You cannot recieve compensation????

[Headwind]

The big problem could be insurance, not the FAA. You have an accident and the insurance company is looking for a way out of paying the claim. If your insurance is business & pleasure and they have evidence you got paid then you have no coverage.

HEADWIND

 

[avbug]

The big problem could be insurance, not the FAA.

No, the big problem really is the FAA.

I thought your passengers could pay for their share of the expenses.
i.e. 1/2 the gas, 1/2 the rental, 1/2 the ramp fess, etc. So $100 sounds like an amount that could be covered.

No, that would be the pro rata share you're thinking of. That means that the pilot pays a minimum of his or her pro rata share. If four people are on board, the pilot must pay at least a quarter of the cost of the flight. If two, it's one half. And so on. We don't guess in aviation, and "sounds like an amount that could be covered" sounds a whole lot like guesswork. Doesn't stand up for defense on appeal during enforcement proceedings.

honestly who would ever know?

The FAA, that's who. Who turns you in? You'd be surprised. The single pilot 135 operator on the field who gets wind from the lineboy...sticks in his craw to be carrying a hundred thousand dollar insurance policy and eating ramen while you take away his business. People are funny that way. It could be an innocent remark...I knew an individual who let an offhand comment slip while giving a talk in his church, many years ago. An inspector happened to be visiting and in the congregation, and met the kid in the foyer after the meeting. Busted. Not too nice about it, either. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get caught.

if your friend gives you $$ to drive him somewhere in your car, that is ALSO technically illegal without a taxi license but stuff like that happens everyday

No, and a big bad federal agency isn't chasing around with nothing to do than bust you for it, either. Think about it.

That's easy - if the guy owns his plane he can pay whoever we wants to fly it as long as that person acting as PIC has a commercial license and valid 1st or 2nd class medical. It's called being a "corporate pilot" . Isn't this how netjets operates, or is it 135 - not 91?

Not a good example. Fractional operators are not corporate in nature, and are operating under either 91 subpart K (mirrors Part 135 in part), or Part 135, or both.

or if his share of the trip home (aircraft rental , gas , ramp fees, etc. ) equals $100 then it's ok. pro rata share of the flight.

No, pro rata does not justify an illegal charter, nor does it authorize a private pilot to hold out for business. Remember that holding out doesn't have to be printed, or a verbal offer; it can be by reputation if an individual is known to be available to make the flight. Do the two have a common purpose, and is the original poster already planning on making the trip? No. The original poster is making the trip on behalf of a request from another individual, and has already crossed over into 135 territory. The flight is also being made for compensation, and without the monetary exchange or financial gain, the logging of flight time in connection with the flight is also considered compensation, and may be used in enforcement action against the pilot.

A more grey are here: You are a flight instructor at an FBO. A guy flys his own airplane in to get maint done. He is leaving his plane there and needs to get himself back home. Your boss tells you to fly him home in a flight school airplane (no 135 cert) and you will get paid your regular hourly rate. Legal or no?

Possibly...not enough information is provided. However, with the little bit that is provided, there is no common purpose in making the flight, and you as the instructor have no particular business making the flight, other than for the purpose of conveying an individual to a point other than the point of departure, for hire. That you're getting paid a regular wage doesn't justify the flight.

Probably not too bright an idea, thought it wasn't mentioned, to try justifying it as flight instruction, either. The FAA may justifiably construe that as fraud as you attempt to circumvent the regulation.

More grey: You are a flight instructor. You have a primary student who wants you to fly with him somewhere so he can do some business then fly him back. He has already done all the cross-countries required for his ppl so this flight wouldn't be conducted if it weren't for the business that he wants to conduct. Legal or no?

Again, not enough information, but with what is provided, enforcement action has been held against instructors who have done this very thing. Folks have been trying to justify illegal charters as bonafide instruction for a long time. You may get away with it, but as another poster correctly identified..."getting away with it" does not equate legitimacy.

The purpose of the flight is to conduct business. You cited this as primary instruction, indicating that the student is not capable of making the flight on his or her own. If the student is capable, you're still acting as PIC for the purpose of getting someone from the point of departure to a point other than the point of departure for compensation or hire, and have crossed the magic 135 threshold.

More information needs to be provided as to who owns and has provided the aircraft. The farther the ownership or operational control can be from your own employment, the better. Which takes us to your next question...

Next one: Same as the last one except this time the student owns his own airplane. Legal or no?

Yes, no, maybe so. Again, not enough information, as always. Given that the student has provided the aircraft and has hired the commercially certificated instructor to act as pilot in command, a legitimate business arrangement may be presumed to have occured (contingent upon understanding the full details of the story, of course).

 

[JRSLim]

Quote: 'Lets say there's a friend...'


If you have a friend who needs a ride, let me know - I need the hours and will do it for free. OK, I'll rent the plane tooo.....

 

[100LL... Again!]

Important to remember:

The FARs only apply to non-government operations.

Most state or Federal agencies CHOOSE to use the FARs as their operating policy, though they are not necessarily bound by law to do so. Hence, the state patrol COULD use a recently soloed student to fly traffic enforcement with passengers even, provided it was a government operation.

I know of no agency that uses this leeway, but they could.
Look in FAR 1, I think, for applicability.


One test for illegal 135 is this: Were you going anyway, even if the friend find alternative transportation? If yes, then you are on safer ground.

Next, I would like to address the student pilot-business X-C.
If you are legitimately at the phase of training where the student can plan and fly the cross country, then why can you not couple it with a pusiness trip? This is not, in my opinion, common carriage since you are not holding out for this service to the general public. There is no law preventing a student from conducting business on any of the REQUIRED cross-country trips, nor is there any reg against flying additional cross-country trips.

Here would be my test: Is the student planning the flight and doing all of the flying? Are they doing the duties of PIC? Talking on the radio? Actually achieving meaningful flight experience?

If the CFI plans and flies the trip and calls it X-C dual, then the looks-like-a-duck test applies.


To further that question, you have renter pilot who wants to fly a trip. Can he hire a CFII to come along in case you need to file? Is that 134.5?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Important to remember:

The FARs only apply to non-government operations.

Most state or Federal agencies CHOOSE to use the FARs as their operating policy, though they are not necessarily bound by law to do so. Hence, the state patrol COULD use a recently soloed student to fly traffic enforcement with passengers even, provided it was a government operation.

Excuse me?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Look at the definition of civil aircraft versus public aircraft in FAR 1.

Then look at the number of regs in Part 91 that reference civil aircraft.

Again, this is probably never done, since all agencies that I know of use the FARs as their own internal regulatory policy.

 

[100LL... Again!]

The student-pilot scenario is actually incorrect, but there are numerous regs that reference civil aircraft (vs public) while many regs do not.

Ergo, regs that only refernce civi aircraft do not apply to public aircraft, or else why would these definitions exist?

 

[100LL... Again!]

91.7 Civil aircraft Airworthiness

91.9 Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

Etc.

There MAY be other portions of the law that COULD require compliance with the FARs in their entirety.

There probably are.

However, the FARs provide a certain distinction between these operations that certainly imply that the FARs by themselves do not apply automatically to all aircraft operations - just civil operations.

 

[A Squared]

It's not quite accurate to say that "The FARs only apply to non-government operations." Perhaps a better statement would be that many of the regulations do not apply to the operation of Public Aircraft. Not all government aircraft are public aircraft. The regulations which state "no person may operate aircraft...." apply to civil and public aircrat equally. The ones which say "no person may operate a civil aircraft....." are not applicable to Public Aircraft.

 

[100LL... Again!]

That would be more accurate - government operations that fall under the category of 'public aircraft' operations.