How to whore myself out?

[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

 

[Way2Broke]

Here is a list of some proven practical ways to build your flight time.


Get Your MEI And Fly Right Seat
You can fly right seat and log it as instruction given.
Become An Instructor
One of the easiest ways and the quickest to build time is to become an instructor. That time is all loggable, and you will learn something at the same time.
Fly As A Safety Pilot
Many IFR students need to build time under the hood. Offer to be a safety pilot in turn for a little flight time. If you are an instructor, offer to fly that seat for free.
Find A Friend Who Owns An Airplane.
Don't abuse this friendship
Offer To Help With Annuals
A lot of the cost in an annual is the time it takes to open up the airplane. Offer to help with opening and closing the airplane in turn for some flight time. This builds friendships.
Go Through The Hangers To Find Out Who Is Not Flying
Many times you can go through hangers and find airplanes that don't fly, only to find out that the owner doesn't want to fly alone and has trouble finding others to go along. Offer to ride along. This may lead to some PIC time.
Tow Banners
Banner towing can be a lot of fun, and is a great way to build time.
Fly For A Radio Station
Many local radio and TV stations are in need of a pilot for traffic reports.
Networking
Throughout your life you will find out that people get jobs because of who they know. Build a good network of people who can help you in your career. Make friends and have a good time.
Flight Cost
Split flight cost with another instructor to build flight time.
Establish A Breakfast Trip
Once a week at your local airport, gather as many pilots with airplanes as you can and offer to ride along .
Work For Someone Who Owns An Airplane.
Buy Your Own Airplane
This can be cost effective if you are able to do the maintenance yourself.
Partnership
Buy an airplane with another person. If you are an instructor, fly with them, and you can log the time.
Buy All Your Time
Very costly!!
Practice Approaches
There are many IFR students who need safety pilots who will let you fly an approach or two for helping them out.
Find VFR Pilots
Find VFR pilots that own their own planes and offer to fly trips with them to show them what IFR flying is about.
Currency
IFR pilots need to keep current. Offer to fly with them to help keep them current.
Wash Airplanes
Trade washing an airplane for flight time.
Corporations
Many corporations fly single pilot operations. Ask if you can ride along. Who knows, later down the road they may offer you the job. An instructor I know received three part-time twin jobs time this way.


This is from the main page of flight info. I'd say that in some ways it advocates flying for free. While I do not agree with the practice I think alot of people forget how difficult it can be to build that first 100 hours or so of multi-engine flight time at Job Bob's airport. <I'm now putting on my flame suit>

 

[lawfly]

Flying an owner in owner's airplane is a Part 91 operation. Think corporate flight department. (Unless we are talking bona fide fractional; still Part 91, but subpart K). Flying a third party for compensation or hire (with the 3rd party providing said compensation or hire) is, at least prima facie, a 135 operation, and doing so under the guise of instruction could still subject one to a violation. The posts here have been concerned with carrier/entity issues. If an operation is a 135 operation--not only is a 135 operator certificate required, but the PIC (and, if required, SIC) must also have the required 135 training and endorsements properly recorded within the previous 6 months, 12 months, etc. This is often overlooked in these forum discussions. Most freelance commercial pilots in light pistons are not likely to have 6 month or 12 month 135 endorsements from a qualfied check airman, let alone a Part 135 operator certificate.
It has been a while since I worked a case in this area, but I do not recall "holding out" to be so pivotal. The inquiry was more on whether the flight was for compensation or hire, involving a non-owner third party, and whether it fell within one of the exceptions enumerated in Part 135. The case involved a single flight with a CFI flying someone someplace, for compensation, under the alleged cover of an instructional flight.
The original poster said he was going to approach local pilots. As a practical matter, I doubt it would work. The owners apparently don't know the poster, and the poster likely would not qualify under the insurance policies, anyway, at least not for complex/multiengine aircraft. And there is no evidence that the idea has any appeal to the owners, anyway. Who is paying for fuel, etc.? Most airplane owners I have known are looking, if at all, for people to contribute to the cost of the airplane, not (inexperienced, to boot) freeloaders. As for instructing, rather than the instructors here taking offense, it appears that the poster would be a detriment as an instructor, anyway. So, feel better that no student will have to endure him. As for myself, teaching instrument students was a productive endeavor many years ago.

 

[Tug Driver]

Look, this isn't some flame bait. I don't have any money left to fly after paying big dollars to CAPT's flight training and not landing a job. I don't have money to get my CFI. My loan payments are already near $1000 per month which I still have to figure out how to make on a monthly basis.

What's wrong with wanting to provide a free service in something I enjoy doing?

P.S. I'm no longer interested in pursuing aviation as a career.

go get a job at walmart and act like an adult. btw, this is flamebait based on your title. grow up and stop killing the industry

 

[A Squared]

It has been a while since I worked a case in this area, but I do not recall "holding out" to be so pivotal.

