First leg 91 vs. 135

EatSleepFly

EatSleepFly

Well-Known Member
From a discussion in this thread: http://www.jetcareers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36537

---------------------------------

CFIse, I respect what you're trying to say, but I still disagree. If you can prove me wrong, please do.

In the meantime, here's a scenario that was standard at my old company:

A charter broker calls up and says, "we need 4,000 lbs. of freight picked up at XYZ at 2300." So the customer is paying for the airplane to be flown from your base, ABC, over to XYZ.

-Can a private pilot fly the airplane (assuming they are properly qualified) to XYZ, where a company line pilot is about to come out of rest and take over the trip? No.

-OK, so can Jimmy the line guy, who has his Commercial/CFI (and qualified in the type) but isn't a pilot for the company (no 8410), fly the airplane from ABC to XYZ and hand it off to the freshly rested line pilot? No.

-Can Joe, who was about to go home for the day and is up to 7 hours of flight time already but only 10 of duty, fly the two hour trip to XYZ, duty off there, and hand the trip off to another line pilot? No.

-Can Bob, the janitor who takes the call from the broker, even page out a pilot, pull out an airplane, and send it on it's way without consulting someone with operational control? No.

-Can you take off for XYZ if it's below mins? No (unless you're at an EOD operator, but for the sake of discussion, you're not).

I just don't see why whether or not there is cargo on board has anything to do with it. The company is "holding out" by virtue of the fact that the broker can just call them up and arrange a trip. THEY are paying for the airplane to be moved from ABC to XYZ. Just because there is nothing in the back yet, doesn't automatically make it part 91.

In short, if you are required to hold an air carrier/operating certificate for what you're about to do, then you have to operate under that part (135, in this example). That is straight from the regs, straight from the POI at my former company.

The trip normally "ends" when and where the cargo is dropped. Then you can part 91 it home and not have to abide by any 135 rules.

Discuss... and by all means, prove me wrong, but don't just say, "I know about these things and that's the way it is" because you're not the only one.
 
Take this lightly since I am no 121/135 pilot but...

At a cargo outfit that runs out of SLC, they allow students to fly with the cargo pilot to pick up the cargo and log it as a 91 leg. Once they've loaded up the plane (Turbo Arrows), the pilot will fly and the student is to do nothing.
 
Nice! A good old fashioned throw down, I like it!

Marshall hit it. What a lot of people don't realize is that even companies that have "scheduled runs" are almost always considered unscheduled operators in the eyes of the FAA. Those companies do not schedule their runs, their customers do. They say, "Hey, we would like to pay you to fly a Beech 99 from here to there once a day at these times. We'll pay you for it, and you'll go whether you carry anything of ours or not."

That's still a 135 leg because as Marshall pointed out, it's holding out.
 
I was always under the impression that a positioning leg was 135 (because the plane HAD to get there to pick up the cargo/people) but a RTB leg could be 91 because in theory there was no paying customer waiting there.
 
The regs are a little hard to understand. The flight is technically a 135 flight but it is operated under "Part 91". The only thing that is different is weather minimum criteria, which you can use you company's Part 91 rules (if it suits you better) or their 135 rules, whichever will get you there. The flight is still dipatched by Part 135 and yes, Joe Blow can not just fly the leg.

It doesn't have to just be the first leg, it can be anyleg in which you do not carry freight.
 
JUST the weather? What happened to the rest of the ops specs and who said you could just apply the weather ops specs and not the rest of them? Can you use Class II navigation even though it's not approved? Who says so?

It's all or nothing.
 
I don't really see where you're getting all these "NO"s from, since you haven't provided anything to back up your position.

Sufficient to say you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations that it's not going to be fixed on a message board.

"Empty" legs have nothing to do with holding out, they have nothing to do with "well the customer wants the plane in position" they have nothing to do with the Part 135 regulations. Many people seem to under the mis-perception that because a aircraft is on a Part 135 certificate this somehow makes it different - it doesn't. It's only operating Part 135 when it's carrying revenue passengers or cargo for hire. If you can't understand that fundamental concept then you're not going to be able to understand any of the rest of it. All that information can be found in Part 119 and Part 135 - there are no regulations that DISPROVE your theory, there just aren't any regulations that support it - as with everything in the FARs. If you can show me a regulation that supports all your NOs then we're onto something, all I can do is point you to Part 119 and Part 135 which say that only revenue passenger and cargo need a Part 135 operating certificate.

Really - I've lived all this - I've had discussions with POIs, I've operated aircraft in a variety of ways with non-part 135 pilots at the controls all with the knowledge and the blessing of the FAA - really, I know what I'm talking about.

Here's one that'll blow you mind.

