commercial privileges

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:35 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
135 drug-testing rules?


It's not clear to me that the drug testing of Part 135 applies to
sightseeing tours for little airplanes. Part 119 exempts little
airplane sightseeing from Part 135; the implication to me is that the
sightseeing flights in Part 135 must be only for big airplanes. I
could find no letters of interp for this.

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with no
mention of part 119.

--Gary

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:37:20 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with no
mention of part 119.

My vague understanding is that Part 119's purpose is to determine the
applicability of Part 135/121 to flights. So being exempted from Part
119 is to be exempted from Part 135/121.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:37:20 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does
exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope
also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with
no
mention of part 119.

My vague understanding is that Part 119's purpose is to determine the
applicability of Part 135/121 to flights.

Right, and that's reflected by 135.1a1, which explicitly brings part 135 to
bear on flights covered by part 119.

So being exempted from Part119
is to be exempted from Part 135/121.

Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of part 135
(just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights, irrespective of part
119.

The key point is that the criteria enumerated in a1 through a7 needn't apply
all at once (or else, for instance, only mail-delivery flights would be
covered by part 135, as per a3). The listed criteria are distinct ways for
135 to be applicable. So being covered by part 119 is one way for part 135
to be applicable (as per a1); but being a local sight-seeing flight is
another way (as per a5).

At least, that's how it's written. I have no clue how it works in practice.


--Gary

Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of
part 135 (just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights,
irrespective of part 119.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I don't buy it. Flight
instructors often take people for sight seeing tours, which is
permitted in Part 119. What sort of free lance flight instructor
would have a alcohol testing policy? Doesn't make sense.

If this were truly the case, the 119 exemption should be removed, and
135.1a5 would limit applicability to the drug testing stuff, and the
result would be the same.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of
part 135 (just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights,
irrespective of part 119.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I don't buy it. Flight
instructors often take people for sight seeing tours, which is
permitted in Part 119. What sort of free lance flight instructor
would have a alcohol testing policy? Doesn't make sense.

If you mean evidence as to what's done in practice, then no, I don't have
any. As I said, I'm only addressing what the regs say, not how the FAA
actually behaves, which I have little knowledge of. FAR 135.1a5, unlike
1a1, does not assert any contingency on part 119; that's my only point here.

Come to think of it, though, I do have one piece of anecdotal evidence, for
whatever it's worth. I've been told by a local flight school that the
reason the flight schools in the area all offer "introductory lessons", but
none offer sightseeing flights, is precisely to circumvent that part of the
regulations that would otherwise impose a drug-testing requirement.

If this were truly the case, the 119 exemption should be removed, and
135.1a5 would limit applicability to the drug testing stuff, and the
result would be the same.

It would be the same result only if there's no other consequence to falling
under part 119. I don't know if that's the case.

--Gary

I did some scanning of the 14 CFR Preambles, which make it clear that
you're right on this. An excerpt:

-----------snip----------------

The FAA does not agree that some or all commercial sightseeing flights
in airplanes or rotorcraft should be excluded from application of the
rule. Commercial sightseeing operations usually involve members of the
general public who have paid for a ride in an airplane or rotorcraft.
For purposes of the antidrug rule, the FAA has determined that the
safety implications of such operations are comparable to that of other
operations that routinely involve carriage of passengers. These
passengers should be given the protection inherent in other
passenger-carrying operations for compensation or hire that have an
approved antidrug program, without regard to size or scope of the
operations or the number of flights per year a particular operator
might conduct.

-----------snip----------------

Cool, thanks for digging that up.

--Gary

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
I did some scanning of the 14 CFR Preambles, which make it clear that
you're right on this. An excerpt:

-----------snip----------------

The FAA does not agree that some or all commercial sightseeing flights
in airplanes or rotorcraft should be excluded from application of the
rule. Commercial sightseeing operations usually involve members of the
general public who have paid for a ride in an airplane or rotorcraft.
For purposes of the antidrug rule, the FAA has determined that the
safety implications of such operations are comparable to that of other
operations that routinely involve carriage of passengers. These
passengers should be given the protection inherent in other
passenger-carrying operations for compensation or hire that have an
approved antidrug program, without regard to size or scope of the
operations or the number of flights per year a particular operator
might conduct.

-----------snip----------------