Transporting customers under Part 91

[RichardFitzwell]

Thanks for all the responses...

Avbug,

It sounds like from what you posted, the only way we can legally fly customers back to their home base in our Cessna (BTW, its a C210) is if we only get reimbursed for the operating cost (fuel, insurance, landing fees, etc.) of the aircraft. In addition, this reimbursement must be shown as being divided equally among the total number of passengers and the pilot.

For example, if the C210 has a direct operating cost of $48/hour and one pilot flys three passengers to their destination in a one hour flight. The company can only be reimbursed $36 from the customers (The other $12 would have to be paid for by the pilot). The cost of the empty return flight could not be recouped by the company in anyway, except for being paid for 100% by the pilot. Does that sound right?

On the otherhand, flying to pick up parts from other maintenance facilities and billing the travel charges to the customer would be O.K. because it falls, "within the scope of, and incidental to, the business of the company."

I wonder if this could be any more complicated?

 

[avbug]

It sounds like from what you posted, the only way we can legally fly customers back to their home base in our Cessna (BTW, its a C210) is if we only get reimbursed for the operating cost (fuel, insurance, landing fees, etc.) of the aircraft

You can't get reimbursed for a single dime. Read the legal interpretations again, because these will be the foundation for enforcement action against the pilot and company, in the event one is caught.

At issue is weather your flight is incidental to your business. It is not. As an example, if you were flying from your home base to the same destination as the customer, to purchase parts, you could carry the customer; the carriage is incidental to the purpose of the trip. If you simply fly there for the purpose of returning the customer, that becomes your business, and receiving money in return is compensation.

For your part as pilot, weather money changes hands isn't relevant, as the FAA considers the logging of flight time as compensation. Conceivably, enforcement action could be promulgated against you, and the company might go untouched.


These are excerpts from the interps given thus far:

One of the FAA's principal safety policies is that a person who transports another for compensation or hire must maintain a high level of safety by obtaining and maintaining an appropriate FAA operating certificate.

Accepting reimbursement in whole, or in part, is compensation. By transporting the passengers to another location for compensation, a Part 135 certificate is required.

Carriage of officials, employees, guests, and property of a company on an airplane operated by that company, or the parent or a subsidiary of the company or a subsidiary of the parent, when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, the business of the company (other than transportation by air) and no charge, assessment or fee is made for the carriage in excess of the cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the airplane, except that no charge of any kind may be made for the carriage of a guest of a company, when the carriage is not within the scope of, and incidental to, the business of that company.

However, no charge of any kind may be made for that carriage, regardless of whether the charge represents the customer's pro rata operating expenses for the flight, or a loss.

To permit a charge of any kind for the carriage of customers would require constant surveillance and time consuming investigations by FAA inspectors to determine if the charge represents an amount that is permitted under the regulations, or is in fact considered compensation as that term is used in the definition of a commercial operator.

Especially as you are now operating under Part 135, there is no good reason why you shouldn't put this airplane on the certificate and conduct the operations under that part. Your primary concern, it appears, is icing.

The provision with which you must deal is 135.227(c)(1), which prohibits flight under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions without appropriate ice protection.

The problem for you is that the same thing applies to VFR flight, under 135.227(c)(2). In other words, it makes no difference if the flight is IFR or VFR. You need to stay out of the ice, which is a good policy in general, and certainly a good policy in a light single engine airplane. In fact, staying out of the clouds is a good policy in a single engine airplane.

You may operate the airplane under IFR under Part 135...just don't go into known or forecast ice.

 

[DitchDriver]

The provision with which you must deal is 135.227(c)(1), which prohibits flight under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions without appropriate ice protection.

The problem for you is that the same thing applies to VFR flight, under 135.227(c)(2). In other words, it makes no difference if the flight is IFR or VFR. You need to stay out of the ice, which is a good policy in general, and certainly a good policy in a light single engine airplane. In fact, staying out of the clouds is a good policy in a single engine airplane.

You may operate the airplane under IFR under Part 135...just don't go into known or forecast ice.

Unless by "Cessna" RichardFitzwell means a Caravan, ice will be the last concern. You can pretty much forget about running 135 IFR passenger service in a single engine plane - unless it's a Caravan or a PC-12 (?)

See 135.163(f), (h) about the dual alternators and vacuum pumps.

Also part 135 IFR with passengers will require SIC or an autopilot.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Avbug

What do you have in your library that covers pilots flying charity, IE; church pastors on trips using:

1. Their own plane
2. Rented plane
3. Pastor paying expenses, gas, whatever
4. Etc...
5. Private versus commercial ticket, etc.
6. Any combination of scenerios that you can think of.


