Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Part 91 ops

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Posts
1,178
Let's say you own a Lear, and can't fly it. You pay someone to fly you, your family and business associates on vacations, business trips, etc. Is the PIC operating under Part 91, and as such being compensated legally?

Now, let's say, your friends ask your pilot to take your Lear and fly them to a business meeting in another state for a fee. Does it then become Part 135? And if so, do you then need to become a commercial operator and obtain a 135 certificate?
 
The key term for determining Part 135 vs. 91 is "holding out". In other words, is this service available to the general public?

If you own the airplane and the pilot flies for you alone, no way. Part 91 all the way.

If he flies for your close friends and business associates, highly unlikely it could be construed as 135, unless an inspector had some axe to grind.

Now if Joe Blow off the street walks in, slaps down some money and says "Fly me to Podunk today," it is definitely 135.

LAXSaabdude.
 
Scenario 1 - Part 91

Scenario 2 - 135
 
MarineGrunt said:
Scenario 2 - 135
It would depend. If the friends purposes for using the plane coincided with the owner's needs, it would be 91. Corporate aircraft carry non-employed clients around all the time.

LAXSaabdude.
 
so, an operating certificate is not required for any Part 91 ops, unless they take in some extra flying from the side when the owners don't need the plane?
and in that case, the PIC would have to have the mins for flying under 135?

or would it just be private carriage (carriage for hire), because no holding out is involved and people flown are friends and business associates?


basically, what I am asking is, can you charge for Part 91 flying if there's no holding out?
 
Last edited:
Change your avatar dude..... It's freakin me out.
 
If it is private flying, all you need is a commercial pilot's certificate, and in the case of the Lear, a multi-engine rating and, for the PIC, a type rating. You will also need a FO with commercial and multi-engine rating. No Pt. 135 pilot quals are necessary, and no additional certification is required.

Insurance, on the other hand, will probably demand much more.

LAXSaabdude.
 
gotcha, so under 91 and private carriage(when no holding out is involved), an operating certificate is not needed

cool

as far as the avatar, it's here to remind you about dangers of indulging too much (that's if the 12 step's failed)
 
Vladimir Lenin said:
basically, what I am asking is, can you charge for Part 91 flying if there's no holding out?
Now you are getting into a gray area. I think this goes back to the whole private pilot idea of "sharing expenses".

On the other hand, if you were a corporate operator, and you owned a business, and you wanted to fly an important client in from Chicago to sell him on a million units of your new "widget", you would fly him in for free, and it would be considered a business expense. Your revenue woud come from the sale of "widgets", not from the operation of the aircraft.

LAXSaabdude.
 
Unless in scenario 2, you held yourself out as being available for hire, then that could be a part 91 operation as well and would be considered private carriage. If you did not hold out or exhibit a willingness to carry for the general public, then you can carry passengers or propety for compensation under 91. And you can even do it on a regular basis for more than one entity (within reason--which the regs don't specify) without being under a 135 certificate as long as you aren't holding out or exhibiting willingness to do it for the general public. However, with the gray area being so large and open to interpretation, it would probably be wise to go with a 135 certificate in case someone at the FAA was having a bad day.

-j
 
In scenario 2 to be Part 91 it would mean no holding out and only shared prorata expense with the owner who has a shared purpose for the trip (no compensation for trip other than half the expenses) or set up a lease agreement (filed with the FAA) (91.501). Best bet is to talk to an aviation tax atty.
 
Oh boy. Lots of misinformation here.

Don't get too wrapped up in the idea that holding out is the only criteria to determine if a flight should be conducted under Part 135.

In the first scenario, the owner of an aircraft has hired a pilot to fly that aircraft. Nothing wrong with that. But is it a Part 91 operation? Well that really depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? (it does). In scenario #1, the question is asked if the pilot may be compensated for his or her services. The answer is simple; yes, so long as he or she holds a commercial pilot certificate.

I the first scenario, if the owner elects to carry passengers (fiends, family, business associates, pets, little green men from mars, or the M&M guys), that's just fine. When it doesn't become fine is when the owner seeks reimbursement or money for taking those passengers. If the owner is going to the Bahamas and invites Cousin Mabel, CEO Bergman, and Alice Krauseman's cat, that's okay. If the cat pays, it's not okay.

Moving to scenario #2, the question is asked:
Now, let's say, your friends ask your pilot to take your Lear and fly them to a business meeting in another state for a fee. Does it then become Part 135?
.

The answer is Yes. It is covered under Part 135. Does the flight land at a point other than the point of origin, and is it carrying persons or property for compensation or hire? Why, yes, it is. Is that flight then required to be operated under Part 135? Why yes, it is.

