Flying Freight / Cargo for hire???

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..
I have read it. Now you go back and read carefully what I said.
"Soliciting to a small market" is what I said.

Actually, you wrote "no matter how small the market". It's to that that I
objected. Solicitation of business does not in and of itself imply "holding
out". It's true that most solicitation of business winds up being "holding
out", but if the market is small enough, and the solicitation directed
enough, the solicitation does not automatically create a situation of
"holding out".

Pete

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message
news:t3fWb.968$yE5.4525@attbi_s54...
[...]
I could get 3 other people, an electrician, a carpenter and a
plumber... and charge them $50.00 round trip everyday AND DO IT PART 91
!!!!!
Because i have chosen a select few people... i can do it!!!!
[...]
THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

Why? The regulations are (relatively) clear. There's no cut-and-dried
definition of "holding out", but one key component is how many people you're
doing business with, and another is what your relationship with them is
otherwise.

Note that it's not just a question of advertising. Your client list needs
to be small, and if your only contact with them is with respect to your
transportation contract, you may still be found to be holding out.

That said, if you're considering a particular kind of operation, I wouldn't
ask a neighboring Part 135 operator. Go to the FSDO, since they are the
people who are enforcing the rules in your area.

Pete

OK. So what if the tire company bought a 1/10th ownership of the
airplane...for an Apache that should be $5000 or so. The tire guy has
a legitimate, fractional ownership of the plane and hires the pilot to
fly the *tire companys* plane, which he also happens to own. I know
you can't get away with having Joe Customer rent a plen the Fred Pilot
owns then turn around and hire Fred Pilot to fly it, but what part
prevents Joe Customer from hiring Fred Pilot to fly a plane that Joe
Customer already owns part of? The tire guy would still save quite a
bit of money over the long run. Why would this be different from a
fractional ownership?

Cap


(Rick Durden) wrote in message om...
Mark,

What you described is a Part 135 compensation. You are being
compensated for flying and you don't meet one of the exceptions. It's
that simple. Believe me, this has all been tried before. If a person
pays to have cargo or people moved by airplane, the FAR and the NTSB's
interpretation of them have been consistent, it is a for-hire
operation and the person paying for the operation is entitled to a
much higher level of qualification for the operator he is paying than
normal Part 91 ops.

The sanction you face is suspension or revocation of your certificate
and/or a civil penalty (fine) for each and every infraction, at a max
of $1,100 per infraction which can be interpreted as every flight you
make.

If you want to carry cargo for hire, you are going to have to get a
135 air taxi certificate.

Otherwise, if you are making the flight and if you are paying for it,
you can carry stuff for a friend as a favor, but you cannot charge
anything for it.

This issue comes in front of the FAA all the time from pilots trying
to find a way to build time for less money and the pilots get hammered
each time.

All the best,
Rick

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:BCTVb.257698$I06.2780928@attbi_s01...
OK... I live on Cape Cod, and fly my Piper Apache to Nantucket Island
every day for work.
I'm a painting contractor, interior / exterior.....
A friend owns a quick lube / tire place.....
He said he paid the local airlines $25K last year in freight charges...
I said, how can i get a piece of that cake...
He said he would pay me $7.00 per tire to bring them over to him...
He did 2,000 tires last year, i'm thinking i could use the extra
$14,000.00..
Now, what do you guys think????

Mark

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:KE7Wb.271797$xy6.1381578@attbi_s02...

Brian, could you elaborate, please? I just re-read 119.1 and could not find
any statement restricting freight ops to commercial operators.

Well, the first half of the very first sentence says that the entire
Part 119 applies to this situation. 119.1(a) and 119.1(a)(1).

119.1 Applicability: (a) This part applies to each person operating or
intending to operate a civil aircraft (1) as an air carrier or
commercial operator, or both, in air commerce[.]

The operation described is that of a direct air carrier and commercial
operator, so this part applies. To see how it applies, just read the
rest of part 119.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ...
I was
commenting on Brien's (the post I was immediately following up)
odd statement that "Since the tire place does not own the aircraft, you would
be 'holding out to others.'" Which we would both agree isn't true.

That's a pretty common definition of holding out to others in other
contexts, but apparently not the one described in the advisory
circular, which I didn't realize. I stand corrected, and also agree
that it isn't true.

There are certain private carriages (larger aircraft) that must play the part 119 game, but in general no.

119.23(b) indicates that Mark would still have to play a large part of
the Part 119 and Part 135 game, i.e. be "certifiable" under part 119
and conduct operations in accordance with part 135 (including
limitations and qualifications). Is there another AC that I haven't
read that contradicts this? ;-)

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
Been a while, but maybe.....

1.1 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.

Hm, I'm confused. First of all, this says you have to be engaged in "air
commerce" to be a commercial operator. And 1.1 defines "air commerce" as
"interstate, overseas, or foreign", or mail transport, or navigation on
Federal airways. So if you stay within one state and avoid Federal airways,
then does that mean you're not a commercial operator, according to this
definition?

Secondly, why isn't a corporate pilot who transports company executives a
"commercial operator" by this defintion? (Provided that the pilot travels
between states or on airways, that is.) The definition says nothing about
who provides the plane or whether there's any holding out.

--Gary



91.501(b)

119.21(a)5

119.23(b)






"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Brian, could you elaborate, please? I just re-read 119.1 and could not
find
any statement restricting freight ops to commercial operators.

Thanks,
Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message

Hm, I'm confused. First of all, this says you have to be engaged in "air
commerce" to be a commercial operator. And 1.1 defines "air commerce" as
"interstate, overseas, or foreign", or mail transport, or navigation on
Federal airways. So if you stay within one state and avoid Federal
airways,
then does that mean you're not a commercial operator, according to this
definition?

that's a pointless question, in any practical application.


Secondly, why isn't a corporate pilot who transports company executives a
"commercial operator" by this defintion? (Provided that the pilot travels
between states or on airways, that is.) The definition says nothing about
who provides the plane or whether there's any holding out.

sigh... You're being argumentative, Gary.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Secondly, why isn't a corporate pilot who transports company executives
a
"commercial operator" by this defintion? (Provided that the pilot
travels
between states or on airways, that is.) The definition says nothing
about
who provides the plane or whether there's any holding out.

sigh... You're being argumentative, Gary.

Huh? Arguing with whom about what? I haven't even formed an opinion on the
matter. I'm just asking a straightforward question to try to understand the
FAA's definition.

--Gary

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:t3fWb.968$yE5.4525@attbi_s54...

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

You haven't even scratched the surface.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
Huh? Arguing with whom about what? I haven't even formed an opinion on
the
matter. I'm just asking a straightforward question to try to understand
the
FAA's definition.

OK, let me expand. When you're trying to ascertain or clarify a regulatory
circumstance in the FARs, and that circumstance is any more complicated
than, for example, the most rudimentary student pilot experience question,
then you most often have to interpret and construct your applicable guidance
using the appropriate references from several separate paragraphs and
sub-paragraphs of a section or Part, and occasionally from multiple Parts.
Thus my earlier reference to 1.1, 91.501(b), 119.21(a)5, and 119.23(b). I
don't even know if my references provide the correct answer -- just my guess
at the OP's query.

I thought you would have understood this already, and thus my suggestion of
argumentativeness when you implied that you expected a neat, complete
explanation and definition all within one paragraph. So sorry.