Thanx.....

 

[avbug]

Toysoldier,

Are you asking about a pastor flying him or herself to a destination, a commercial pilot flying a pastor for compensation or hire in an airplane the pastor provides, a pastor flying congregation members for compensation, a pastor flying congregation members for free...? Some specifics?

Ditchdriver, you're correct, to a point. Redundant installations are available in the Cessna 210. I've operated them as such under Parts 91 and 135, with dual vacum (though backup independant instrument electrical is also available) and electrical redundancy. Yes, a single Cessna can be flown IFR under Part 135, so long as it meets the requirements of that part.

I would reiterate the point that regardless of weather the airlane is appropriately equipped, single work in ice or in weather isn't necessarily a wise thing to do, circumstance excepting.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Avbug

Sorry for any NON-clarity. I was writing in a hurry. I am speaking of CHURCH MEMBER PILOTS doing the flying.

IE: Here are some REAL specifics I need help with...

=============================================
Situation 1:

Pilotman wants to use his airplane to carry the pastor from point A to point B. Pilotman pays 100% of the expenses.

=============================================
Situation 2:

Pilotman wants to use his airplane to carry the pastor from point A to point B. The Pastor pays 100% of the expenses.

=============================================
Situation 3:

Pilotman rents an airplane to carry the Pastor from point A to B.
The Pastor pays 100% of the expenses.

=============================================
Situation 4:

The pastor makes arrangements with the local FBO for an airplane. He then asks pilotman to fly him from point A to B in the rented airplane.

=============================================
Situation 5:

The church owns an airplane and asks pilotman to fly the pastor from point A to B. The church pays the expenses.

=============================================

Situation 6:

ABC Company owns and operates a part 91 aircraft. ABC Company uses the airplane to fly the pastor from point A to point B. The pastor pays for gas only while the company donates the remaining operating expenses.

=============================================

ALSO, is there a difference between whether the pilot is a PVT or commercial rated pilot?

I know that several of the questions have obvious answers.

I spoke to the FAA on two occassions (the part 61/91 office in Washington) and got two DIFFERENT answers each time! They are now taking my questions to their legal department for interpretation!!!!!!!!!!!


Thanks again...

 

[RichardFitzwell]

O.K.

Thanks again Avbug. That makes it clear.

Ditchdriver, as for the C210, it doesn't have any of the equipment necessary for IFR 135 but thanks for the clarification. It would only be added as a VFR 135 aircraft.

 

[avbug]

Toysoldier,

I'm going to treat each question in two parts; one for a private pilot, the other for a commercially certificated (or higher) pilot.

Situation 1:

Pilotman wants to use his airplane to carry the pastor from point A to point B. Pilotman pays 100% of the expenses.

A private pilot, or a commercial pilot may do this, within limits. If there is any tangible commercial reward in any shape, even though costs are not being accepted by the pilot, it may still amout to flying for compensation or hire, even though it doesn't cross into the charter arena.

If the flights are conducted for the purposes of accepting tax breaks, and for bolstering one's professional reputation in the community by obtaining publicity, for example, a case may be made that the flight has been performed for compensation. However, my opinion is that the FAA would be stretching the line to make the case. I don't have any case law to refer you to, as there are still too many variables.

In substance, if Pilotman wants to make the trip, and it is at his suggestion, and he invites the pastor, and pays for the trip out of his own pocket, there should be no issue with legality. The trip is legal. If the pastor approaches Pilotman and asks for a ride, and pilotman had not intended to make the trip anyway (in other words, if it's a special trip for the purpose of transporting the pastor), the case may be made that the logging of flight time is compensation. There should be no difficulty here, says logic. However, holding out can be an issue, and if the pilot provides the airplane and the pilot services, it can become a private carriage certification issue. (you can see where there are still variables that can affect the outcome of this question).

A little more specific information is needed.

Situation 2: Pilotman wants to use his airplane to carry the pastor from point A to point B. The Pastor pays 100% of the expenses.

Unless Pilotman is operating under a Part 135 certificate, this is clearly a no-no. For a private pilot to make the flight, he could pay a pro rata share (50/50 if dealing flying only with the pastor), but again he must be careful to ensure that the flight is his idea, and that he cannot be placed in the position of appearing to hold out for the flight. Even as a commercial pilot, holding out while provding the airplane to transport someone can put someone in a real bind.

