When a carrier "holds itself out"...

Here is one i've seen before. Dinner flight to a poplular distination which is 38nm away. Other operators state they "call it an intro flight and just make sure you are giving a lesson on how to fly during the trip. " i have already put my foot down and refused to do this but everyone else around me thinks I am crazy to turn down business and there is nothing wrong with what they do, quoting "we've been doing it that way for years."
 
subpilot said:
Here is one i've seen before. Dinner flight to a poplular distination which is 38nm away. Other operators state they "call it an intro flight and just make sure you are giving a lesson on how to fly during the trip. " i have already put my foot down and refused to do this but everyone else around me thinks I am crazy to turn down business and there is nothing wrong with what they do, quoting "we've been doing it that way for years."
Click to expand...
Perfect example of Part 134 and a half.
 
scott_l said:
Best place to look is Part 119 where it spells out what requires a operating certificate. I made myself a list just to make sense of it of what does and does not require operating certificates. AC 120-12A is only a piece of the commercial privileges puzzle. If all else fails remember if you provide plane+pilot and are compensated(even just for flight time) you are not legal to fly it.
Click to expand...
AC 120-12A puts the elements of common carriage into aviation safety inspector-digestible chunks, which is why I brought it up.

In the first question in the OP's post, Jesse is holding out to the public, demonstrating a willingness to transport persons, from place to place, for transportation or hire. Jesse is therefore acting as a common carrier, and an operating certificate is consequently required. Jesse requires an air carrier certificate for this operation.

Regarding the second question:
My parents know I'm a commercial pilot, and they want to pay me to fly them from point A to point B, a distance of 388 nautical miles, for a vacation. Is this flight legal?
Click to expand...
Strictly parsed, your parents are asking you for your pilot services. There's no discussion of who will have control of the operation. The question does not make any reference to acting as a common carrier, and the distance involved is a red herring. So the answer is "yes, probably." If my parents are equivalent to a corporate flight department, yes. :)
 
What the FAA should do is make simple limited 134.5 operations legal and accessible.

I'd support something like CFI's carrying up to 4 passengers VFR up to 300nm, in a single pilot non-typed aircraft with a current 100 hour inspection.

This would open up the utility market of light aircraft to people who aren't going to run out and buy/lease their own airplane, the safety factors are totally acceptable in my mind, it makes GA more useful to the general public, and people wouldn't be sneaking around doing the same thing they are doing now.
 
subpilot said:
Here is one i've seen before. Dinner flight to a poplular distination which is 38nm away. Other operators state they "call it an intro flight and just make sure you are giving a lesson on how to fly during the trip. " i have already put my foot down and refused to do this but everyone else around me thinks I am crazy to turn down business and there is nothing wrong with what they do, quoting "we've been doing it that way for years."
Click to expand...
Most of these fly well under the radar...

...until the first incident where a customer complains to the FAA.
 
rframe said:
What the FAA should do is make simple limited 134.5 operations legal and accessible.

I'd support something like CFI's carrying up to 4 passengers VFR up to 300nm, in a single pilot non-typed aircraft with a current 100 hour inspection.

This would open up the utility market of light aircraft to people who aren't going to run out and buy/lease their own airplane, the safety factors are totally acceptable in my mind, it makes GA more useful to the general public, and people wouldn't be sneaking around doing the same thing they are doing now.
Click to expand...
Ah so you'd need to be a CFI to do commercial operations? That makes tons of sense.
 
z987k said:
Ah so you'd need to be a CFI to do commercial operations? That makes tons of sense.
Click to expand...
I believe we already have a pilot (not instructor) certificate for that sort of operation - it's called a commercial certificate.
 
z987k said:
Ah so you'd need to be a CFI to do commercial operations? That makes tons of sense.
Click to expand...


I said CFI instead of Com for a few reasons that acknowledge that hauling a paying passenger from point A to point B is not the same thing as hauling a banner or sky diver around the local area.

1. A CFI must hold an instrument rating, while most COM do and there's already the restriction on COM operations without one, holding a CFI simply removes any question on that issue. Hauling someone cross country without the ability to enter the clouds if needed is simply not a great plan.

