Sightseeing flights that aren't quite legal...

[gkrangers]

Sightseeing flights that are outside 25sm miles.

...how do flight schools get away with it?

Sightseeing flights outside the 25sm limit (as far away as 80 miles)...

Plus they are specifically advertised as sightseeing flights....not intro flights.

Can they get away with it by calling it dual or an intro flight?

 

[spudskier]

example? not really enough info to even speculate on

 

[gkrangers]

********************ty Part 61 flight school that does sight seeing flights to NYC and Atlantic City in a 4 seater.

They are advertised as sightseeing flights, and are further than 25 SM away from the departure airport, bringing them outside the "exception". They don't make any stops.

 

[spudskier]

Now, I'm not saying this is correct or advocating it, the following is how they (the flight school) might be interpreting FAR part 119...

(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S. - registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.

(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to -
(1) Student instruction;
(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport; however, for nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2 of this part and SFAR 38-2 of 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;

119.1(e)(2) Does NOT say "nonstop flights FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE conducted with aircraft..." whereas later in the sentence, it mentions nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon... they ARE doing this for compensation or hire so maybe they assume this means a higher level of responsibility and safety than the average joe who does this on his own? We all know this is B.S. and why it would apply to compensation/hire over the Grand Canyon and not NY area is beyond me.

Now, would I want to argue semantics with the local FSDO? no, but this could be their arguement.

 

[gkrangers]

Well its outside of the 25 miles and they get compensated, obviously.

 

[spudskier]

right, so what I'm saying their arguement MIGHT be is that the section DOES NOT apply to sightseeing flights for compensation/hire outside of the Grand Canyon

 

[gkrangers]

I think thats pretty bogus, lol.

 

[spudskier]

you're right! but that's just me speculating about what's going in their heads. I wouldn't recommend doing this to anyone

 

[gkrangers]

you're right! but that's just me speculating about what's going in their heads. I wouldn't recommend doing this to anyone

I just don't see how they get away with it without the FAA being like "wtf?"

 

[unreal]

Now, I'm not saying this is correct or advocating it, the following is how they (the flight school) might be interpreting FAR part 119...

119.1(e)(2) Does NOT say "nonstop flights FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE conducted with aircraft..." whereas later in the sentence, it mentions nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon... they ARE doing this for compensation or hire so maybe they assume this means a higher level of responsibility and safety than the average joe who does this on his own? We all know this is B.S. and why it would apply to compensation/hire over the Grand Canyon and not NY area is beyond me.

Now, would I want to argue semantics with the local FSDO? no, but this could be their arguement.

I still couldn't imagine them interpreting the rule like that.

(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft -
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S. - registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.

Considering common carriage is involved with this shady sightseeing operation, they still must remain within 25sm to be legal. Part 119.1(e)(2) may not specifically lay out "for comensation or hire" in the first sentence, but the sentence there in Part 119.1(a)(1) specifically says what Part 119 as a whole is applicable to. It's simply a given that a common carriage sightseeing operation must stay within 25sm.

I hope this makes sense...my roommate is blasting techno in the other room. It's not easy to concentrate on regs when that stupid repetetive beat is pounding in your head.

 

[spudskier]

it does... but don't forget, Flight schools could arguably NOT be a commercial operator. And the whole common carriage label gets called into consideration under the guise of a flight school.

I'm not trying to defend this flight school, just playing devil's advocate.

 

[gkrangers]

So there justification for this would be an "intro" flight?

 

[spudskier]

I think you're asking if this could be considered an intro flight? No, it's marketed as a sight-seeing flight from what you're saying... those exact words.

 

[unreal]

it does... but don't forget, Flight schools could arguably NOT be a commercial operator. And the whole common carriage label gets called into consideration under the guise of a flight school.

I'm not trying to defend this flight school, just playing devil's advocate.

Yeah, could be. I'd be willing to bet that the flight school in question charges the person for dual instruction and the CFI him/herself logs dual given for the sightseeing trip. That's as shady as shady comes.

 

[unreal]

You know, it just occured to me. What if the flight schools really simply ARE certificated as commercial operators for sightseeing trips beyond 25sm? Many flight schools also have Part 135 charter operations...

 

[spudskier]

expensive, but possible! I like the out of the box thinking! wishing i thought of that...

as for the charging for dual given, being an intro flight, and the CFIs logging it all as dual given, the FAA apparently cracked down hard on that several years ago.

 

[gkrangers]

You know, it just occured to me. What if the flight schools really simply ARE certificated as commercial operators for sightseeing trips beyond 25sm? Many flight schools also have Part 135 charter operations...

This flight school is as shady as shady comes....theres no way.

I know for a fact that its a "dual given" thing. Just surprised they've never gotten into trouble for it.

 

[FN FAL]

Why the heck is family guy and a big chicken fighting? Oooops, an airplane just chopped up the big chicken with a propellor and Quagmire has to get help or move out of the neighborhood. Dang, they just put a ceiling fan on Quagmire.

 

[gkrangers]

Why the heck is family guy and a big chicken fighting? Oooops, an airplane just cohpped up the big chicken with a propellor and Quagmire has to get help or move out of the neighborhood. Dang, they just put a ceiling fan on Quagmire.

I hate you. No, I don't, thats a lie.

I'm watching too.

 

[FN FAL]

I hate you. No, I don't, thats a lie.

I'm watching too.

What's up with that dorky commercial for adult swim and the guy singing and the other guy dancing with leotards on?