Common vs Private Carriage!!

emilh1

emilh1

New Member
Hello everyone!

Im going for my multi-comm checkride with the FAA soon! Im signed up for it and just waiting in agony. I feel Im ready for it and everything, so that is a good thing! The reason why I post this thread is because my examiner is determined, and he is a real when it comes to private and common carriage (This beeing part 91).

I have a fearly good understanding of the diffrences, I have read the advisory circular AC120-12A (which in my opinion creates more confusion and headache than the regs itself http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/key/AC%20120-12A!OpenDocument&Click ). Does anyone have anything better on this subject wich directly clearify the diffrences?
For me it is a big mess, and yeah everyone can quote the AC, but it doesnt really help if he comes up with a whole lot of scenarios that touch the grey areas here.

For an example on my EOC, my checker asked me: If a friend of you asks can we go on a X-c, you rent an aircraft, split the costs, goes on the X-C, both of you comes back..basicly everything in the green and good ( Im not sure if this scenario is the best, but i write it as I remember the question), is this leagal? He said no: Cause you are showing a willingness to plan the trip and all that crazy stuff..Ok, i thought, and he said: In every scenario there is something that can be despuited. And I said, of course, but what are you suposed to do when the regs are very unclear on the matters of private vs common carriage? When they are written in a matter that even aviation lawyers are pulling theire hair over the this matter, how are you suposed to know all the diffrences? Yeah I know about the seightseeng, on contracts and so on and so on (sorry if it does not seem like it in this Thread)..

Thats where I need help..If someone has a good text, just something on this matter it would be to a great help for me.

TY!!:rolleyes:
 
emilh1 said:
For an example on my EOC, my checker asked me: If a friend of you asks can we go on a X-c, you rent an aircraft, split the costs, goes on the X-C, both of you comes back..basicly everything in the green and good ( Im not sure if this scenario is the best, but i write it as I remember the question), is this leagal? He said no: Cause you are showing a willingness to plan the trip and all that crazy stuff..
Click to expand...
Uh, yes, this operation is legal and the checker ought to seriously rethink his opinion. This is the definition of a private pilot operation under 14 CFR 61 - a flight that has a common interest and that involves the splitting of cost.

Too, the elements of common carriage are:
* service is regular obviously no, this is a one time trip
* customers are not readily predictable and are changeable, obviously no, there are no customers - you are still paying.
* the carrier solicits business from the general public, for example by advertising obviously no, you did not hold out to EVERYONE and do not have a willingness to take everyone
* law and regulations define the responsibilities of the parties. Maybe. You have a 'duty to care' and assigned responsibility for the aircraft under law (Think 14 CFR 91.3) but it is not the same high standard an air carrier would be held to.

:mad:

Ok, i thought, and he said: In every scenario there is something that can be despuited. And I said, of course, but what are you suposed to do when the regs are very unclear on the matters of private vs common carriage? When they are written in a matter that even aviation lawyers are pulling theire hair over the this matter, how are you suposed to know all the diffrences? Yeah I know about the seightseeng, on contracts and so on and so on (sorry if it does not seem like it in this Thread)..
Click to expand...
This is true as well - and the FAA does a thoroughly okay job of interpreting its rules. The best thing I can advise you to do is get a good lawyer if you're really worried about it, or read as many of the FAA's Letters of Interpretation as you can here.

Also, I read a book called Air Carrier Operations that hashed out the definition of an air carrier, common carriage, private carriage, and other such terms and concepts in far more pilot friendly (ME PILOT ME FLY) language. Let me see if I can find a citation.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Uh, yes, this operation is legal and the checker ought to seriously rethink his opinion. This is the definition of a private pilot operation under 14 CFR 61 - a flight that has a common interest and that involves the splitting of cost.
Click to expand...

That might be the part of the story we are missing.
 
emilh1 said:
For an example on my EOC, my checker asked me: If a friend of you asks can we go on a X-c, you rent an aircraft, split the costs, goes on the X-C, both of you comes back..basicly everything in the green and good ( Im not sure if this scenario is the best, but i write it as I remember the question), is this leagal? He said no: Cause you are showing a willingness to plan the trip and all that crazy stuff.
Click to expand...