2. A CFI has completed a Fed check ride so there's a bit more due diligence on the part of the government in the certification of those pilots holding a CFI certificate. Granted a CFI ride is not a 135 ride at all, but I think most people would also agree that a CFI has had to demonstrate a more in-depth understanding (if not at least their ability to articulate) aeronautical knowledge and an ability to think and manage a flight at a different level than simply flying a few visual maneuvers for a COM ride.

3. Most of your 134.5 operations now masquerade as "flight instruction", hauling the "student" from point A to point B. Are these really a threat to the flying public? I seriously doubt it. Is there a public expectation that a Skyhawk is micro-managed by the FAA the way a 121 operator is... hell no. Lets just call it what it is and not make people sneak around when this really isn't a safety issue.

Ultimately I'm not bound to the CFI idea, it's just one simple way of distinguishing a little more qualification that I dont think would be a burden on the actual operators who would benefit from this sort of ruling.
 
Or maybe to demonstrate that they're competent they could apply for a single PIC single airplane VFR 135 certificate, which isn't remotely difficult to get. Then they can take a 135 checkride(with a fed). There's really nothing wrong with how it is right now, IMO.
 
rframe said:
I said CFI instead of Com for a few reasons that acknowledge that hauling a paying passenger from point A to point B is not the same thing as hauling a banner or sky diver around the local area.

1. A CFI must hold an instrument rating, while most COM do and there's already the restriction on COM operations without one, holding a CFI simply removes any question on that issue. Hauling someone cross country without the ability to enter the clouds if needed is simply not a great plan.
Click to expand...
The 'real' regulator (the insurers) will never, ever let someone haul these folks around for compensation or hire without an instrument rating anyway.

2. A CFI has completed a Fed check ride so there's a bit more due diligence on the part of the government in the certification of those pilots holding a CFI certificate. Granted a CFI ride is not a 135 ride at all, but I think most people would also agree that a CFI has had to demonstrate a more in-depth understanding (if not at least their ability to articulate) aeronautical knowledge and an ability to think and manage a flight at a different level than simply flying a few visual maneuvers for a COM ride.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I can think of at least two FSDOs who referred to DPEs for CFI-A initial certificates recently.

3. Most of your 134.5 operations now masquerade as "flight instruction", hauling the "student" from point A to point B. Are these really a threat to the flying public? I seriously doubt it. Is there a public expectation that a Skyhawk is micro-managed by the FAA the way a 121 operator is... hell no. Lets just call it what it is and not make people sneak around when this really isn't a safety issue.
Click to expand...
Be more descriptive about 134.5 — who owns and has control of the aircraft is NOT an insignificant detail.

Ultimately I'm not bound to the CFI idea, it's just one simple way of distinguishing a little more qualification that I dont think would be a burden on the actual operators who would benefit from this sort of ruling.
Click to expand...
I like what z987k is saying: if you want to be an air carrier, then you have to behave like one, and have an operating certificate, and maintain equivalent levels of safety.
 
z987k said:
Or maybe to demonstrate that they're competent they could apply for a single PIC single airplane VFR 135 certificate, which isn't remotely difficult to get.
Click to expand...

Really? They told me 6-9 months just to get an LOA for scenic flight operations... about 12-18 months for Single PIC VFR tickets, and to be prepared for a LOT of paperwork. Some day with a larger airplane, I might do it just because I'm slightly masochistic and like a challenge but it would be mainly for the hell of it.

I just think it's a shame, like many others I get calls asking for short transports and I'm neither interested nor equipped to handle them but I dont even have anybody to refer them to. I'd love to refer them to someone, but charter operators are not generally looking to make a couple hundred dollars here and there by flying medium income people 200 miles in single engine Cessnas, so in a population area of about 350,000 the only single you'll find on a 135 ticket happens to be a Beaver on floats... not going to work for what most people call to do.

If a flight school could pick up supplemental business with short limited taxi flights I think it'd be a great thing for general aviation, the public could see some convenience from their local airport instead of seeing it as a tax-payer funded tool for the rich (which is exactly what they are in most cases).


