Is this part 91 or 135?

[Hung Start]

Well, that case is a bit different than the example of owning the plane and flying potential customers to a site to let them see what you may have to sell at that site.
The Lear guy was expressly in the business of charter. He had no need to go where he took those "customers" He had normally charged them in the past. He did not charge them for that "particular" flight only for the purpose of evading the 135 requirements.
It is kind of like the tax law. Tax avoidence is legal. Tax evasion is not.

He could have gotten out of it if he had done some homework. The "customers" should have had a written lease for the plane. Then, he could have provided pilot services under another contract. He still would have raised eyebrows at the Feds, but it is legal and he would have gotten paid.
As it was, he lost revenue, and his ability to be in business, plus all the expense of legal fees, etc.

It was legal then, not sure if the loophole has closed, i recall there was a movement afoot at the FAA to stop that stuff.
Hope this helps.

Hung

 

[AngelKing]

I was just using that case as an example that it is not always black or white, even from FISDO to FISDO which everyone knows. In this case(I posted) I think the feds stretched it a bit. But, the guy lost.


AK

 

[Hung Start]

I understand. The humorous thing is FSDO stands for Flight Standards District Office. The one thing that is missing is the "Standards". Like the car companies say, "your mileage may vary". Same holds true with the different offices.

 

[lonelyguy]

dhc8fo

Being pretty new to 135 (just now reading up on the regs) from the 121 world, can you guys answer a question?

If a company owns a plane and flies potential customers to its location each week (I should add that there are alot of repeat potential customers flying up each week, but they do vary), is this 135 or part 91???

I don't know why this seems so complicated to me.....

Thanks

This is part 91 not 135,because the flights are for company business.

 

[climbhappy]

angelking,

i would think the lear operator would have been violated for having a crewmember not authorized to fly in the seat , than speculative revenues.

the fed 's lawyers would have a hard time proving the amount of future revenues. i realize you may just be relating a relevent case here

 

[MauleSkinner]

As our local Feds are fond of saying, 135 has nothing to do with whether money changes hands or not...it's "holding out" that makes the difference.

There was a guy around our area a number of years back that got his pilot certificate revoked because he was flying people around for free, apparently so he could build some time. Yee-ha!

David

 

[AngelKing]

angelking,

i would think the lear operator would have been violated for having a crewmember not authorized to fly in the seat , than speculative revenues.

the fed 's lawyers would have a hard time proving the amount of future revenues. i realize you may just be relating a relevent case here

Yes, you would think, but from my memory he was gigged for the "speculative revenues"

AK