I agree with Autothrust Blue that this is legal - the only possible reason I can see for saying it isn't is that your friend asked you if the two of you could go flying, and whoever did your EOC was of the mindset that the initiation of the flight has to come from you (i.e. you say to your friend "i'm going on a flight, want to come along?") in order for it to be legal, otherwise you'd be viewed as providing a service. I don't buy into that - so long as your friend was getting nothing but enjoyment out of the flight (as opposed to him being an aerial photographer and using the flight as an opportunity to take photos in connection with his business), you've got common purpose, and as long as you know your friend well (i.e. you're not demonstrating a willingness to take anyone), you should be in the clear on that one.
 
emilh1 said:
I have a fearly good understanding of the diffrences, I have read the advisory circular AC120-12A (which in my opinion creates more confusion and headache than the regs itself http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/key/AC%20120-12A!OpenDocument&Click ). Does anyone have anything better on this subject wich directly clearify the diffrences?
For me it is a big mess,
Click to expand...
For you and everyone else. AC120-12A gives a lot of lip service to "private carriage" but I have never seen a situation in which it's been applied in a way that removes the need for an operating certificate - and there =is= an operating certificate for private carriage; see for example, FAR 119.23(b).

For all practical purposes, "public" v. "common" doesn't really make a difference when it comes to passenger carriage. Unless your passenger-carrying flight falls squarely into 61.113 (including the interpretaton and case based requirement for a "joint venture for a common purpose") or a specific exemption in 119.1(e), if it involves the passenger's payment or the pilots receipt of anything of value, it's pretty much a no-go.
 
No is the correct answer. To split costs you too must have a reason to go there other than time building.

1.) Your friend is looking for a half price charter and you need the flight time. Can you split costs? Answer: No

2.)You and your friend want to spend the weekend in Las Vegas. Can you split costs? Answer: Yes.
 
In addition to Mark's explination, a fairly simple to look at common carriage is when you are willing:

-to go anywhere
-at any time
-with anyone
-and receive compensation

as you can see, that has a lot of holes in it; but, it gets you going in the right direction thinking about the operation. Like Frank mentions above, its cool to go with a friend to Las Vegas, which would fit the abouve outlined loose interpretation of common carriage (see, lots of holes). But if you are doing it for someone who you don't really know, who has an alternative reason for going to Vegas and wants to reimburse you by means of dinner, then you should be thinking to yourself, hmm.
 
fholbert said:
No is the correct answer. To split costs you too must have a reason to go there other than time building.

1.) Your friend is looking for a half price charter and you need the flight time. Can you split costs? Answer: No

2.)You and your friend want to spend the weekend in Las Vegas. Can you split costs? Answer: Yes.
Click to expand...

Can you provide clarification on part 1 for me? I just started studying for my commercial and while I know flight time is considered compensation if you dont pay your pro-rata share, how is it in this case? If a pilot doesnt hold himself out, a friend just comes up and says hey, lets go flying to ABC, well split the costs, why is that a no go in your mind? Does it depend on the friends reasoning for wanting to go to that particular destination? If they want to go for a business meeting then its a no go, if they want to go because the airport is on the beach and they have great food is that ok?
 
the way I read what you quoted is that friend is looking for "a half price charter." That would mean a particular destination is set with no wiggle room.
 
Matt13C said:
Can you provide clarification on part 1 for me? I just started studying for my commercial and while I know flight time is considered compensation if you dont pay your pro-rata share, how is it in this case? If a pilot doesnt hold himself out, a friend just comes up and says hey, lets go flying to ABC, well split the costs, why is that a no go in your mind? Does it depend on the friends reasoning for wanting to go to that particular destination? If they want to go for a business meeting then its a no go, if they want to go because the airport is on the beach and they have great food is that ok?
Click to expand...
It gets fuzzy. Understand the problem. The FAA is trying to do two things with all this: (1) protect the public by requiring higher standards for commercial operations and (2) protect the commercial operators who have spent time and money jumping through hoops to meet those requirements. Up against that, think of human ingenuity in trying to find loopholes and ways around rules they don't like or don't agree with. Search for almost any thread on the subject and you'll see #2 in action. The result is some very fuzzy boundaries where the "real" rule is pretty much, "if it quacks like a duck..."

