Operational Control: Can I fly?

form810

Mandate my ass! It's a movie, not a life.
Situation:
Owner is principal of LLC1 AND Corp2.
Turbojet plane is held by LLC1.
Pax are employees of Corp2.
Owner (who is a pilot) will NOT be onboard the flight.
Pilot is employed by LLC1. Pilot is NOT employed by Corp2.
Pilot is qual'd as a Part 91 PIC pilot/employee, paid by LLC1.
Pilot is being asked to fly employees of Corp2 as Pax on a Part 91 flight (pilot is getting paid -through LLC1- to do this flight).
Is there any way that this is a legal flight for pilot to accept? (particular lease arrangements, etc.?)
 
Last edited:
I’m not understanding…is a part 91 flight, being paid for by the boss, legal? Help me understand what I’m missing…
 
I’m not understanding…is a part 91 flight, being paid for by the boss, legal? Help me understand what I’m missing…
Expand, s'il vous plaît.

Pretty sure as an employee paid to be a pilot, one can not offer up flights to "just anyone". You gotta fly for them what pays you.

It's my understanding that if you own a plane, and fly your own plane your own self "in the furtherance of your business", you can fly pretty much anyone anywhere. However, if you're a 3rd party pilot getting paid to be a pilot by an entity, you can, for money, fly that plane only for the entity that pays you. Perhaps I'm all confused and discombobulated. Like I said, please expand on your comment so I can understand the legal argument and logic. Bumper sticker commentary does not help one in front of the tribunal... unless one is an "extra special citizen" subject to "reputational harm" like DJT. All the rest of us poor schlubs are still, you know, subject to the letter and spirit of the law.

In the case posited:

1. Pilot works for and gets paid by LLC1. LLC1 is owned by the Principal, who, through LLC1 holds the plane.

2. The Pax in question have NOTHING legally to do with LLC1. They are employees of another company, Corp2. The Principal has a large holding and is CEO of Corp2. The Principal is also sole owner of LLC1.

3. There is, extremely intentionally, a very strong Chinese Wall between LLC1 and Corp2.
 
Last edited:
Do you get paid by the word? Jesus that’s a lot of verbal nonsense to describe a situation.
I'm not involved. That's my story. I'm sticking by it and so are my attorneys.

Don't mean to be overly verbose, Just trying to be specific. You hate that "verbal nonsense" for the same reason you probably hate reading CFR14 parts. I do, too. I'm just trying to make this specifically clear. Sometimes being specifically clear requires awkward and stilted lingo.
 
Last edited:
Expand, s'il vous plaît.

Pretty sure as an employee paid to be a pilot, one can not offer up flights to "just anyone". You gotta fly for them what pays you.

It's my understanding that if you own a plane, and fly your own plane your own self "in the furtherance of your business", you can fly pretty much anyone anywhere. However, if you're a 3rd party pilot getting paid to be a pilot by an entity, you can, for money, fly that plane only for the entity that pays you. Perhaps I'm all confused and discombobulated. Like I said, please expand on your comment so I can understand the legal argument and logic. Bumper sticker commentary does not help one in front of the tribunal... unless one is an "extra special citizen" subject to "reputational harm" like DJT. All the rest of us poor schlubs are still, you know, subject to the letter and spirit of the law.
So, you’re a Part 91 pilot being paid to fly a plane for a corporation, or individual who owns a corporation, correct? The boss tells you to fly the plane from A to B with his employees on it, correct? What am I missing here? The boss is asking you, his pilot, to fly his employees.

Do people really question their boss and which legal entity the employees belong to? I think that as long as it’s your boss, his plane, you’re a legal pilot for his company, and you’re flying his employees around, I don’t see the problem.

Maybe I’m not seeing the problem, but I think you’re digging too deep for no reason.
 
So, you’re a Part 91 pilot being paid to fly a plane for a corporation, or individual who owns a corporation, correct? The boss tells you to fly the plane from A to B with his employees on it, correct? What am I missing here? The boss is asking you, his pilot, to fly his employees.

Do people really question their boss and which legal entity the employees belong to? I think that as long as it’s your boss, his plane, you’re a legal pilot for his company, and you’re flying his employees around, I don’t see the problem.

Maybe I’m not seeing the problem, but I think you’re digging too deep for no reason.
It seems what you're missing is that the Pax are employees of Coke. The boss is the CEO of Coke.
The boss also -separately- owns Pepsi. The plane is owned and operated by Pepsi. The pilot gets paid by Pepsi.