As far as safety goes, what does a 135 ticket give you? A maintenance review to make sure you have TSO'd avionics? Wowsa! Drug testing and duty hours? You already have some basic duty restrictions as a CFI. A drug testing program is also required for a scenic operation LOA and larger flight schools already have that. You need 100 hour inspections, OK flight school is already doing that too. I just flat out dont buy that a 135 ticket is providing much in the way of added safety for these kinds of limited operations, the public has a desire for these basic services but they are effectively regulated out of existence in many areas because the reward is not worth the cost of playing the 135 game. You have to look at the type of operation, we're talking short VFR flights in 100/200 series Cessnas and Cherokees.... not pressurized PC-12's and King Airs. At the very least, a modified LOA type agreement would better fill the void between illegal charters and a full 135 ticket.... just my opinion, but I think GA needs more business opportunities and fewer regulations, not the opposite.
 
rframe said:
Really? They told me 6-9 months just to get an LOA for scenic flight operations... about 12-18 months for Single PIC VFR tickets, and to be prepared for a LOT of paperwork. Some day with a larger airplane, I might do it just because I'm slightly masochistic and like a challenge but it would be mainly for the hell of it.

I just think it's a shame, like many others I get calls asking for short transports and I'm neither interested nor equipped to handle them but I dont even have anybody to refer them to. I'd love to refer them to someone, but charter operators are not generally looking to make a couple hundred dollars here and there by flying medium income people 200 miles in single engine Cessnas, so in a population area of about 350,000 the only single you'll find on a 135 ticket happens to be a Beaver on floats... not going to work for what most people call to do.

If a flight school could pick up supplemental business with short limited taxi flights I think it'd be a great thing for general aviation, the public could see some convenience from their local airport instead of seeing it as a tax-payer funded tool for the rich (which is exactly what they are in most cases).


As far as safety goes, what does a 135 ticket give you? A maintenance review to make sure you have TSO'd avionics? Wowsa! Drug testing and duty hours? You already have some basic duty restrictions as a CFI. A drug testing program is also required for a scenic operation LOA and larger flight schools already have that. You need 100 hour inspections, OK flight school is already doing that too. I just flat out dont buy that a 135 ticket is providing much in the way of added safety for these kinds of limited operations, the public has a desire for these basic services but they are effectively regulated out of existence in many areas because the reward is not worth the cost of playing the 135 game. You have to look at the type of operation, we're talking short VFR flights in 100/200 series Cessnas and Cherokees.... not pressurized PC-12's and King Airs. At the very least, a modified LOA type agreement would better fill the void between illegal charters and a full 135 ticket.... just my opinion, but I think GA needs more business opportunities and fewer regulations, not the opposite.
Click to expand...
Well the various levels, if you will, of the 135 certificate are supposed to fill in that void. Unfortunately due to the ineptitude of our congress, yes anything that YOU want from the FAA is a ridiculous wait, but that is not the FAA's fault. Maybe if the FAA implemented something more streamlined for the process like the TTB has online you'd only be looking at 3 months or so instead of a year... idk.
The other 135 certificate that I'm listed on(other than my day job), is just this. We can have up to 5 PIC's and currently only 1 aircraft. It's a 172. I know of quite a few of them up here in the NW and Alaska. Singe engine Cessna's flying VFR. The FBO in BKE(look that one up) has a couple of airplanes, but the most common thing they do is take a couple people to Boise in the 172 because it's not much more,if any more, than driving and saves a ton of time.
Other things a 135 airplane has to do that a flight school one does not is pass a conformity inspection, and have engines that are not past TBO or a certain amount of years since overhaul. That applies to the prop to. The pilots of the 135 have to go through an indoc that is approved by the administrator and be trained on the aircraft and pass an applicable check ride in that airplane in accordance with 135.293/5/7. You also have the related Ops specs that lays out what the operator is and isn't allowed to do that can generally be way more restrictive than part 91. For example pt 91 VFR in G is 1 and clear, but under 135 you need 2SM if the ceilings are below 1000'. There's also the GOM(or the like) that is required and must again, be approved by the administrator.
Despite all of this.. it really isn't that hard. I kind of like the fact that it keeps people out that aren't willing to put forth just a bit of effort. IMO, if you can't put forth the effort to obtain the basic certificate, you actually have no business flying the public for hire. Who knows what else you won't put any effort or work in to.
 
Guys I'd like to say thank you for all the contributions to the OP. I have a midterm on the AC120-12A and such today, hopefully I learned a lot from this thread :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Here is some of the case law concerning 119/135. They normally deal with someone doing numerous flights, and the cases often end with revocation.

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4502.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4679.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4870.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5061.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5181.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5183.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5334.pdf

There was another one that I remember reading once but can't find right now that involved "discovery flights".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top