A commercial pilot is not obligated to pay a pro rata share when splitting costs, but in this case, it's the minimum he could get away with and make an effort to appear legal. Again, this is assuming Pilotman's own personal airplane. At issue is Pilotman providing the airplane and the pilot services.

It should be clear here that even if Pilotman buys the airplane and sells half to the Pastor, he can still run afoul of Part 135 by providing the pilot services for the trip (legal interpretations are available to support that).

Situation 3ilotman rents an airplane to carry the Pastor from point A to B. The Pastor pays 100% of the expenses.

Same as situation #2. Pilotman is providing the airplane. Private or commercial, if he is providing the airlplane, he's in a position of being close if not over the line into Part 119 and 135 territory. The specifics of the situation make or break his legality here, and not enough information is provided.

If Pilotman is flying from A to B on Saturday and invites the Pastor to come along, okay. He should still pay the pro rata share of the expenses, even if commercially certificated. Paying any less will appear to be a charter operation.

If the Pastor requests transport on Saturday, and Pilotman rents the airplane for the purpose, he's providing an illegal charter. If he then compounds the issue by allowing the pastor to pay for the entire operation, he's in deep doo-doo.

Situation 4: The pastor makes arrangements with the local FBO for an airplane. He then asks pilotman to fly him from point A to B in the rented airplane.

Much better, now. The real issue here isn't so much one of legality, as weather or not the FBO will rent the airplane to the Pastor. Normally, the person it's rented to will be the pilot in command, or the person exercising operational control.

Here's the rub, however. If Pilotman works for or is in the employment of the FBO, it's tantamount to the FBO providing the airplane and pilot, and the situation again runs afoul of Part 135. The FAA has taken the stance that employment doesn't necessarily mean a regular paid employee. This throws another wrench in the works. Even if the FBO isn't paying the pilot to make the trip,and even if the FBO isn't connected monitarily to the pilot, the case may still be made (depending on circustances) that it's an illegal charter because the pilot is still working for the FBO.

To clarify that, imagine that the pilot is an independant instructor there, or a check airman in their Part 135 school...or a designated examiner who is used by the FBO to test students. Approved in any way, by the FBO (and this can include a checkout for insurance purposes). Under the FAA standard, that person is still in the capacity of an employee of the FBO, and the operation may be construed legally to be an illegal charter. Tricky, I know, but the FAA has taken that stand before, and it's supported by legal interpretation and case law (don't have the time to dig that up right now).

Situation 5:The church owns an airplane and asks pilotman to fly the pastor from point A to B. The church pays the expenses.

If the pilot is a private pilot, it's a problem. If the pilot is a commercially certificated pilot, he can do it. He is now no longer being paid for conveyance or transportation from A to B, but for acting as pilot in command of the airplane. The big difference here is that he isn't providing the airplane. He may even be an employee of the church, or a congregation member...doesn't matter. He's not providing the airplane, only pilot services.

If he's a private pilot, he can't advertise, even by reputation or word of mouth If he's commercially certificated, he can advertise all he wants.

Situation 6:ABC Company owns and operates a part 91 aircraft. ABC Company uses the airplane to fly the pastor from point A to point B. The pastor pays for gas only while the company donates the remaining operating expenses.

No can do. See the legal interpretations above. The company can receive no reimbursement, without requiring an operating certificate.


When you spoke to differnent FAA personnel, did you speak to them at the FSDO level? You're very likely to get different viewpoints there, but it's important to note that it's opinion, not an official representation of the position of the Administrator. My comments alone don't represent that, either, but are a summation of certain legal interpretations and case law. I should add the caveat that I have no legal standing, nor authority in any way, shape or form. When I get a moment, I'll try to add the other information so you have a solid reference to go by.

I just glanced back at your message, and you said it was the Washington office. Never the less, without an offical legal interpretation, the office can only provide an unauthoratative opinion. What's really needed are the interpretations and case references. I'll add some when I have a little time, and I apologise for the delay.

The interpretations above are a good start.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Avbug

Thanx! I figured I knew the answers as much as we all do when reading the regs. Those were the answers that I was playing by - except the one about ABC Company. The reason for that one is that the FAA told me that reimbursements include maintenance, ownership, gas, oil, etc. and I was only charging for gas and "donating" the rest of the pro-rata share and that this was OK with them!

However, it DID get real confusing when the Washington office themselves gave me different answers!

I am still waiting for the "official" interpretation from Washington. I'll make sure to forward their "interpretation" to ya for your and everyone elses' records here.

Have a Blessed Day...

 

[Caveman]

Does anybody need any further proof that the Fools Against Aviation are a complete joke?

Avbug,

Great job on the research.