Private carriage or Common carriage?

[kclark]

These issues have very little to do with ‘holding out’, ‘private carriage’, ect. Below are some scenarios.



Basically a commercial pilot can fly for compensation for hire for an air carrier (part 121 or 135) or be a corporate pilot operating under part 91.



What else can they do? Not very much - See 119.1 (3) (1)-(10) for a list.



Scenario 1

n Joe Pilot owns a Cessna 172. Joe is a commercial pilot. Joe’s friend approaches him and asks if Joe will fly him to MSP in the 172. Joe’s friend will cover all of the expenses and pay Joe $200.00 for his trouble. Can Joe legally make the flight?

n NO!!

n Why?

n Joe is a commercial pilot and can fly for compensation or hire. However, he does not hold an air carrier (135) certificate and cannot operate in air transportation without one.

n What if Joe’s friend will only pay the direct operating expenses of the flight, is it legal then?

n NO!!

n Joe must pay his pro rata share.

n What if Joe pays a pro rata share, is it legal then?

n Only if Joe is going to MSP for a common purpose.

n If Joe has no common reason for making the trip, he is engaging in an illegal charter as he is getting flight time (compensation) at a reduced cost and is only transporting his friend for the friend’s reasons.





Scenario 2

n Joe’s friend Randy calls Joe late one evening with a request. Randy’s father is very ill and needs dialysis. Randy asks if Joe will fly him to MSP that evening so that he can get medical care. Randy offers to pay for the fuel.

n Joe had planned to fly the plane to MSP in a week to have some radio work done. He decides to transport Randy’s father to MSP and then have the radio work done the next day.

n Legal??

n NO!!, no common purpose, no pro rata share



Scenario 3

n Joe and two friends plan to fly to MSP for the game. Joe’s friends offer to pay for all of the gas since Joe is flying.

n Legal?

n NO!! Joe must pay his pro rata share (1/3).



Scenario 4



n A 370 hour CFI was directed by his boss (an owner of a flight school) to transport the local chief of police to a nearby town where his wife was in the hospital after a car accident.

n The CFI was told that the chief was interested in flight lessons and to give him a demo flight to the nearby town and then return.

n Legal?

n NO!! The CFI did not understand the applicability of pt. 135 and was sure the flight was conducted under pt. 91.

n The FAA felt otherwise and suspended his certificates for 90 days (later reduced on appeal to 30 days).

n The flight school held a 135 cert. and was fined by FAA in a civil penalty action.





These Scenarios were made by an FAA Attorney and a AOPA attorney.

 

[transpac]

I stand corrected.

You're usually spot-on in your posts, so I was taken aback at the one above.

Thanks for your correction.

 

[Tired Soul]

Ok first of all thanks for all the replies.

Now "flightinstruction" did not mean pulling engines with passengers.
It means he is not rated in the airplane. I'm not that stupid.
Now to avoid any papertrail I put the invoice in my name....
I am convinced however that this flight was not the brightest idea but then again. Nothing I can do about it now.
If I set up a contract with these people (exclusive) am I in the clear?
They may or may not return but does anybody have a sample contract I could use?

 

[pilot_guy]

How about this scenario?

Here's my question:

A private pilot wants to build flight time. He has access to a 150 for 60 an hour. I want to shoot aerial photography (for my clients) and need someone to fly me around (though I hold CSEL)

We agree to split the cost of the 150 for 30 bucks an hour each. He does all the flying, and doesn't get paid. He's paying his pro-rata share. We're both getting what we want, and it's only to allow me to shoot pictures without having to fly the plane and shoot at the same time, and saves me 30 an hour on an airplane.

Question is: Legal or not?

 

[transpac]

Here's my question:

A private pilot wants to build flight time. He has access to a 150 for 60 an hour. I want to shoot aerial photography (for my clients) and need someone to fly me around (though I hold CSEL)

We agree to split the cost of the 150 for 30 bucks an hour each. He does all the flying, and doesn't get paid. He's paying his pro-rata share. We're both getting what we want, and it's only to allow me to shoot pictures without having to fly the plane and shoot at the same time, and saves me 30 an hour on an airplane.

Question is: Legal or not?

Sounds legal to me. It would probably be legal without him paying a pro-rata share.

 

[Weasil]

The private pilot is not allowed to share the cost of the flying with you because he is not on board the aircraft for the same reason as you. Your purpose is to take photos... his purpose is to build flight time. This is the same reason a private pilot is not allowed to drop skydivers, even if he isn't getting paid for it.

 

[pilot_guy]

ahhhh, oh well, ain't hurting anyone...

well, I think this is gonna be one of those, "what they don't know won't hurt them" type of deals.

Difference between a guy flying jumpers for free and this, is that he's getting "Paid" in flight time dropping meat bombs. He's not getting anything free here, just renting the airplane for his pro rata share. Actually, I can shoot an approach, or track a VOR under the hood for a little bit every flight and then we solved the problem...splitting time as a "safety" pilot.

Anyway, wasn't trying to be arguementative, just wanted some different views. Legal or not, I'm gonna do it anyway, cause it solves both of our problems. Kid wants to keep flying and build time towards his commercial, but doesn't really have the money, and I want to shoot pictures without getting a**raped every flight in rental fees. I was curious to know what others thought of it.

 

[transpac]

The private pilot is not allowed to share the cost of the flying with you because he is not on board the aircraft for the same reason as you. Your purpose is to take photos... his purpose is to build flight time. This is the same reason a private pilot is not allowed to drop skydivers, even if he isn't getting paid for it.

Which FAR requires the pilot and the passenger to be on board for the same purpose?

A private pilot certainly can fly a jump plane, just not one that's in a commercial operation. For example, if an owner wishes to jump from his own airplane there's no FAR that prevents a Private Pilot from flying it. Obviously in this case the owner and the pilot have different reasons for being in the airplane.

 

[A Squared]

Which FAR requires the pilot and the passenger to be on board for the same purpose?.

It's not explicitly specified in a regulation. The common purpose requirement comes from a chief counsel interpretation which was issued to clarify the intent and limits on the "sharing costs" clause in the regulations.

A private pilot certainly can fly a jump plane, just not one that's in a commercial operation.

well, strictly speaking, no he may not. Again this comes from a chief counsel interpretation. This is the interpretation which established the concept of "flight time as compensation" The interpretation was issued regarding a private pilot flying a tow plane (for free) for a (non-commercial) gliding club, but the same concept would be applicable to flying jumpers. The interpretation concluded that the only way it would be legal is if the pilot did not log the time in his logbook. It should be noted that since the interpretation was issued, the regulations have been ammended to specifically allow a PPL glider tow pilot to log the time. However the regulations contains no such allowance for flying jumpers or other similar flying which is analogous, so the interpretation would still be applicable to this type of flying.

I'm away from my home computer at the moment, so I don't have access to thoe interpretations. I'll post them when I get a chance. Hopefully this will prove to be more accurate advice than my last contribution to this thread <g>

 

[midlifeflyer]

Which FAR requires the pilot and the passenger to be on board for the same purpose?

The "common purpose" doctrine isn't written directly in the FAR. But it has been in existence and used in FAA legal interpretations and enforcement proceedings for a long time.

Head over to the fifth post in this thread for more info:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showpost.php?p=374547&postcount=5