Is this part 91??

[RichardRambone]

These group of docs wanna buy a light twin and hire me to fly it for them to wherever there hearts desire. For some reason their lawyer said that this is a part 135 op but I have met with an aviation attorney who says as long as they are an NBAA member, meet inspections in accordance with the manufacturer and fill out some FSDO paperwork its a Part 91 op. I smell 91 all over it but what would make an attorney think 135? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hard to tell based on your description. With this kind of deal, there are usually business/legal considerations that have nothing to do with the FAR. But those business considerations may lead to different ways of structuring the deal. And, depending on the way the deal is structured, it could be straight Part 91, Part 91 fractional ownership, or 135.

I can see it all three ways. Their lawyer may be looking at the business part of the deal in a way that would make it Part 135.

Your lawyer should be able to explain it to you.

 

[BeeFCaKe]

"join NBAA and fill out FSDO paperwork?"

How about talking to FSDO and seeing what they think. (at the expense of making them aware of you...)

In reality, I think it depends mostly on their mission. If the flying that you would be doing takes the plce of them flying on airlines or them flying themselves or them flying on a part 135 operation, then I would say yes, it is part 91.

BUT: If they in any way hold out to the public that definitely falls under part 135. If say you take Bill's (an owner) cousin Jimmy to FL for a week, and Jimmy compensates bill for it, then you would in some way be holding out to the general public for a charter service... A big no-no from your FSDO buddies.

Most importantly, make sure to CYA... then look around and CYA some more.

 

[RichardRambone]

The flying essentially is flying them outta a smaller town to places like Chicago, Memphis and such so they can catch a commercial flight where they need to go. There is absolutely no holding out for any public, just flying the docs where they want me to go. We will defenitely check with the FSDO should it happen.

 

[Junior2]

I think you should check with the FSDO BEFORE you even think about making it happen....this could save lots of money. Like the rest said...It really depends on the fine details (eg. who owns the airplane, how costs are compensated for, etc.). I think that some people can be too conservative; remember a commercial opeeration involves is for compensation or hire, or holding out. If your aviation attourney and your local FSDO think that it is PART 91...I say go for it. Remember though...CYA!

 

[avbug]

Checking with the FSDO has entertainment value, but puts you on no more solid ground than seeking legal advice from a gumwrapper. The FSDO does not have the authority to interpret the regulation, and you cannot depend upon a reply by the FSDO (in writing or otherwise) to be defensible if you are caught doing something you should not.

Being a member of NBAA means nothing to the issue; it's fluff, and only confuses the topic.

That the flights take place at smaller airports is meaningless and irrelevant, as is the issue of weather those locations are served by airline traffic.

If the doctors own the aircraft and hire you to fly them, and only them, with no paying clients or cargo aboard to destinations other than the point of departure, then you should have no issues. If the doctors charge clients for transport of personnel or equipment, you have a problem.

A bigger issue right now is what the attorney for the doctors thinks. If the attorney is telling you something and you elect to ignore that counsel, then do so at your own peril.

 

[Lead Sled]

as long as they are an NBAA member...

Huh??? What does being a member of NBAA have to do with anything? Tell your doctor friends to hire an EXPERIENCED aviation attorney to draw up the partnership agreement and go for it. Their corporate or individual attornies will only screw things up royally.

'Sled

 

[Junior2]

Question....Where does enforcement on illegal charter stem??? FSDO if I may be correct. Having them on your side and getting to know Safety Inspectors may help grease the skids if anything should ever come up.

Not saying that this has to be a 'shady' operation or anything, but it never hurts to have the support of the FSDO.

 

[Lead Sled]

Having them on your side and getting to know Safety Inspectors may help grease the skids if anything should ever come up.

Having the FSDO guys in your side will do you absolutely no good what so ever. There's a mistaken impression held by some of you that if an individual inspector blesses your operation or idea then you're good to go. Sorry, nothing could be further from the truth. It's sorta like taking tax advise from the IRS. If you do so, you do it at your own risk. Some of you guys are too new at this to remember the NASIP fiasco a few years ago. A lot of people found this out the hard way.

'Sled

 

[midlifeflyer]

Question....Where does enforcement on illegal charter stem??? FSDO if I may be correct.

Well, yes and no. At first blush, AvBug's comment about the FSDO okay not being worth anything sounds like it ignores practical reality.

True, if the operation is okay with the local FSDO, you may be okay (especially if it involves paperwork that the local FSDO reviews).

But not necessarily. There is a big messy set of certificate actions (involving something other than Part 135) that have been going on for a year concerning an operation. Part of the background is that everything was cool with the local FSDO. Clean bills of health all the way through. So inspectors from another FSDO were brought in and found all sorts of violations.

