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.