnel and equipment, this would not require a Part 135 certificate, since the pilot is not the provider of both plane and pilot services.

Your next question concerns whether or not the pilot may sign for the plane's rental receipt upon completion of the rental.

It is our opinion that in order to stay within the realm of Part 91, the company must procure the plane, and the company may not delegate certain acts attendant to the rental agreement to the pilot. Therefore, if the rental of the plane necessarily includes signing the receipt, the company must follow through on that, and not use the pilot as their procurement agent.

In that same vein, with regard to questions number 2 and 3, the company must make the plane's rental arrangements and times of usage, and the company must make the payment of the rental plane directly to the lessor of the plane, who may not be the pilot.

With regard to your question as to whether it is still a Part 91 operation if the owner of the company also holds shares in the FBO from whom the plane is rented, it is our opinion that this would still constitute a Part 91 operation.

With regard to your question as to whether it would be possible under Part 91 for the pilot to work for the company as a pilot transporting their men and equipment, and still work for the FBO as a flight instructor, it is our opinion that this would be permissible under Part 91 so long as it is the company that still procures the plane, and the pilot is not procuring the plane in addition to providing his pilot services.

With regard to your final question, that is, whether the pilot may work for more than one company as an employee providing pilot services only, and still be considered a Part 91 operation, it is our opinion that, so long as each respective company procures its plane, and the pilot does not procure the plane, this may be done under Part 91. This opinion is limited to a situation in which the company would not be charging the passengers. If the company were to procure the plane and pilot, and charge passengers any amount for the transportation, then the company would be providing air transportation for compensation, requiring Part 135 certification.

We hope that we have answered your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call or write this office.

Sincerely.

Timothy C. Titus
Assistant Chief Counsel

Original Signed By:
Mary Ellen Loftus
Attorney"



FAA Legal Opinion:
September 23, 1991
Mr. James Datsko

Dear Mr. Datsko:

Thank you for your letter of September 11, 1990, in which you ask for an interpretation of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations concerning leasing of your airplane and how you can avoid operations which would be subject to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). We apologize that other interpretations and rulemaking matters prevented us from answering your inquiry sooner.

In your letter you say that you own a light twin engine airplane. At various times friends have asked you to fly them to business appointments or vacation destinations. You do not wish to obtain a Part 135 certificate, and you propose several plans which would allow your airplane to be used by others with your personal involvement kept to a minimum.

The first plan you mention is an exclusive lease of your airplane to a local business, except for times when you would be using it personally. You would lease the airplane at a break-even rate, and the leasee would select the pilot of their choice. Occasionally, the business could hire you as a pilot, but there would be no obligation to do so.

Your letter seems to reflect a fear that this transaction may label you as a commercial operator, and that by charging only a break even amount to lease the airplane you may avoid this result.

FAR 1.1 defines a commercial operator as "a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property other than as an air carrier ..." There is no relationship between the amount you charge per hour to lease your airplane and whether or not you are a commercial operator. There is also no prohibition to your leasing your airplane as you describe. This would be called a dry lease, where only the airplane is leased. If a flight crew is provided with the leased airplane, it is called a wet lease, and questions of operational control come to the fore, generally requiring air carrier certification. If you arranged the lease and then arranged your subsequent hiring as pilot to fly a trip, this would be regarded as a sham to avoid the Part 135 certification requirements.

Your second question asks what the result would be if you sold a 1/2 interest in the airplane to the local business, instead of the lease described earlier. Both owners would contribute at an hourly rate into a co-ownership account to pay costs, and the business would hire the pilot of its choice, occasionally including the co-owner.

FAR 91.501, applicable to large and turbojet powered multiengine civil aircraft, is also available by exemption to members of the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA). FAR 91.501(c)(3) describes a joint ownership agreement similar to your second question. As long as neither owner carries persons or property for compensation or hire, we see no problem with the arrangement you describe above. We would caution against your providing pilot service to the non-pilot business co-owner, because the delineation of operational control can become very hazy. FAR 91.501(b)(5) can also be used to help the non-pilot business co-owner define what may and may not be carried on the airplane with reimbursement.

The third question discusses the option of rental of the airplane to the business, with the business choosing and hiring the commercial pilot to fly the airplane, and never hiring the pilot co-owner. As you say, this is even further removed from the Part 135 situation, and we see no conflict here, particularly if you are not hired to fly your own airplane.

Finally, you ask about the situation where the same business rents an airplane from a local FBO and you are hired to fly the rental aircraft as a commercial pilot. We see no conflict with Part 135 in this situation as long as you are strictly the pilot, and play no part in procurement, payment, or operational control of the airplane. The business would have to understand that it is responsible for operational control which includes, among other things, responsibility for compliance with the FAR and susceptibility to enforcement actions.

We are enclosing several other interpretations we have issued on this subject.

This interpretation has been prepared by Arthur E. Jacobson, Staff Attorney, Operations Law Branch, Regulations and Enforcement Division; Richard C. Beitel, Manager.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division