It's not. Somehow all sorts of meaning has been assigned to "holding out". Like you said, it's really of very little consequence, at least with smaller airplanes. If you're conducting carriage for hire, you need a 135 certificate. period. All "holding out" does is determine if it's common carriage of private carriage for hire, which doesn't change anything, You still need a 135 certificate for either common carriage, or private carriage for hire.

With larger aircraft, the "holding out" issue becomes more relevant as it may determine whether an operation may be conducted under a Part 125 certificate or needs a 121 certificate. There's a substantial differnce between operatiions under those parts, so the holding out issue becomes important.

 

[gkrangers]

bump..

great thread.

preparing for my commercial ride and searched "common carriage" to hopefully find a good thread about all of this stuff.

 

[Metro752]

Does anyone have any information or clarification on FARs regarding someone who is interested in whoring himself out as a pilot? Basically, I'm looking to fly on the weekends (out and backs) but I don't have any money to do so. My credentials:

Private ASEL, AMEL
Commercial ASEL, AMEL
Instrument
459TT/101ME

I was thinking of putting myself out there around the local airports to let people know that I'm willing to provide free pilot services. Would the FAA look at this type of flying as "compensation" even though I'm not looking to make a penny? If someone asks me to fly their airplane from point A to point B, would I fall under the "pro-rata share" regulation even though I'd be exercising my Commercial privileges but hire for free? It never occured to me to ask back in the training days if you can exercise your Commercial privileges but being compensated for free. I know this sounds ridiculous but I'm just looking for creative ways to go out flying for someone for free. Thanks for any responses.

prostitution is illegal in most places

 

[ruhroa]

sorry but i gotta say it ....with your attitude ..........please don't go away mad ,,,,,,,,,,,just go away ..... leave the flying to the ones who are willing to "pay" their way thru the ranks by working and scratching their way up the ladder.......................

 

[Flying Ninja]

Thanks, I gave up on aviation so you can sleep tight now.

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

Does anyone have any information or clarification on FARs regarding someone who is interested in whoring himself out as a pilot? Basically, I'm looking to fly on the weekends (out and backs) but I don't have any money to do so. My credentials:

Private ASEL, AMEL
Commercial ASEL, AMEL
Instrument
459TT/101ME

I was thinking of putting myself out there around the local airports to let people know that I'm willing to provide free pilot services. Would the FAA look at this type of flying as "compensation" even though I'm not looking to make a penny? If someone asks me to fly their airplane from point A to point B, would I fall under the "pro-rata share" regulation even though I'd be exercising my Commercial privileges but hire for free? It never occured to me to ask back in the training days if you can exercise your Commercial privileges but being compensated for free. I know this sounds ridiculous but I'm just looking for creative ways to go out flying for someone for free. Thanks for any responses.

Umm from what I gathered with the FAR's, you can't advertise your services as a commercial pilot...However if somebody happens to 'know' you're a commerical pilot, and has some work, then that's perfectly legal

Remember, holding out is a bad thing

Now by telling people you're a commerical pilot by 'bragging' to them is a big overzealous, and you might look like a jackass...and some people might want to do this ----> :uzi: to you, however it is legal

 

[A Squared]

Umm from what I gathered with the FAR's, you can't advertise your services as a commercial pilot...

OK, Specifically which FAR did you gather this from?

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

OK, Specifically which FAR did you gather this from?

Specifically the section on holding out. It depends on what you consider as advertising

FAR's are written in stone, but that one is merely a matter of speculation. Part 61.133 Section E subpart iii "Holding Out"

"...Is advertising whether through signs or ads or through agents and sales to the general public"


Again, it's a matter of speculation as to what your definition of advertising is.

 

[A Squared]

Specifically the section on holding out. It depends on what you consider as advertising

FAR's are written in stone, but that one is merely a matter of speculation. Part 61.133 Section E subpart iii "Holding Out"

"...Is advertising whether through signs or ads or through agents and sales to the general public"


Again, it's a matter of speculation as to what your definition of advertising is.

OK. I'm not sure if that was supposed to be a joke, or exactly what your purpose is, but I don't see those words in 61.133. Even if they were there, take a look at the title of that regulation. It is Private pilot privileges and limitations.

That obviously isn't relevant to commercial pilot privileges.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
top
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft used in a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section, and for which the passengers make a donation to the organization, when the following requirements are met:

(1) The sponsor of the airlift notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office with jurisdiction over the area concerned at least 7 days before the event and furnishes—

(i) A signed letter from the sponsor that shows the name of the sponsor, the purpose of the charitable event, the date and time of the event, and the location of the event; and

(ii) A photocopy of each pilot in command's pilot certificate, medical certificate, and logbook entries that show the pilot is current in accordance with §§61.56 and 61.57 of this part and has logged at least 200 hours of flight time.

(2) The flight is conducted from a public airport that is adequate for the aircraft to be used, or from another airport that has been approved by the FAA for the operation.

(3) No aerobatic or formation flights are conducted.