Non-Revenue A to B (positioning if you will, flown by non-Part 135 pilots for experience).
Revenue B to A (Part 135)
Non-Revenue A to C (flown by non-Part 135 pilots for experience)
Revenue C to A (Part 135)

Regular trip - done 5 nights a week, ramp checked a few times, no problem. How does that freak you out - a Part 91 leg IN THE MIDDLE of a set of Part 135 legs - that'll blow your mind!
 
You know, you keep saying we're not providing anything to backup what we're saying; but neither are you. And there are like 5 of us, which a lot more experience and depth of knowledge than you, telling you that you're wrong.

You're looking more and more like a jackass with every post.
 
This sounds to me like Socrates' discussion of piety, where nobody can explain exactly what it is to be pious but everybody knows what IS pious.

Anybody else seeing that distinction?
 
From any starting point, flying to a place for pax pick up is 135, period. From the pax’s final destination, the flight back to home base is 91.
 
jtrain609 said:
This sounds to me like Socrates' discussion of piety,
Click to expand...

Mmmmmmm....pumpkin piety.:)

pumpkin_pie.jpg
 
I've searched for a legal interpretation to the edges of the internet, and can't find one that completely supports or disproves either theory (probably because the regs are clear enough to not need one). The only one I can find that even comes close states that a hospital-owned aircraft, with hospital only employees on board, "...a flight could be conducted under Part 91 of the FAR." (Rowhuff, 6/7/90). Whether it could or not would seemingly depend on what they're doing.

CFIse said:
all I can do is point you to Part 119 and Part 135 which say that only revenue passenger and cargo need a Part 135 operating certificate.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? It doesn't. Actually, it's the act of "holding out" that requires an air carrier/operating certificate. 119.5(k). There have been some good discussions with references here in the past about what exactly is construed as holding out, I think.

CFIse said:
Really - I've lived all this
Click to expand...

You're pretty arrogant in thinking that you're the only one. I didn't just crack open Part 135 for the first time the other night and decide to start a debate.

CFIse said:
I've had discussions with POIs, I've operated aircraft in a variety of ways with non-part 135 pilots at the controls all with the knowledge and the blessing of the FAA
Click to expand...

Good for you. You're certifiably nuts if you think every POI in this country is on the same page. Ask two inspectors the same interpretation question, and you'll probably get three different answers, none of which are necessarily right. I've personally seen a POI talk completely out of their ass, saying one thing while the regulations and a chief counsel interpretation very specifically said something else. Inspectors are not God (or the final authority) by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, in the strange world of 135 freight, getting away with something doesn't necessarily mean its legal. If you had half a clue, I wouldn't have to tell you that.

CFIse said:
Here's one that'll blow you mind.

Non-Revenue A to B (positioning if you will, flown by non-Part 135 pilots for experience).
Revenue B to A (Part 135)
Non-Revenue A to C (flown by non-Part 135 pilots for experience)
Revenue C to A (Part 135)

Regular trip - done 5 nights a week, ramp checked a few times, no problem. How does that freak you out - a Part 91 leg IN THE MIDDLE of a set of Part 135 legs - that'll blow your mind!
Click to expand...

Why would that blow my mind? I agree 110% that if it's a non-rev leg, it can be operated under Part 91 and flown by whoever. Let me guess... you were the non-part 135 pilot along for the experience?

Anyways, like I said before, if you are required to hold an air carrier/operating certificate for what you're doing/about to do, then you have to operate under that part. Try to stay with me here........
You're required to hold an air carrier/operating certificate, if:

§ 119.1 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft—
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or
Click to expand...

(Also note that 119.1(e), the list of exceptions to Part 119, does not make any mention of "empty flights.")

And:

§ 119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions.

<snip>
(k) No person may advertise or otherwise offer to perform an operation subject to this part unless that person is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct that operation.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't "hold out" without an air carrier/operating certificate.
And finally:

§ 135.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes rules governing—
(1) The commuter or on-demand operations of each person who holds or is required to hold an Air Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter.
Click to expand...

So you're required to hold an operating certificate if you want to hold out. And having an operating certificate means you're bound by 135, unless you are doing something (mx flight, training/checking, empty non-rev repo) that doesn't require an operating certificate- then you can go Part 91 to your heart's content.
 
EatSleepFly said:
So you're required to hold an operating certificate if you want to hold out. And having an operating certificate means you're bound by 135, unless you are doing something (mx flight, training/checking, empty non-rev repo) that doesn't require an operating certificate- then you can go Part 91 to your heart's content.
Click to expand...

Ummm - I think you just agreed with me. An empty non-rev repo. is what we're talking about - and you just said it's Part 91.
 
CFIse said:
Ummm - I think you just agreed with me. An empty non-rev repo. is what we're talking about - and you just said it's Part 91.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he did agree with you. From what he has written it can be empty but still be rev. His example of the plane flying empty to the first location to pick up the cargo, that empty leg is still a part of holding out to that particular client because he is paying for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top