Renting a Plane and Having Someone Else Pay For It

[Maurus]

Assume all of your friends (since that was used as an example before) know you're a pilot (reputation). I think most of your friends would assume that you'd be willing to take them flying if they pay for it. Unless you give them all a list saying "I will only take Jim, George, and Grace flying, all the rest of your suck", then I think this is a valid interpretation. I'm not using this as an argument in the general discussion, I'm just offering up a different view point.

"Serving all" is much broader than friends. Also the "reputation" is not defined in that sentence as "being a pilot" but instead as "being a pilot that serves all". "Serving all" would be just saying yes to anyone and everyone that wants you to fly for them. Unless you have a ton of friends that want to pay you to fly their provided aircraft, there will be no issues.

Again, read "organization" as "friends". I would assume that unless you're a neo-nazi, a "significant segment of the public" is available for membership to that "organization".

If the friend would bring someone else along that is not directly involved in the reason for the flight, that interpretation could be a problem. Last I checked though, there is a legal interpretation of "organization" and it doesn't mean "friends".

Mike H and maybe subpilot have the view that since the OP isn't holding out, it's ok for him to be paid for the flight directly by his friend.

So long as the only compensation being exchange is for the pilot's skills and the pilot remains outside of the acquisition of the aircraft there should be no problem.

"I'll pay you $100 to fly me in the airplane I have provided [read my definition above] for the flight." This would be legal so long as no "holding out" or other activities that would be defined as "common carriage" is involved to get to that point.

 

[tgrayson]

the pilot remains outside of the acquisition of the aircraft there should be no problem.

Let me be clear: they don't see a problem with the friend paying for the OP for the entire flight, including the rental fees, because there is no holding out occurring.

But the common carriage part is irrelevant because even private carriage is illegal outside of the few exceptions. Having the friend handle the airplane transaction is neither private nor common carriage because it is not a "for hire" operation.

 

[Maurus]

Let me be clear: they don't see a problem with the friend paying for the OP for the entire flight, including the rental fees, because there is no holding out occurring.

But the common carriage part is irrelevant because even private carriage is illegal outside of the few exceptions. Having the friend handle the airplane transaction is neither private nor common carriage because it is not a "for hire" operation.

I am trying to figure out how it is not considered "for hire". No formal definition by the FAA that I can find. Hence my confusion. The funny thing is that they do make the distinction between "compensation" and "for hire" in the definition of commercial operator.

Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.

In the OP's flight, compensation would be received in the form of flight time making him a "commercial operator". As far as regs for a Commercial Operator operating in the OP's original question, he would be operating illegally for an "aerial tour" till he complies with 91.147 from what I can tell.

Just looking for accuracy with the regs.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

In the OP's flight, compensation would be received in the form of flight time making him a "commercial operator". As far as regs for a Commercial Operator operating in the OP's original question, he would be operating illegally for an "aerial tour" till he complies with 91.147 from what I can tell.

It does strike me as crazy that I can log time, for free, as a PPL, flying glider tows with paying passengers behind me. Yet with a commercial cert I can't rent a plane and fly my mom around the beach if she pays for it.

 

[minitour]

Yet with a commercial cert I can't rent a plane and fly my mom around the beach if she pays for it.

That's kind of a paradox...if she's paying, are you really renting it?

Whanananaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

-mini

 

[MikeD]

It does strike me as crazy that I can log time, for free, as a PPL, flying glider tows with paying passengers behind me. Yet with a commercial cert I can't rent a plane and fly my mom around the beach if she pays for it.

.....and you thought the "logging actual IFR" thread was a hair splitting thread.......

....this one's got it beat!

 

[drunkenbeagle]

.....and you thought the "logging actual IFR" thread was a hair splitting thread.......

....this one's got it beat!

Easily...

 

[tgrayson]

I am trying to figure out how it is not considered "for hire".

No real definition exists, only what can be inferred by usage. Consider the following letter of interpretation. It is somewhat analogous to the two different ways of accomplishing the flight of the OP.

==========================================


October 26, 1993
Ryan S. Green
883 East Arnecia Court, #20
Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Dear Mr. Green:

This is in response to your letter dated September 29, 1993. You ask whether the following circumstances would constitute operations in Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations or Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

A company engaged in the purchase and sale of vehicles needs to transport its employees--commercial drivers--to remote locations to pick up vehicles that the company has purchased, and to drive the vehicles back to the company's lot to be sold. The company would hire you, a commercial pilot, to fly these drivers to remote pickup sites, in an aircraft that it would rent from a local flight school. The transportation would be provided to the drivers at no cost to them.