(4) Each aircraft used for the charitable event holds a standard airworthiness certificate.

(5) Each aircraft used for the charitable event is airworthy and complies with the applicable requirements of subpart E of part 91 of this chapter.

(6) Each flight for the charitable event is made during day VFR conditions.

(7) The charitable organization is an organization identified as such by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

(e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of:

(1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or

(2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.

(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61–110, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004]

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

OK. I'm not sure if that was supposed to be a joke, or exactly what your purpose is, but I don't see those words in 61.133. Even if they were there, take a look at the title of that regulation. It is Private pilot privileges and limitations.

That obviously isn't relevant to commercial pilot privileges.

No I'm not joking. I'm looking in my 2005 FAR/AIM under 61.133 (pg. 100 in the ASA version). And it clearly says Commercial pilot privilages and limitations .

 

[flx757]

Ummmm...Robbio quoted 61.133 and A Squared quoted 61.113. I think this is where the discrepancy lies??

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

Ummmm...Robbio quoted 61.133 and A Squared quoted 61.113. I think this is where the discrepancy lies??

I wasn't going to say anything b/c he has more time and experience than me. I'm just a pilot n00b

 

[nosehair]

Yeah, it's not in 61.133 either. Nothing about advertising.
2006 copy: 61.133(a)(1)&(2) Nothing. The rest of that reg deals with lighter-than-air category ratings.

FWIW, the "advertising" that is illegal is about "public transportation" in "public transportation" airplanes, which requires a 135/121 operations certificate. There's nothing wrong with advertising other "pilot services" such as ferrying, etc.

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

Yeah, it's not in 61.133 either. Nothing about advertising.
2006 copy: 61.133(a)(1)&(2) Nothing. The rest of that reg deals with lighter-than-air category ratings.

FWIW, the "advertising" that is illegal is about "public transportation" in "public transportation" airplanes, which requires a 135/121 operations certificate. There's nothing wrong with advertising other "pilot services" such as ferrying, etc.

The FAR makes no mention of holding out, or common carriage, but it's one of those line items that you need to know exactly what is it for your commercial oral.

Odd indeed.

 

[Sailpilot]

For flights within a 25 mile radius for point of takeoff, you as a COMM pilot can advertise. No landings at any other airport other than the point of departure. 1998 was the time of "FLY-Naked Ariel Tours" in San Diego California. Great memories... from what I hear, not that I know anyhting about that. Piper Seneca with lay-down club seating, curtain behind pilot over the Sky-line.

Oh ya, they pay for the 2 hours even if it only lasted 3 minutes.

 

[A Squared]

I wasn't going to say anything b/c he has more time and experience than me. I'm just a pilot n00b

No reason not to speak up. Obviously I went a little dyslexic this morning, so point it out, and the discussion can go on.

Anyway, now that we're looking at the same regulation; as Nosehair pointed out, there is nothing at all like you say. I have to ask, ; you presented something like it was a quote, where did you get it? Did you just fabricate it and hope that nobody would check?

The FAR makes no mention of holding out, or common carriage, but it's one of those line items that you need to know exactly what is it for your commercial oral.

A "line item" that you need to know? What is a "line item"? Is that a code word for an invisible regulation, one you can't see, but you need to follow anyway?

The fact is that you *may* hold out to provide commercial pilot services. It is holding out for Air Transportation which is prohibited.

If someone told you couldn't advertise commercial pilot services, they told you wrong. read this thread, this has been thoroughly discussed. Notice that the last guy who claimed that "holding out" for pilot services was illegal could not point to one single source of any kind that supported his misconception. Until you can point ot something, anything official that prohibits advertising pilot services, you really have no argument.

Notice that 2 of the 3 official, FAA legal interpretations I posted make a clear and unambiguous distinction between “pilot services” and air transportation.

 

[DJRobbioRobbio]

No reason not to speak up. Obviously I went a little dyslexic this morning, so point it out, and the discussion can go on.

Anyway, now that we're looking at the same regulation; as Nosehair pointed out, there is nothing at all like you say. I have to ask, ; you presented something like it was a quote, where did you get it? Did you just fabricate it and hope that nobody would check?



A "line item" that you need to know? What is a "line item"? Is that a code word for an invisible regulation, one you can't see, but you need to follow anyway?

The fact is that you *may* hold out to provide commercial pilot services. It is holding out for Air Transportation which is prohibited.

If someone told you couldn't advertise commercial pilot services, they told you wrong. read this thread, this has been thoroughly discussed. Notice that the last guy who claimed that "holding out" for pilot services was illegal could not point to one single source of any kind that supported his misconception. Until you can point ot something, anything official that prohibits advertising pilot services, you really have no argument.

Notice that 2 of the 3 official, FAA legal interpretations I posted make a clear and unambiguous distinction between “pilot services” and air transportation.

I actually have a commercial study packet with all the information of what exactly holding out is, and common carriage, and private carriage If I had a scanner I'd be happy to show you it.