Is it 91 or 135?

[Anne]

I just turned down a very similar situation.

A pilot friend owns a Mooney, and doesn't have his instrument rating. He asked a flight instructor to fly with him 900 miles to the south to pick up a puppy, wanting the security of another pilot with an IR. The CFI wanted to charge him $300 per day x 2 days to do so. I 'm figuring the CFI was going to claim flight instruction for the flight. So this pilot asked me instead, offering room and board, all expenses paid, but not wanting to rack up such expense ($600) just to take along an IR pilot. I didn't go, but I still wonder if that flight would have been Part 91 or Part 135?

 

[avbug]

Anne,

The flight would certainly have been under part 91, as your friend doesn't appear to hold a 135 certificate.

Not enough information is provided. If your friend owns or rents the airplane and pays the full cost, and is retrieving his own puppy, then there is no problem. If your friend goes to get the puppy for someone else, but pays for everything himself, there is still no problem. If your friend pays for the hotel for you both, again, no problem.

There is no reason to turn the flight down for concern of violation of 14 CFR 135. Only for safety. If you are convinced the flight may be made safely, then why not go?

 

[Anne]

More info,

I didn't turn it down for aviation reasons, I turned it down because I wanted to be home with my family for Father's Day.

I figured the flight I would have taken was Part 91. It was the Flight with the CFI that had me wondering Part 91 vs. Part 135. It made me question the scruples of the CFI, calling it Flight Instruction when it wasn't. My pilot friend clearly stated he wanted an IR pilot on board; he was not looking for instruction on this flight, he is not able to pursue an IR at this time My pilot friend was not going to make the flight if he couldn't take along an IR pilot. He would have the dog shipped up here instead.

This same CFI has his address listed with the FAA as being in one state, his mailing address is in another state, and his driver's license and actual home are in a third state. He has pulled a few stunts that make me shake my head. Anything he thinks is OK makes me think twice.

 

[Cornelius]

If there is any hesitation about taking a trip while flight instructing, don't fly. Its not worth it.

 

[Flint]

The issue here is who is supplying the plane. The pilot or CFI can not supply the plane for it to be legal. If the plane is owned by the passenger or is rented by the passenger, the CFI or IR commercial pilot can take the flight. The IR pilot has to be Commercial rated in order to take any compensation, (money, flight time, etc...). In addition, the CFI or Commercial pilot can charge the 600 bucks.

The thing to remember is "who" is fernishing the plane? If its an owner of an aircraft, you can take the fight. The only area have questioned is how the rental is done by the renter, (not the pilot).

 

[avbug]

"This same CFI has his address listed with the FAA as being in one state, his mailing address is in another state, and his driver's license and actual home are in a third state. He has pulled a few stunts that make me shake my head. Anything he thinks is OK makes me think twice."

The FAA only requires that updates be made to the permanant mailing address. Many pilots use a relative such as a parent, due to the frequent moves that often accompany life in this industry. Where the pilot's mailing address exists is inconsequential, so long as the FAA has the permanant mailing address.

Most of my career my driver's license has been in another state than my residence. Presently I use a drivers license from one state, and identification cards (state ID's) from two other states, as well as a concealed weapon permit from yet another. Not a big deal; all legal, all legitimate.

I was once denied purchase of a firearm based on my identification because I had "too much" ID. THe counter girl told me that the law is written to prevent people like me with too much identification from purchasing or owning a firearm. A quick call to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation got that straightened out in a hurry, and I was sold the weapon.

My airman certificates, instructor certificates, flight engineer certificate, mechanic certificates, etc, don't have a current address on them. Neither does my drivers license. None of my pieces of identification do. All, however, testify as to who I am, with my personal data, photo ID, etc.

I wouldn't base a determination of integrity on having one too many addresses. If that were the case, I would be in a world of hurt. I'm a decent individual (so long as newspaper is kept on the floor, plastic on the furnature, and I'm fed first), but moving is an occupational hazard of the industry, and few of us are exceptions.

 

[DC9stick]

If your friend owns the Mooney and is picking up a puppy for himself and not for resale to another person or entity and has need for an IR pilot to acompany him it is a legal pt 91 flight.
If the acompanying pilot is a CFII or holds a Commercial cert. he may charge for said flight. If a CFII he may also log instruction time because the stated reason the owner is not going solo is due to his lack of instrument currency or confidence making this an instructional flight

 

[deadstick]

from the FSDO

I took a 135 ride last month and scenario was discussed. The FSDO guy saod the fed look at _the purpose of the flight._ Was the purpose recurrent training for the pilot? No, it was to fetch his buddy's box. 135.

BUT if said buddy was on Bob's payroll as an employee and this flight was "incidental" the friend's job and his _employer_ rented the plane...?