Commercial Pilot

Windchill

Windchill

Well-Known Member
Can a commercial pilot fly me to a destination is his own 172 that I pay him/her for and the flight not be covered under FAR 135.

Completely made up example.

Can I pay John, a commercial pilot who is an independent CFI (not relevant) or associated w/ any charter company, but putzes around in his own 172, to fly me somewhere ... or what I'm asking is, can he accept?

The reason I ask is I had an opportunity come up to fly an in-laws boss on about a 200nm business trip ... but as a private pilot I can't even do the pro rata thing because the trip would originate BECAUSE of his business there ... but if I was a commercial pilot, could I without being tied to a Part 135 op?
 
So basically you can only use a commerical certificate to get a flying job?
 
what I understand so far...

you can only take people within 25 miles of the airport for parachuting..

or bird chasing (whatever that is) photo taking, ohh there's a few listed under part 91 but you can't take off and land at another airport and get paid for it.. you could fly somewhere and take pictures of something and fly back home and get paid (I think)

it's confusing I'm still trying to figure it out. I think if a person wants you to fly them from point A to B and they OWN the plane then... I *think* you can do..
banghead.gif
ahhh heck I better study this.

Matthew
 
As a commercial pilot, you'd only be able to fly your boss if HE provided the aircraft. If he asks you to fly him in his plane that would be legal, but if he asks you to fly him in your plane, no dice.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think if a person wants you to fly them from point A to B and they OWN the plane then... I *think* you can do..
banghead.gif
ahhh heck I better study this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep! you'd be a corporate pilot!

Brian...yes, for the most part, you can only get a flying job with a Commercial certificate. If you add a CFI, however....you're really employable!!
 
been a while since i have looked at this stuff....but from what i recall, it seems right that he couldnt make the flight with his own plane, but what if he used a clubs plane or the schools? he wouldnt be holding out in that situation would he?
 
[ QUOTE ]
. . . it seems right that he couldnt make the flight with his own plane, but what if he used a clubs plane or the schools? he wouldnt be holding out in that situation would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, he certainly would be holding out. If it's his plane, his nephew's plane or his Monkey's Uncle's plane.

Is there a way around that? Well, let's not go there....but it's holding out if he's providing a plane and his pilot services.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I thought a holding out involved advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make it known through word of mouth that you can offer such services, that could very well be taken as holding out.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought a holding out involved advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make it known through word of mouth that you can offer such services, that could very well be taken as holding out.

[/ QUOTE ]
No doubt about that. But why does it matter who owns the plane?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought a holding out involved advertising.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make it known through word of mouth that you can offer such services, that could very well be taken as holding out.

[/ QUOTE ]
No doubt about that. But why does it matter who owns the plane?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you're supplying both the service AND the airplane, then you're running a charter operation. That's really the only way to define what you're doing. Since charters are governed by Part 135, you're in violation of the regs by attempting to bypass 135.

However, if a party supplies an airplane (rent, lease, own, etc. . .) and pays you for ONLY your services, you become an employee of that person. It's as if you work for Coca-Cola as a pilot. These flights are geverned by Part 91, and as long as you're within the guidelines of Part 91, you're good to go.
 
I'm beginning to understand ... is there a reg in Part 91 that covers if you supply the plane = no-no but if they supply the plane = sweet?

I'm not looking for ways around it, just trying to learn more.

I looked under Part 61, Limits n Limitations of a Commercial License since 61.113 deals with private pilots and what they can and can not do ... but couldn't find anything.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to understand ... is there a reg in Part 91 that covers if you supply the plane = no-no but if they supply the plane = sweet?


[/ QUOTE ]Not really.

Here's the scoop. Take a step back and think about all these rules that separate flying that requires an ATP as opposed to a commercial certificate, a commercial certificate as opposed to a private certificate, a Part 121 operators certificate as opposed to a Part 135 certificate and a Part 135 certificate as opposed to no special certificate whatsoever.

It's all about protecting the public from bozos. The FAA figures that your grandmother deserves some protection when she gets on a charter flight operated by complete strangers , but she takes her chances when she chooses to fly with someone she knows.

So you got a bunch of rules that tell us which is which. Some are mentioned; some are not. Most , like "holding out" have legal meanings that go back to well before the Wright Brothers' first flight. It was probably used in the days of stage coaches.

All are somewhat fuzzy and interpreted on a case-by-case basis. If you think about it, it almost has to be. If you think about all the ways that "clever" people try to get around regulations, the FAA =had to= use some phrase that was open to interpretation. Given the policy to protect the public, how would =you= go about phrasing a rule that was less than 1000 pages long, was absolutely clear and covered all of the creative ways that people can find to get around rules they don't like. I'd say it's impossible.

So we're left with an old but fuzzy concept. Businesses don't like that much, so a couple of "clues" were developed along the way. The "airplane plus pilot" idea is one of them. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the concept is not specific to aviation.

Essentially, the FAA has taken the view that someone who provides both a pilot and the airplane is providing public transportation and needs to be watched more closely than the pilot who is hired by someone to fly his airplane. I guess the basic idea is that a person or company that owns an airplane knows the airplane and needs less protection when he hires a pilot than someone who goes to some FBO and says "I need to fly to my uncle's funeral" and knows nothing about either the pilot or the airplane.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I ask is I had an opportunity come up to fly an in-laws boss on about a 200nm business trip ... but as a private pilot I can't even do the pro rata thing because the trip would originate BECAUSE of his business there ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure your logic here is sound. If you're paying the pro rata share of expenses, you--as a private pilot--can fly whoever you want anywhere you want to. You just can't charge anyone for your services as a pilot, and you can't offer your transportation services out to the general public.