 

[BD King]

I guess I would have to ask, is the airplane for hire? I think this is what AvBug was driving at. No compensation for the airplane, no 135.

www.bdkingpress.com

 

[UGAflyer]

These group of docs wanna buy a light twin and hire me to fly it for them to wherever there hearts desire. For some reason their lawyer said that this is a part 135 op but I have met with an aviation attorney who says as long as they are an NBAA member, meet inspections in accordance with the manufacturer and fill out some FSDO paperwork its a Part 91 op. I smell 91 all over it but what would make an attorney think 135? Anyone? Bueller?

Is the FSDO paperwork you speak of related to the people on the lease or related to the leasing of the airplane? I have heard something about this but don't know the details...maybe some others have heard of this and could chime in.

 

[RichardRambone]

All I know is these docs wanna buy a 310, all of whom don't have a pilots license, fly it outta Bloomington, IN which has no commercial service, to places with hub airports like Chicago and such so they can catch a commercial flight outta there. Ill fly it wherever the hell they want me to but there will be no for hire business outside of flying the docs where they want me to. All within about a 2.5 hour flight of base. I will be paid to do this. Thats it. End of story. I can't even pick up a hint of 135 but your advice is appreciated.

 

[gern_blanston]

91. As long as you're sure they know that they can't let one of their golfing buddies go on a trip for a case of wine or a hundred bucks or something. No contact with the FSDO should be required.

 

[avbug]

Once more, if the doctors own the airplane and employ you to fly it, you're acting as a corporate pilot. If the doctors don't carry other passengers or cargo to a point other than the point of departure for revenue or compensation, and exercise operational control of the aircraft, and you merely fly them at their request, you can take them where ever they want to go as a commercial pilot.

NBAA, airlines, FSDO...all irrelevant and only serve to cloud the issue and the question. You don't need the permission of the FSDO to act under your commercial pilot certificate. The doctors don't need the permission of the FSDO to own an airplane. The FSDO doesn't have the authority to grand or deny those privileges, except in issuance of your original certificate, or enforcement action against the same.

Again, perhaps a more important issue is weather you should undertake this task when the attorney for your future employer (the doctors) tells you it can't be done. When the attorney for doctors tells me something, regardless of weather it's right or wrong, I have to consider the weight of the money and the capability to act. A little like a pedestrian insisting on the right of way over a semi truck. Not necessarily a wise idea...until their own attorney is in your corner, proceeding against his counsel might be the most foolish thing you could possibly do aside from making love to a porcupine.

 

[Headwind]

NBAA? Read FAR 91-501. You must be a jet or have gross over 12,500 to qualify unless you are an NBAA member. Light twins, even King Air B-200 don't qualify. If the Doctor's want to operate this as a fractional operation in a light twin then they must be NBAA members.
NBAA has a waver for their members. If several Doctors own the aircraft and are billed for the use of the aircraft it sounds like this is the best way to go.
Sounds like the lawyer has done this before. I have. If I were you I would listen to the lawyer and talk with someone at NBAA and then go to FSDO with a plan.

HEADWIND

 

[The Natural]

Why does everyone want to bring the FSDO into this?

I got an idea, call 911 and tell them about the next time you think you smell marijuana in your living room.
Ask them nicely not to look under the couch because thats where you have your
unregistered gun which is next to the your gambling earnings that you failed
to claim, and to overlook the the dead hooker.

Fly for the owners, maybe friends & family that they will not charge AT ALL. Explain to them part 135 and the consequences. done.

 

[Lead Sled]

NBAA? Read FAR 91-501. You must be a jet or have gross over 12,500 to qualify unless you are an NBAA member. Light twins, even King Air B-200 don't qualify. If the Doctor's want to operate this as a fractional operation in a light twin then they must be NBAA members.
NBAA has a waver for their members. If several Doctors own the aircraft and are billed for the use of the aircraft it sounds like this is the best way to go.
Sounds like the lawyer has done this before. I have. If I were you I would listen to the lawyer and talk with someone at NBAA and then go to FSDO with a plan.

I seem to remember that the fractional regs didn't "kick in" unless you were operating some minimum number of aircraft. If that's true then what you said wouldn't necessarily apply. Additionally, on the surface, it appears as though they would only qualify as associate NBAA members.

'Sled

 

[Headwind]

Associate member? Why? If the doctors form an LLC to own and operate the aircraft they can join NBAA as a business member and operate under 91-501 with the NBAA waiver. Under 91-501 the LLC can bill each owner for his trips. No one can use the aircraft other than the owners. The LLC will give asset protection to the members from damage the others members may cause. The LLC does not "hold out" and is not in business for any reason other than to operate this aircraft for it's owners.
All the NBAA waiver does is allow a member with a light twin to take advantage of FAR 91-501, which the FAA designed for operators of jets.
You may not need to contact the FSDO. If a leese is used the leese must be approved by your FSDO, but the LLC should have an "operating agreement" for owners and no leese needed. The operating agreement spells out who manages the LLC, who are the owners, and who has operational control.

HEADWIND