Flying Freight / Cargo for hire???

"Mark S Conway" wrote in message

WHAT'S THE DEAL...

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

You simply don't understand the purpose and utility of the FARs. In
addition to regulating air transportation and training, the FARs are
designed such that any pilot, at any time, can be found to have been in
violation of some regulation, somewhere. This little feature has been found
by the FAA to be very useful from time to time over the years.

John

Thou speakest the truth.

If you fly, you break rules on every flight.

Big John

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:50:04 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Mark S Conway" wrote in message

WHAT'S THE DEAL...

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

You simply don't understand the purpose and utility of the FARs. In
addition to regulating air transportation and training, the FARs are
designed such that any pilot, at any time, can be found to have been in
violation of some regulation, somewhere. This little feature has been found
by the FAA to be very useful from time to time over the years.

Mark,
I'll try to stir things up.

If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.

In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
risks, and the general public is not put at risk.

Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
(fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
stay part 91.

As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
part 135.

Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
certificate....

Mitch....
My wife owns the airplane in a leasing company / corporation.
I rent it from the leasing co, to commute to work, etc....
Is that enough separation?

Mark



"N7155A" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I'll try to stir things up.

If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.

In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
risks, and the general public is not put at risk.

Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
(fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
stay part 91.

As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
part 135.

Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
certificate....

Mark,
The bad news here is "YOU rent it". If the customer rents the plane,
then you are probably ok. The customer (by directly renting the
plane) is intimately familiar with the risks involved and does not
need the additional 135 supervision.

If a customer calls you and you supply both airplane and pilot - it
looks like part 135; If you supply airplane and Pilot, the you are
making the risk decision for the customer and the FAA will impose part
135.

To be part 91, the company must arrange for the airplane and provide
the pilot. A freelance pilot who provides the airplane (by renting or
other) looks like 135.

I know an FBO that seems to be getting around this by signing long
term contracts with their customers. The contract specifies
operations to avoid 135 requirements. Each customer would have to
sign such a contract, and he has limited customers.

I read (probably urban legend) of a pilot who sold his services, and
his wife (under a rental company) rented the planes. This supposedly
drew FAA action. Someone could walk in and say, I want to go to XXX.
He would direct them to rent from his wife's company, and he flew
them. They paid two bills, one for pilot and one for airplane rental.
This was viewed as holding out.

Mitch – if the new sightseeing NOPR goes through, I may start on a 135
certificate.



"Mark S Conway" wrote in message news:ZNeYb.46867$uV3.95404@attbi_s51...
Mitch....
My wife owns the airplane in a leasing company / corporation.
I rent it from the leasing co, to commute to work, etc....
Is that enough separation?

Mark



"N7155A" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I'll try to stir things up.

If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.

In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
risks, and the general public is not put at risk.

Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
(fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
stay part 91.

As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
part 135.

Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
certificate....

"N7155A" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
The bad news here is "YOU rent it". If the customer rents the plane,
then you are probably ok. The customer (by directly renting the
plane) is intimately familiar with the risks involved and does not
need the additional 135 supervision.

If a customer calls you and you supply both airplane and pilot - it
looks like part 135; If you supply airplane and Pilot, the you are
making the risk decision for the customer and the FAA will impose part
135.

To be part 91, the company must arrange for the airplane and provide
the pilot. A freelance pilot who provides the airplane (by renting or
other) looks like 135.

I know an FBO that seems to be getting around this by signing long
term contracts with their customers. The contract specifies
operations to avoid 135 requirements. Each customer would have to
sign such a contract, and he has limited customers.

I read (probably urban legend) of a pilot who sold his services, and
his wife (under a rental company) rented the planes. This supposedly
drew FAA action. Someone could walk in and say, I want to go to XXX.
He would direct them to rent from his wife's company, and he flew
them. They paid two bills, one for pilot and one for airplane rental.
This was viewed as holding out.

Mitch - if the new sightseeing NOPR goes through, I may start on a 135
certificate.



"Mark S Conway" wrote in message
news:ZNeYb.46867$uV3.95404@attbi_s51...
Mitch....
My wife owns the airplane in a leasing company / corporation.
I rent it from the leasing co, to commute to work, etc....
Is that enough separation?

Mark



"N7155A" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I'll try to stir things up.

If you separate the piloting from the airplane rental/ownership, you
may be able to meet part 91. The company would need to own or rent
the plane, then hire you (or others) to pilot it.

In this case the company (your customer) is in direct control of the
risks, and the general public is not put at risk.

Now all your customers could go together to buy some airplanes
(fractional ownership), then each could hire pilots to fly them, and
stay part 91.

As soon as you provide both plane and pilot, you could be perceived as
part 135.

Mitch Williams - Considering a 135 single pilot operation
certificate....


Not an Urban Legend it was in AOPA's Mag or Flying a few months back. FAA
didn't buy it.