Who starts the conversation is just one element, not the whole story. Consider two scenarios in which the passenger starts the conversation (I'll spin off your examples):

A. "Its gonna be a hot weekend. Any chance of our flying to the beach in your airplane for the day?"

B. "I have a business meeting in Altoona. Could you fly me there? I hear that there's a great beach nearby where you can hang out"

You can never be sure, but I doubt that the FAA would have any problem with A, even though the non-pilot made the suggestion for the destination. Ultimately it's just two friends going to the beach (or a ski resort or the Super Bowl) and happening to use the airplane as transportation.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that the FAA would have a problem with B. Bottom line is that the passenger's purpose in going is for his business meeting, with the beach for the pilot being an afterthought that sounds like it's being used just to get around the fact that this is just a low-cost charter flight.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
It gets fuzzy. Understand the problem. The FAA is trying to do two things with all this: (1) protect the public by requiring higher standards for commercial operations and (2) protect the commercial operators who have spent time and money jumping through hoops to meet those requirements. Up against that, think of human ingenuity in trying to find loopholes and ways around rules they don't like or don't agree with. Search for almost any thread on the subject and you'll see #2 in action. The result is some very fuzzy boundaries where the "real" rule is pretty much, "if it quacks like a duck..."

Who starts the conversation is just one element, not the whole story. Consider two scenarios in which the passenger starts the conversation (I'll spin off your examples):

A. "Its gonna be a hot weekend. Any chance of our flying to the beach in your airplane for the day?"

B. "I have a business meeting in Altoona. Could you fly me there? I hear that there's a great beach nearby where you can hang out"

You can never be sure, but I doubt that the FAA would have any problem with A, even though the non-pilot made the suggestion for the destination. Ultimately it's just two friends going to the beach (or a ski resort or the Super Bowl) and happening to use the airplane as transportation.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that the FAA would have a problem with B. Bottom line is that the passenger's purpose in going is for his business meeting, with the beach for the pilot being an afterthought that sounds like it's being used just to get around the fact that this is just a low-cost charter flight.
Click to expand...


I see what youre saying. I guess my stumbling point was the pro-rata share requirement. When working on the PPL that was what I used as my qualifier, did I pay my share? If yes then it was ok. Not so clear cut when dealing with commercial operations it appears.

To expand on your second example, if a friend and I were talking and in passing mentioned hey needed to go to altoona, if I say I can fly you there, split the costs and hang out at the beach(would be quite a drive to get to a beach from there ha), that would be considered holding out my services?
 
Matt13C said:
When working on the PPL that was what I used as my qualifier, did I pay my share? If yes then it was ok.
Click to expand...

Like almost always, what you learn in training is overly simplistic. You'd have to be familiar with FAA Letters of Interpretation and enforcement actions to understand there are additional criteria placed on top of the mere pro rata cost sharing.
 
Matt13C said:
To expand on your second example, if a friend and I were talking and in passing mentioned hey needed to go to altoona, if I say I can fly you there, split the costs and hang out at the beach(would be quite a drive to get to a beach from there ha), that would be considered holding out my services?
Click to expand...
It's not really a "holding out" issue. It's a "transportation of persons" for compensation issue. (btw, the good news is that most DPEs don't really understand the intricacies so the questioning on this topic during both the knowledge and practical tests tends to be pretty shallow).

See if this helps - obviously this is pretty general and no one should take it and try to apply it to any specific situation without professional advice. I'm going to try (probably unsuccessfully) to simplify without making it too simplistic (bearing tgrayson's observation in mind). It's how I think of it and it may or may not help:

All "holding out" refers to is whether the services are being made available privately or to some segment of the public. It's not an FAA term at all but has been a traditional test for the difference between "common carriage" and "private carriage" for a long time - probably going back at least to stagecoach travel in England and the American colonies.

But, as I mentioned before, "common" v. "private" is of little use - all it really does in most cases is tell you what kind of operating certificate you might need.

"Carriage" itself is just a catchall that pretty much means "transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation."

The other broad concept that might help is that in the aviation context, there is a difference between commercial pilot requirements and privileges and commercial operation requirements and privileges.

What your commercial pilot certificate allows you to do is be compensated for the act of piloting an airplane. But that's only half of the question - any time you are going to transport people or property in an airplane and be compensated for it, the other half is whether the activity or, in regulatory parlance, the "operation" is one that requires more than just a commercial pilot certificate.

That's where, from the commercial pilot perspective, that list in far 119.1(e) becomes all important - it lists those "carriage" activities that a commercial pilot can do for compensation under Part 91 without also having some sort of commercial operator certificate under 135 or some other set of FAA regs.

So any time you are faced with a question about whether or not you can be compensated do something as a commercial pilot, the real question is, "is this an operation that can be done without some sort of operating certificate."

So take that trip with the friend sharing the expenses and look at it in that context. Are you transporting someone for compensation? Absolutely! Being paid back for 1/2 of the aircraft rental, fuel, etc, is definitely receiving compensation for the flight. Is there an exemption in 119.1 for "flights with a friend"? Nope. So, unless there is some other regulation that allows you to do it, you would need an operating certificate of some type.

