Sightseeing flights that aren't quite legal...

[gkrangers]

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

Theres no rhyme or reason to anything with adult swim. They are quite good at it tho.

 

[LearLove]

********************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.

119.1 says "in the vincinity of the grand caynon". Maybe this flight school takes a piticular airport in NJ to be "in the vicinity of the grand caynon". I mean, come on, NJ is more "in the vicinity of the grand caynon" than say Fiji.

 

[Way2Broke]

What airport is it at, and how far away from NYC is it? NYC is a big place, and when they advertise are they saying what part of NYC?

I'm only playing devil's advocate here, because I hate to see low time CFIs get in trouble over ignorance or greed!

 

[gkrangers]

What airport is it at, and how far away from NYC is it? NYC is a big place, and when they advertise are they saying what part of NYC?

I'm only playing devil's advocate here, because I hate to see low time CFIs get in trouble over ignorance or greed!

Its outside of the 25 miles. They advertise up to the GWB..I don't think any of the central NJ airports are within range.

 

[Way2Broke]

So is someone here going to to report them or are you'll just going to talk here? I'm not much of a whistle blower unless it's a safety issue, and this certainly is not.

 

[gkrangers]

So is someone here going to to report them or are you'll just going to talk here? I'm not much of a whistle blower unless it's a safety issue, and this certainly is not.

I'm not, its been going on for years. Just surprised they've never gotten in trouble for it.

 

[A Squared]

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.

Spudskier,

I realize that you're not advocating this interpretation, merely saying "maybe this is what they're thinking...." so I'm responding in the same spirit. That being said. I don't see how that can possibly fly. As I read 119.1 and SFAR 50-2, it seems to me to be saying this (paraphrased heavily): You can operate non-stop flightseeing flights within 25 nm for compensation without complying with Part 135 (I think drug testing still applies) unless you are operating in the vicinity of hte Grand Canyon, they you *also* have to comply with the provisions of SFAR 50-2. A quick reading of SFAR 50-2 seems to me to prohibit non 135 flights, even if 25 nm or less.

I don't see any way that anyone could read 119.1 to mean that your flightseeing flights could go beyond 25 nm if you are not in hte vicinity of the Grand Canyon.

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.

Nope, won't fly. If you are providing carriage for hire (common or private) you *are* a commercial operator. It doesn't matter whether you have a certificate or not, the minute you provide the service, you're a commercial operator. Perhaps an illegal one, but an operator nonetheless.

 

[Way2Broke]

Maybe they give them a throw away camera and call it "aerial photography"? That would be my tricky way of trying to work the system. Heck I'm sure almost everyone brings a camera anyways.

That would be legal per 119.1 (e) (4) (iii)

 

[gkrangers]

Maybe they give them a throw away camera and call it "aerial photography"? That would be my tricky way of trying to work the system. Heck I'm sure almost everyone brings a camera anyways.

That would be legal per 119.1 (e) (4) (iii)

No, they don't. The CFIs that are do it treat it as dual.

Its under new ownership and who the hell knows if they even know whats legal and whats not...but I know if I worked there, I wouldn't let myself be put in that situation.

 

[Way2Broke]

I'm saying I would not log it as dual, and I would give them a camera. Makes the boss happy and its legal. PIC, ASEL Time only. I doubt the boss is forcing anyone to log time a certain way. I'd say that the PIC can decide and brief what type of flight it is before departure.