• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Private Pilot holding out

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
Did you miss this part in his web site?

If you live near Geneva, Switzerland and would like to experience what it’s like to fly in a small airplane, then this is your opportunity!

And he did talk about shareing the expense.......


Maybe I can talk my boss into sending me to investagate, summer in the alps.... where do I sign.......
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
From his web site:

"I’m now getting my FAA (US) license validated to fly in the JAA (Europe) system"

It would depend if he is using the privledges of his US certificate or what ever country certificate he is getting and whatever regulations that country has. He did not say he was using a US tail number aircraft.




 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
Assuming FAA rules apply,

==============================
the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot.
==============================

That's from a 1985 FAA Chief Counsel opinion letter talking about how the plans of the "Pilots and Passengers Association" in putting together pilots and passengers for "shared cost" flights ran afoul of both Part 135 and the prohibition on private pilots carry passengers for compensation, and was not covered by the "shared cost" exception.

The principle that shared expense requires shared purpose is stated directly in the regs, but it's a principle the FAA and NTSB have applied for a long time.

Here's the full text:

==============================
December 26, 1985

Thomas H. Chero
Vice President - Legal
AVEMCO Insurance Company
Frederick Municipal Airport
411 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701

Dear Mr. Chero:

Thank you for your letters to this office, dated September 9, 1985, and October 23, 1985, respectively, concerning the actions of the Pilots and Passengers Association (PPA).

You are correct in stating that Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) prohibits private pilots from participating in PPA's operations. Section 61.118 provides that a private pilot cannot act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers for compensation or hire unless the flight falls within one of the four listed exceptions in 61.118(a) - (d).

Section 61.118(b) allows a private pilot to share the operating expenses of a flight with his or her passengers. Additionally, the FAA has interpreted 61.118(b) so that the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot. Nor does Section 61.118 permit pilots who want to build up time toward their commercial pilot certificates to carry expense sharing passengers to a destination at which they have no particular business. (emphasis added)

PPA pilots apparently would not share in the expenses of the flights they would undertake. It also appears that PPA pilots could be flying to destinations at which they had no particular business. The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section 61.118.

Even if the pilot bears an equal share of the expenses with his or her passengers and indeed has his or her own need to fly to a particular destination, yet another problem arises. Since PPA's passengers would be solicited for flights by PPA from a broad segment of the general public, we conclude that each pilot carrying paying passengers from PPA would probably be engaged in common carriage. This means that each pilot would become an air carrier subject to the certification and operating rules of Part 135 of the FAR.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
==============================
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
Mark, be careful when using legal interpitations. You need to have the wording of the regulation from the time of the interpitation to decide what exactly was interpited. When the regulation wording changes the interpitation may no longer apply. I asked legal how much need to change before the interpitation was invalid. The answer: “When a significant change occurred to the regulation". In this case your interpitation was from 1985. Has the regulation wording changed since 1985 and was the change "significant"?

This is one of the reasons a bottle of aspirin and antacids are on my desk......

Besides in this case the pilot is in Europe. He needs to determine what the regulations are for that country. As I see it, he is their problem.

I'm still offering to go there for say a month and check this out. I may have to travel widely to assure any questions are answered.....
 
Last edited:

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
Mark, be careful when using legal interpitations. You need to have the wording of the regulation from the time of the interpitation to decide what exactly was interpited. When the regulation wording changes the interpitation may no longer apply. I asked legal how much need to change before the interpitation was invalid. The answer: “When a significant change occurred to the regulation". In this case your interpitation was from 1985. Has the regulation wording changed since 1985 and was the change "significant"?
I'm pretty comfortable that there has been no significant change to the regulation (other than the number) and that the FAA still uses the same standard (among the others it uses in this area). The FAA has not grown "softer" on gray charter through the years.

Besides in this case the pilot is in Europe.
Which is why I prefaced my remark with
Assuming FAA rules apply,
 

Tired Soul

Plowing at FL370
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Posts
257
Total Time
>10000
He is still using a FAA certificate and advertising for shared cost flight.
Seems very dodgy to me.
Regardless if he's flying a N-reg or not he is still excercising the priviliges (and limitations) of his FAA certificate.
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
He is still using a FAA certificate and advertising for shared cost flight.
Seems very dodgy to me.
Regardless if he's flying a N-reg or not he is still excercising the priviliges (and limitations) of his FAA certificate.
I think you're correct.

FWIW, my quasi-educated guess is:

If the issue is whether he's violating something in Part 61 (requirements, privileges, limitations) of his pilot certificate, the FAA rules will apply.

If the issue is whether he's violating something in Part 91, 119, 121, 135, etc (operating rules for various types of operations), the rules of the country he's in will apply.

Of course, that doesn't mean the foreign country will enforce the FAA rules or that the FAA will find out or bother about what he does overseas.
 
Last edited:

b82rez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Posts
255
Total Time
_
Mark, be careful when using legal interpitations. You need to have the wording of the regulation from the time of the interpitation to decide what exactly was interpited. When the regulation wording changes the interpitation may no longer apply. I asked legal how much need to change before the interpitation was invalid. The answer: “When a significant change occurred to the regulation". In this case your interpitation was from 1985. Has the regulation wording changed since 1985 and was the change "significant"?

This is one of the reasons a bottle of aspirin and antacids are on my desk......

....you should add a dictionary.
 

JAFI

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
964
Total Time
8000+
If it sounds like 135, acts like 135, or suggests 135, at best you will get a visit from your local FSDO, at worst you will get to experience a Transportation Department or NTSB Judge and day in court.....
 

Tired Soul

Plowing at FL370
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Posts
257
Total Time
>10000
I design a website that lists aircraft for rent & pilots willing to day rate.
The customer selects the aircraft (rents directly from the owner), selects the pilot(s) and pays them directly.
All pilots would be commercially rated.
Is this safely legal?

No it's not. That's a perfect example of "common carriage", which you're not supposed to do on a CPL.
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
This is my proposal:
I design a website that lists aircraft for rent & pilots willing to day rate.
The customer selects the aircraft (rents directly from the owner), selects the pilot(s) and pays them directly.
All pilots would be commercially rated.
Is this safely legal?
The vesting of what the FAA calls "operational control" of the aircraft is something high-priced aviation attorneys deal with in the Part 91 corporate setting. They charge big bucks to put together structures and agreements to put the right authority in the right place at the right time.

Oversimplifying, it means the authority to say how its used, where it goes and to be responsible for what happens to it.

The "who rents the airplane" and the "are you providing both plane and pilot" questions that talked about a lot online, are variations on the same theme.

Still oversimplifying, in your proposal, it means that the renter must have operational control. If the owner (as opposed to the renter) or the pilot or you have operational control, it's gray charter with a 135 violation.

Doable (assuming it's viable)? Maybe. Maybe not.

Is this a =real= proposed business model or just a hypothetical? If a real business model, go get that high-priced aviation lawyer for advice.
 
Last edited:
Top