Another example: when I was living in San Diego, a co-worker and I had a business meeting up in Torrance that I was going to rent a plane and fly us up there for. We were going to split the cost of the aircraft (pro rata) and everything woulda been hunky-dory (the only thing that made it slightly questionable was the fact that both he and I would've paid for the plane with a company travel reimbursement we were both entitled to, whether we drove, flew, or skateboarded to the meeting). In the end, the flight was done in by coastal fog and my lack of an instrument rating, but that's another story.

Then again, I may be completely wrong and defer to the expertise of the resident reg quoters.
buck.gif
 
With your example, it was a business meeting for you to attend as well whereas I would only be making the trip because of his business meeting.

If what you offer is the case, that would be wonderful to hear. I as well would like to hear the resident reg experts address FAR 61.113

Scenario: I've been asked if I could fly an in-law's boss on a business trip approx. 200nm away. Obviously the only compensation would be a pro-rata share. Does it matter that I would not be making the flight if it wasn't for his dealings?


[ QUOTE ]

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.



[/ QUOTE ]
 
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I ask is I had an opportunity come up to fly an in-laws boss on about a 200nm business trip ... but as a private pilot I can't even do the pro rata thing because the trip would originate BECAUSE of his business there ...

Not sure your logic here is sound. If you're paying the pro rata share of expenses, you--as a private pilot--can fly whoever you want anywhere you want to. You just can't charge anyone for your services as a pilot, and you can't offer your transportation services out to the general public.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, there has been an FAA ruling on just that matter. On the AOPA's members' site, there is a story about a college student posting some flyers saying he was looking for people to split the cost of flying to a certain destination. I believe the outcome was that he was sanctioned by the FAA because even though he planned on splitting the costs, they weren't all going for the same purpose. If you have access to AOPA's site just look it up (I let my membership expire...).

[ QUOTE ]
Another example: when I was living in San Diego, a co-worker and I had a business meeting up in Torrance that I was going to rent a plane and fly us up there for. We were going to split the cost of the aircraft (pro rata) and everything woulda been hunky-dory (the only thing that made it slightly questionable was the fact that both he and I would've paid for the plane with a company travel reimbursement we were both entitled to, whether we drove, flew, or skateboarded to the meeting).


[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually totally legit. You were both going for the same reason. Under 61.113, it states you can be compensated as a private pilot as long as the flight is incidental to business (which this was, you weren't flying up there to drop your pax off, you were flying there to both work).

61.113 allows for this - for example, lets say you are on salary for working M-F 8am-5pm. This above flight occurs from 9-3 one day. Well, technically you were getting "paid" for the flight because you were getting paid your salary, but it again, is incidental because you were simply using the aircraft as a transportation tool.

In my opinion (and the FAA's from what I remember) it DOES matter for what reason you're flying to your destination. If you're splitting the pro-rata costs, everyone should be going for the same reason.

~wheelsup

Edit: Also, for another good FAR to look up dealing with commercial pilot (as opposed to private pilot) limitations, check out Part 119.
 
Here is my two cents on the matter, as a commercial pilot you can technically fly for hire, but they throw in that nasty clause called holding out. Yes if they provide the plane, and you fly it, and there is a previous relationship established you can do it, but other than that you are severely limited. Reason, because the tern holding out is used so vaguely that it is impossible to interpret. Prime example, if you buy the commercial oral exam guide and read about holding out, you will be more confused than when you were first starting out. Here is how i define the commercial license, you can go count fish or emu, do pipe line observation (making sure that the nasty oil does not kill a bird), sight seeing tours, and crop dusting if you have gotten the endorsement. Also, if you have come across your cfi or ii than you can work for the money. Otherwise it is to gray of an area and could wind up getting you in trouble with the man, a.k.a the faa
rawk.gif
 
Don't forget ferry flights. I've known several people who got a bunch of hours doing that, one even did several atlantic crossings in TBM700's.

~wheelsup
 
FAR 61.113

Two separate pieces. One is the sharing expenses part; the other is the "incidental to a business" part.

The sharing expenses part is pretty straightforward, except for one small wrinkle that you mentioned: Under FAA legal opinion and case law, in order to properly share the expenses, the pilot and the passengers must also share the reason for going to the destination.

The "incidental" to a business part is a little more complicated - more like the "holding out" stuff and based pretty much on policies of protecting the public (and to some degree protecting 135 operator who has spent the bucks to go through the regulatory and safety hoops)

The view the FAA has regularly taken is that in order to qualify under the "merely incidental" exception, the activity has to =clearly= be incidental. Close questions will be resolved against the pilot. The FAA will look at and apply a number of different factors, none of which by itself answers the question all the time.

Take that business trip. If if a private pilot decides to fly to a business meeting rather than drive and some of his co-workers say, "Wow, that would be cool! Can we come along?" it's probably okay. Just one of a number of ways of getting there. Usually. But do it when you don't have to be at the meeting, or every month, or have the boss start giving only a 1/2 travel day instead of a full one because of the efficiency of flying, and it's probably no longer "merely incidental".

On the other hand, even a one-shot deal can be enough if you "need" and airplane in order to do the job or if the airplane use is a significant cost center. Aerial photography, pipeline patrols, and using an airplane as one method of delivery of goods for resale are examples where the use =becomes= the business rather than being "merely incidental" to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top