Flying Freight / Cargo for hire???

Uh, this guy I knew once flew up to Alaska and landed his airplane on
a private strip near a lake. The guy taking care of the closed hunting
lodge made a deal with him. If the pilot would go get some steaks and
beer, the caretaker would let him stay in the lodge for a couple of
nights. So he dutifully went back to the nearest town, loaded up on
beer and steak, and got to enjoy the lake and lodge.

I guess it was a commercial operation, but it sure wasn't part 135. In
some ways it was a humanitarian flight, as the caretaker was SICK of
eating trout and moose meat, but most of all he NEEDED beer. So
obviously there is THAT to consider as well. And after all, it WAS
Alaska. I hope the FAA understands these fine points, I'm sure I
don't.

Guys, this is crazy!!!!!

Now, i was told by a 135 operation here in Nantucket...
I fly from Cape Cod to Nantucket every day for work...
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!!!!
Or even select 5 people and whoever shows up that day .. fine...
But i cannot advertise or HOLD OUT.... just a select few....

WHAT'S THE DEAL...

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

Mark

"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

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

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!

You haven't even scratched the surface.

"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.

Doug wrote:

I hope the FAA understands these fine points, I'm sure I don't.

Just don't tell the FAA your friend's name.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

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....