Has the flight been held out? Probably. If the friends who wanted to fly knew enough to ask about transit to the destination, then the flight was held out. Holding out doesn't need to be advertising. It can be word of mouth, reputation, or any other method by which a passenger learns of the availability of transportation. However, demonstrating weather or not the crew or owner held out isn't necessary to show that the flight must have been conducted under Part 135. The mere fact that a fee is paid and that passengers or property have been conveyed to another location other than the point of departure, is sufficient. Additionally, there is no common purpose between the use of the aircraft by the pilots, and the paying passengers going to the meeting.

In scenario 2 to be Part 91 it would mean no holding out and only shared prorata expense with the owner who has a shared purpose for the trip (no compensation for trip other than half the expenses)

Again, no. Don't confuse the issue of cost sharing by a private pilot,with this scenario. Going dutch (pro rata) doesn't excuse the operation. The pilot is not the owner; it is a paid pilot. This is not a scenario where a private pilot is trying to share costs with a passenger. Weather the passengers share in the cost with the owner or not isn't relevant. The owner isn't the pilot. If the passengers pay a fee at all, then it's going to be a Part 135 operation (or violation thereof).

Now you are getting into a gray area. I think this goes back to the whole private pilot idea of "sharing expenses".

No, really it doesn't.

If you did not hold out or exhibit a willingness to carry for the general public, then you can carry passengers or propety for compensation under 91.

Oh really?

On the other hand, if you were a corporate operator, and you owned a business, and you wanted to fly an important client in from Chicago to sell him on a million units of your new "widget", you would fly him in for free, and it would be considered a business expense. Your revenue woud come from the sale of "widgets", not from the operation of the aircraft.
.

The sale of widgets is incidental to the flight. However, if the sale was contingent on getting the "free flight", it's no longer incidental, is an economic benifit derived as compensation for the flight, and is illegal. Additionally, if the owner does receive reimbursement from that important client for the flight from Chicago, it's a Part 135 flight.

gotcha, so under 91 and private carriage(when no holding out is involved), an operating certificate is not needed

Not true. The circumstances dictate. Simply suggesting that because holding out did not occur (and ya gotta be careful on that one) that it's not a Par 135 operation, is a risky game. Not so. If the fee gets charged for the transit of the pax or cargo, it's no longer simply a 91 operation.
 
I agree with you on all points, but

what is the difference between common carriage and private carriage?

according to your assesment, there's no such thing as private carriage for hire

what's private carriage for hire w/out holding out then? a part 135 Operation? and a common carrier is a 121 outfit?

thanks
 
A whole slew of terms here are being used which are not necessarily related, or interdependent.

The terms common carriage and private carriage are not FAA terms, but are common law terms. The Federal Aviation Act uses the term common carriage, but it doesn't define it.

Operations involving common carriage must be conducted under Part 121 or 135. Operations involving other than common carriage may be conducted under Part 125 (20 seats or more). What determines weather or not a flight is Part 121 or Part 135 is defined by Part 119.

Private Carriage doesn't mean it's a Part 91 flight. Nor does it directly address the issue of compensation.

Carriage for hire which doesn't involve "holding out" is private carriage. Private carriage involves specific agreements with specific clients, and only a select few clients. Four elements pertain to common carriage. These include the holding out of a willingness to transport, transporting persons or property, doing so for for compensation or hire, and doing so from place to place.

Essential to common carriage is the act of holding out to the public for transportation services. This holding out does not need to be a form of advertising, but only a reputation, that one is available to make a flight. No particular evidence need be presented to show that one is holding out; the fact that one has garnered a flight from a person or persons with whom one has no particular business, and with whom one holds no contract for services, is evidence of holding out, and may be used against the operator making the flight.

A private carriage operator engaging in passenger or cargo carrying operations (or both) when common carriage is not involved, is regulated by 14 CFR 119.23(b), in this case. Subparagraph (b) applies to aircraft having less than 20 seats (whereas 20 seats or more falls under Part 125). It is applicable in this case, in the question of the Learjet. This subparagraph specifically requires compliance with certification and operations specifications in Part 119, and compliance with Part 135.

In the case of the friends who which to be transported for a fee, an operator may engage in private carriage with those individuals, under a specific contract. However, even non-common carriage falls under the purview of Part 135 in this case, as specified here. Hold out, and it's common carriage with obligation to Part 135. Contract privately with 3 various different parties and operate outside the bounds of common carriage, and it can be private carriage, conducted under Part 135.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top