I must admit that I am lost. I don't have my CPL yet (maybe that's why I don't know this stuff), but I don't see the problem with the initial question. Why would a CPL holder not be able to charge for his services? Why does it matter who supplies the plane?

Am I to understand that when I get my CPL, it would be illegal for me to charge my friends for a flight out to the Bahamas? I thought the cost sharing restriction was limited to PPL holders?

I think I'm missing something fairly big here. Would anybody be kind enough to educate me?

 

Sure. What you are probably missing is understanding that that there are levels of regulation.

There is a difference between a commercial =pilot= and a commercial =operator=. The basic difference is that, as a commercial pilot, you are allowed to be paid for your services as a pilot - being paid to fly.

But, the way the rules are set up, in order to provide air transportation services to others, you need to be a commercial =operator= and are subject to licensing and other requirements in parts of the FAR like 110, 135 and 121.

The rules get complicated, but the easiest way of describing the difference is that it's like the difference between being the bus driver and the bus company. The driver provides services as a driver and all he needs is a commercial drivers license; but the bus company, which is responsible for providing both bus and driver, has a whole separate set of regulations to deal with.

It's pretty much the same in flying. If you are going to transport paying members of the public or their cargo, the FAA wants you to meet more requirements that just showing you were able to pilot a Cutlass or Arrow during a simple checkride. It's going to want drug-testing programs, restrictions on the kind of weather you can fly in, minimum experience requirements, etc.

And just like the bus analogy, the difference usually comes down to whether you are just providing your services as a pilot (the driver) or you are also providing the airplane. And it doesn't make any difference if it's only one pilot with one airplane that he rents from an FBO or FedEx or United Airlines.

Your regulatory starting point is FAR 119.1. It starts out by saying that it sets out rules for acting as an "air carrier" or a "commercial operator" (as opposed to just as a pilot). If you go back to FAR 1.1, you'll see that a "commercial operator" is nothing more than "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..."

And then, in 119.1(e) it lists a series of commercial operations that do =not= require an operator certificate.

Like I said, not the easiest to understand and fortunately it's not gone into very much depth on the knowldge test or checkrides (most DEs don't really understand it that well), but if you try to keep the difference between being a paid pilot and being a paid operator in mind, you'll have a start on understanding it.

 

Welcome to APC NoyGonnaDoIt!

Thanks for the very detailed answer. Let me see if I understand this properly.

If I go to the FBO (as a CPL) and rent a plane, and charge somebody $150 an hour (plane cost+my fee), I am a commercial operator

but,

If somebody rents the plane, and I collect $50 an hour (as a CPL), I'm merely a commercial pilot

So the difference comes down to who provides the airplane? If I provide it, it's illegal, but if the pax provide it, then all is well?

 

Yes.

Close. NoyGonnaDoIt did a good job laying it out. In the first case you would be a commerical pilot "holding out" your services and face additional regulatory requirements. The FBO won't rent you the airplane anyway.

The second depends on how the pax obtained the aircraft. If he went out and bought it or lease it, and hired you to fly it, then that would be private carriage. Assuming the insurance company, leasing company, bank, or whomever really owned the airplane approved you, you would be fine. However, if you started to then use that experience to begin marketing yourself to other private owners, ie, "holding out" as a pilot for hire, trying to fly for several different owners at the same time, the issue starts to get gray again. The FAA gets very concerned and restrictive when an individual commercial pilot with very little experience begins flying potentially unsuspecting people around the sky. That's why the list of exceptions is detailed in 119.1(e)(1)-(10) and why almost all "wet-ticket" commercial pilots end up building time through one of those activities, like flight instructing (as a CFI), banner towing, ferrying airplanes, etc.

 

Thanks for the help. I'll obviously need to examine the FAR's very closely when I start to prepare for my CPL.

 

When you get a moment take a look at the following in your FAR/AIM:

Part 1.1 and the definition for "Commercial Operator", 119.1 Applicability, definition for "On-demand operations" in 119.3, and then 119.21(a)(5) which assigns on-demand operations to part 135.

 

I don't think that's correct.