Generally, a commercial operating certificate under Part 135 is required to engage in the carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire. Under the circumstances you describe, it would appear that the carriage of persons is not for compensation or hire, since there is no payment made to the company or compensation received by it for transporting its employees [Yet the pilot surely got paid!]. I also note that the company's transportation of its own employees, by air, would be merely incidental to the company's principal business of vehicle sales.

I would caution you against allowing this arrangement to evolve into a de facto operation of private carriage for hire. This would occur if you, in fact, put together the transportation package consisting of aircraft and pilot services and received payment for the operation of the flights, even if the clientele was limited to one customer. This would require a commercial operator certificate.

The distinction between the two operations is that in the first scenario the company would be deemed the operator of the flights, for its own employees, with you hired merely as a commercial pilot; whereas in the second scenario, you would be considered the operator of the flight receiving compensation for the transportation of another company's employees. Under the first scenario, the company as well as you, are responsible for the operation of the aircraft. Prior to beginning the operation, you should ensure that the company accepts its role as the operator of the flights and recognizes that it is responsible for accidents or violations which occur as a result of the operation.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 227-2007.

Sincerely,
George L. Thompson
Assistant Chief Counsel

 

[drunkenbeagle]

No real definition exists, only what can be inferred by usage. Consider the following letter of interpretation. It is somewhat analogous to the two different ways of accomplishing the flight of the OP.

Thanks! Clear as mud now

 

[Maurus]

No real definition exists, only what can be inferred by usage. Consider the following letter of interpretation. It is somewhat analogous to the two different ways of accomplishing the flight of the OP.

==========================================


October 26, 1993
Ryan S. Green
883 East Arnecia Court, #20
Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Dear Mr. Green:

*lots of stuff*

Sincerely,
George L. Thompson
Assistant Chief Counsel

That does clear up a lot.

The dangers of being a private carrier still eludes me as we can not be a common carrier and the AC defines private carrier as being the opposite of a common carrier. A common Carrier is Part 135 and Part 121, wouldn't private carrier be everything else as a result of that definition?

.....and you thought the "logging actual IFR" thread was a hair splitting thread.......

....this one's got it beat!

It snowed all day today. I have been bored :hiya:

 

[tgrayson]

A common Carrier is Part 135 and Part 121, wouldn't private carrier be everything else as a result of that definition?

You can conduct private carriage under part 135 (little airplanes) or part 125 (big airplanes). Part 119 contains the criteria for which set of regulations apply.

 

[Roger, Roger]

I just want to say "thanks" to tgrayson for posting all of these FAA letters of interpretation. It's very educational!

 

[Mike H]

But we won't have the final word until we determine who will be responsible for shock cooling the engine

 

[Maurus]

You can conduct private carriage under part 135 (little airplanes) or part 125 (big airplanes). Part 119 contains the criteria for which set of regulations apply.

They really need to rewrite that AC for the newer regs

I just want to say "thanks" to tgrayson for posting all of these FAA letters of interpretation. It's very educational!

:yeahthat:

 

[minitour]

But we won't have the final word until we determine who will be responsible for shock cooling the engine

Whoever runs it over-square.

-mini

 

[Xcaliber]

Running lean of peak ruins engines!

 

[minitour]

Running lean of peak ruins engines!

So does max allowable takeoff power takeoffs.

-mini

 

[tgrayson]

They really need to rewrite that AC for the newer regs

The AC is from 1986, but the regs have read as follows since about 1995:

§ 119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.
(a) Each person who conducts operations when common carriage is not involved with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, shall, unless deviation authority is issued -
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements of part 125 of this chapter;
(2) Conduct its operations with those airplanes in accordance with the requirements of part 125 of this chapter; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.
(b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in § 91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall -
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part;
(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only to commuter operations; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.

​

I have a neat chart given to me by an aviation attorney that shows a decision tree about which set of regulations apply. It's copyrighted, otherwise I'd post it. I've been meaning to create my own graphic in the same spirit, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[Maurus]

I have a neat chart given to me by an aviation attorney that shows a decision tree about which set of regulations apply. It's copyrighted, otherwise I'd post it. I've been meaning to create my own graphic in the same spirit, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Is it a tree for a commercial pilot? If so that would be extremely helpful for new commercial pilots and old.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Ok, so if I rent a ME aircraft and take, lets say Maurus with me, as I am NOT ME, and he is. He gets to log the hours, but he also should pay 1/2 the fee?

BTW, when are we going Brett???