So, the pilot is employed by Pepsi. Then, the pilot -flying Pepsi's plane- is asked to fly a bunch of Coke employees from point A to point B.

Isn't that at least 135?
 
Last edited:
It seems you're missing is that the employees of the Boss work for Corp2. The plane and pilot are owned and operated by LLC1. The pilot gets paid by LLC1.

It's as if the plane is owned by Pepsi. The pilot is employed by Pepsi. Then, the pilot -flying Pepsi's plane- is asked to fly a bunch of Coke employees from point A to point B.

Isn't that at least 135?
Do you think Elon Musk’s pilots care if they are Tesla vs SpaceX employees? Your analogy is bad because they are owned by two different companies and different boards. If the boss owns both companies, they are still his employees, correct? He has operational control over his airplane, for his employees or whomever he wants flown.

If they were random people, I’d agree with you, but they are his employees, according to your first post. There are people who own multiple companies. I’ve never heard of any problems flying for an individual and flying their employees around.

Maybe the brain trust here has more info, but I’d be surprised if it was an issue.
 
Do you think Elon Musk’s pilots care if they are Tesla vs SpaceX employees? Your analogy is bad because they are owned by two different companies and different boards. If the boss owns both companies, they are still his employees, correct? He has operational control over his airplane, for his employees or whomever he wants flown.

If they were random people, I’d agree with you, but they are his employees, according to your first post. There are people who own multiple companies. I’ve never heard of any problems flying for an individual and flying their employees around.

Maybe the brain trust here has more info, but I’d be surprised if it was an issue.
Agreed, generally. However, CEO is different than "owner". The A/C's LLC(1) is set up specifically to create legal/financial differentiation between the two corporations, and thereby create distance between the plane and the other corporation (Corp2).
 
Expand, s'il vous plaît.

Pretty sure as an employee paid to be a pilot, one can not offer up flights to "just anyone". You gotta fly for them what pays you.

It's my understanding that if you own a plane, and fly your own plane your own self "in the furtherance of your business", you can fly pretty much anyone anywhere. However, if you're a 3rd party pilot getting paid to be a pilot by an entity, you can, for money, fly that plane only for the entity that pays you. Perhaps I'm all confused and discombobulated. Like I said, please expand on your comment so I can understand the legal argument and logic. Bumper sticker commentary does not help one in front of the tribunal... unless one is an "extra special citizen" subject to "reputational harm" like DJT. All the rest of us poor schlubs are still, you know, subject to the letter and spirit of the law.

In the case posited:

1. Pilot works for and gets paid by LLC1. LLC1 is owned by the Principal, who, through LLC1 holds the plane.

2. The Pax in question have NOTHING legally to do with LLC1. They are employees of another company, Corp2. The Principal has a large holding and is CEO of Corp2. The Principal is also sole owner of LLC1.

3. There is, extremely intentionally, a very strong Chinese Wall between LLC1 and Corp2.
This was all added later, but I still don’t see how your expected to know the employees and which company they work for. If you think it’s wrong, then refuse to fly. However, you’d better have some very compelling legal reasons to not fly the principle’s plane for a company owned by the principle.
 
This was all added later, but I still don’t see how your expected to know the employees and which company they work for. If you think it’s wrong, then refuse to fly. However, you’d better have some very compelling legal reasons to not fly the principle’s plane for a company owned by the principle.
Principal is CEO (and shareholder in, not owner) of Boeing.
Pax are employees of Boeing.

Aircraft is owned by Airbus.
Principal owns Airbus. (a version of Airbus created specifically to hold one aircraft)
Pilot is employed by Airbus.
Flight is operated by Airbus.

Can an Airbus-paid pilot fly Boeing employees around while getting paid to do so, especially without the Principal being onboard?
 
Agreed, generally. However, CEO is different than "owner". The A/C's LLC(1) is set up specifically to create legal/financial differentiation between the two corporations, and thereby create distance between the plane and the other corporation (Corp2).
Stop adding to your posts. If you have further information, post it. I’m getting lost in all your additions to previous posts.

How do you know why the principle has his businesses set up the way they are? You’re adding more and more to the story, but confusing everything. Does the principle own, or have full control of both entities? Yes or no? Why do you say he’s/she’s creating distance between the airplane and the other corporation(s)? Is there more information you’re leaving out?
 