That's where 61.113 comes in. There is no specific reg that allows a commercial pilot to carry friends for compensation (private carriage), this reg and its limitations apply to you.

What the 61.113 cost-sharing rule does is two things: as we learn in private pilot training, it it carves out an exception for compensation for private pilots. But it also carves out an exception from the requirement for an operating certificate for carrying passengers for compensation. It's not that cost-sharing isn't compensation; it's compensation that's permitted to private (and higher) pilots.

And, as previously discussed, the FAA has added the need for common purpose as another earmark - after all, if you and your passenger don't share the reason for the trip, isn't it really just private "carriage"?

Does that help at all?
 
Glad it helps but here's the catch: What it helps with is understanding - the forest the regulatory trees are in.

As I mentioned, DPE questions in this area tend to be simplictic generally looking for knowlege of the 119.1 exceptions, the concept of "holding out" as indicating availability to the public, and the idea that "holding out" doens't have to be to everyone in order to be considered public.

Like other rides, simple answers to questions are best.

Perhaps others can confirm that from recent experience.
 
Good examples over here:) Me like. Also, what I`ve heard (of course) is that renting an aricraft is a no-go no matter what?..hmmm
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Glad it helps but here's the catch: What it helps with is understanding - the forest the regulatory trees are in.

As I mentioned, DPE questions in this area tend to be simplictic generally looking for knowlege of the 119.1 exceptions, the concept of "holding out" as indicating availability to the public, and the idea that "holding out" doens't have to be to everyone in order to be considered public.

Like other rides, simple answers to questions are best.

Perhaps others can confirm that from recent experience.
Click to expand...

Yeah, best not to talk yourself into a corner. I just started studying for it and have some time until I can take the ride, so hopefully this will all be cemented in my brain by then. The questions I asked were based on limited knowledge which mostly came from reading similar threads on this topic. I honestly hadnt read the two FAR's you posted, but after doing so I now understand your answers better. I was thinking, as Tgray and yourself point out, in an overly simplified manner. I wasnt thinking about the commercial operator angle, just the commercial pilot.

Fortunately, the DPE we use is incredibly knowledgeable and tends to use the check rides as teaching events. I actually look forward to check rides with him as they tend to be very difficult but extremely rewarding, you come away feeling like you earned the certificate but have also learned a great deal during the check ride. My instrument ride felt like one giant lesson, he would ask the basic question looking for the basic answer and then we would discuss the whys and hows of the situation after. He doesnt look to bust you, he looks to give you a better understanding of the material from a practical and procedural standpoint.
 
emilh1 said:
Good examples over here:) Me like. Also, what I`ve heard (of course) is that renting an aricraft is a no-go no matter what?..hmmm
Click to expand...
Depends on what for.

From the FAA's standpoint, you can certainly rent an airplane to fly you and your friend to the Superbowl and share costs or even to use it for local air tours, pipeline patrol, and any of the other things a commercial pilot can do without there being an operating certificate under 119.1.

The rental issue comes into play with something the FAA calls "operational control."

If a Peter Passenger owns an airplane and pays you to fly him around, all you are being paid for is piloting. You're not considered to be in charge of the operation (now there's a bad word in the FAR - the meaning of "operator" really does morph with the context). And no operator certificate is required because the the owner/passenger has "operational control" meaning that, except for the flight safety-related issues that come with being PIC, it's the owner that decides what the airplane is used for, where it goes, and when. You're really just a paid pilot and nothing more.

But if you, the pilot, own the airplane, you have "operational control" and the passenger becomes "carriage" - a no-no if you're receiving compensation unless you fit into 119.1, 61.113 or some other reg.

The rental issue is this - clearly, if the pilot rents the airplane, the pilot has "operational control" while the airplane is in his possession and control for the term of the rental.

But what if the passenger rents it?

Then the question is whether the rental looks, smells or quacks like the passenger or the pilot really is the one with operational control. And the FAA is going to look real close. For just one question, is that FBO really transferring responsibility for the airplane (operational control) to a non-pilot guy off the street or to the pilot who has met the FBO's checkout qualifications?

That's why rentals are problematic - it's going to be the rare rental that really qualifies as a transfer of operational control to the passenger, not to the pilot.

Getting a headache yet? You should be. The operational control issue gives headaches to lawyers who work with it in the context of aircraft leasing and setting up business flight departments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top