Situation:
Owner is principal of LLC1 AND Corp2.
Turbojet plane is held by LLC1.
Pax are employees of Corp2.
Owner (who is a pilot) will NOT be onboard the flight.
Pilot is employed by LLC1. Pilot is NOT employed by Corp2.
Pilot is qual'd as a Part 91 PIC pilot/employee, paid by LLC1.
Pilot is being asked to fly employees of Corp2 as Pax on a Part 91 flight (pilot is getting paid -through LLC1- to do this flight).
Is there any way that this is a legal flight for pilot to accept? (particular lease arrangements, etc.?)
Principal is CEO (and shareholder in, not owner) of Boeing.
Pax are employees of Boeing.

Aircraft is owned by Airbus.
Principal owns Airbus. (a version of Airbus created specifically to hold one aircraft)
Pilot is employed by Airbus.
Flight is operated by Airbus.

Can an Airbus-paid pilot fly Boeing employees around while getting paid to do so, especially without the Principal being onboard?
These two are not the same. Good luck.
 
Stop adding to your posts. If you have further information, post it. I’m getting lost in all your additions to previous posts.

How do you know why the principle has his businesses set up the way they are? You’re adding more and more to the story, but confusing everything. Does the principle own, or have full control of both entities? Yes or no? Why do you say he’s/she’s creating distance between the airplane and the other corporation(s)? Is there more information you’re leaving out?
Just look at my penultimate post (the one before this one). That describes the story as KISS as I can dumb it down to. I'm not adding. I'm trying to parse and clarify for you.
 
These two are not the same. Good luck.
Ok, sorry if I screwed up. See info below. This explains it as simply as I can explain it.


Principal is CEO (and shareholder in, not owner) of Boeing.
Pax are employees of Boeing.

Aircraft is owned by Airbus.
Principal owns Airbus. (a version of Airbus created specifically to hold one aircraft)
Pilot is employed by Airbus.
Flight is operated by Airbus.

Can an Airbus-paid pilot fly Boeing employees around while getting paid to do so, especially without the Principal being onboard?
 
Ok, sorry if I screwed up. See info below. This explains it as simply as I can explain it.


Principal is CEO (and shareholder in, not owner) of Boeing.
Pax are employees of Boeing.

Aircraft is owned by Airbus.
Principal owns Airbus. (a version of Airbus created specifically to hold one aircraft)
Pilot is employed by Airbus.
Flight is operated by Airbus.

Can an Airbus-paid pilot fly Boeing employees around while getting paid to do so, especially without the Principal being onboard?
Well, the CEO of Boeing would be prohibited from owning controlling shares of Airbus, and visa versa. So, why does your principle have conflicting ownership, and why is he/she putting you in this position?

I understand you’re trying to keep it generic, and dumb it down, but once again you’re adding more information to posts after posting. If you truly have a “Boeing/Airbus” situation, then either your boss isn’t on the up and up, and you need to find other employment, or I’m still not understanding.

My former bosses had several companies and I don’t remember ever getting into the weeds on how they structured companies/legalities of flying different employees around.

It’s time for bed but I do wish you good luck in figuring out what you need to.
 
Last edited:
Is there even such a thing as “Operational Control” for pt91 in the FAA’s eyes?

Or there may be lease agreements between the corporate entities, granting non-exclusive operational control back and forth. Probably on file with the FAA no less. In any case, something that the owner's lawyers have figured out.
 
Or there may be lease agreements between the corporate entities, granting non-exclusive operational control back and forth. Probably on file with the FAA no less. In any case, something that the owner's lawyers have figured out.
Yeah that.

As a pilot I probably wouldn't get concerned until/unless I saw blatant signs that non-owners were paying for trips. I don't think a pilot is required to know the financial details on every trip, so I would suspect his/her exposure to certificate action would be limited as well.
 
Is there even such a thing as “Operational Control” for pt91 in the FAA’s eyes? I believe this would fall under private carriage (as opposed to common carriage) because there is no “holding out” to the public, so it would all be a moot point.
Operational control is definitely a Part 91 issue since the wrong answer can be a deviation, Private carriage requires a Part 135 certificate.

1662755342827.png


Thinking it doesn't is an unfortunate by-product of the ancient AC. IAnd with illegal charter being a current FAA enforcement priority, pilot certificates are low hanging fruit...

I can't answer the question as posted. I'd need a lot more detailed info (And a private consultation- that's not a solicitation. I'm mostly retired.)
 
Back
Top