If the aircraft owner went out and bought or leased an airplane and hired you to fly it him, his family, company personnel or guests around at no charge to them, that would be a straight Part 91 operation and you would simply be exercising your privileges as a commercial pilot.

And I think that it's perfectly within the rules for a commercial pilot to hold himself out to act as a pilot for a number of aircraft owners, like those who advertise ferrying services. Ferry Pilots For Hire

That's straight Part 91 stuff, not "carriage" of any kind, no operating certificate required, and perfectly ok to advertise.

"Private carriage" is a funny concept. As defined by the FAA, it just means transporting persons or property for compensation but without holding out availability to the general public (FAR 119.3). It's still a commercial operation (there's even a Part 135 private carriage operating certificate), just of a different type.


Thanks. I recently came across a mention of this forum and thought I'd check it out.

Yes, sort of. Keep in mind that there's a policy behind these rules that goes back to at least the stagecoach - they want to make sure that those who serve the public (who are not expected to judge qualifications for themselves) meet higher standards, and they want to protect those who have made the time, energy, and $$ committment to meet those standards. There are always those who try to sneak around the rules, so the lines between what is ok and what is not is a bit fuzzy.

That means WEACLRS is absolutely right that a lot depends on how the non-pilot got the airplane. What it usually comes down to is, Did the pax =really= provide it or was the pilot part of the deal? The pax owning ot lon-term leasing the airplane is easy; the pax renting the airplane is iffy - I don't know too many FBOs (or their insurers) that will rent an airplane to a non-pilot.

 

My understanding is this is Private Carriage and would operate under part 91. Am I wrong? If it was Private Carriage in a large or turbine multiengine aircraft it would operate under part 91 subpart F. If it was Private Carriage in an airplane with pax seats of 20 or more or a payload capacity of 6000 lbs or more, then it would be governed by part 121, 125, or 135.

Ferry services are exempted in 119.1 for aircraft under 20 seats or 6000 lbs payload. They would be a part 91 operation. You can "hold out" as a ferry pilot, just as you could a banner tow pilot or, with a CFI, a flight instructor.

Here is the advisory circular that talks to Common Carriage vs. Private Carriage. It's a little dated and the specific regulation numbers that are quoted have changed, but the discussion stills holds. It talks about the FAA's point of view when it comes to "holding out".

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu.../AC120-12A.pdf

The statement in the circular about private carriage that has gotten pilots into trouble is "...Private carriage for hire is carriage for one or several selected customers, generally on a long-term basis. The number of contracts must not be too great, otherwise it implies a willingness to make a contract with anybody..."

Good conversation. Thanks.

 

Yes the AC is seriously out of date.

You also point out the primary problem with the "small private carriage as Part 91" issue. They probably exist, but I have never seen an FAA Legal opinion or NTSB case that looked at one and said, "yup, that was private carriage." Even with small group of customers, the question becomes, "oh yeah, so how did they hear about you?

Ferrying and some of the other 119.1(j) exemptions are interesting since many of them don't seem fit the definition of carriage to begin with (carrying persons or property for compensation or hire). I sometimes get the feeling that they are there (a) mostly to avoid questions or (b) to cover situations in which passengers or property are being carried.

Examples of both points:

(a) Ferrying Part 135 and even Part 121 aircraft is a Part 91 operation (you can see a lot of FAA Legal opinions, mostly on duty hour issues, that refer to it), even though, because of seats or weight, they are not covered by 119.1(j)

(b) The aerial photography exemption only needs to apply when the airplane is being used as a platform for the folks taking the pictures (carrying persons or property for compensation); if the pilot is the photographer, it's not even a commercial operation to begin with. The pilot doesn't even need a commercial certificate - a private certificate is sufficient.

This is a really interesting topic. I guess it's why I'm making my first posts here in it.

 

This is an interesting topic and has seen the light at APC extensively in the past. Some of the higher profile folks here carried a long and thoughtful thread about this in late 2005. It is actually one of the reasons I joined APC, these mutually respectful debates aimed at deeper understanding. I would dig up the thread but server changes have made that kind of hard to do.

FAA law for the regulation of the commercial aviation transportation industry is administrative law; meaning that it differs from other types of law in that the FAA generally has the right to decide what it wants a law to say and do. Very rarely do the non-FAA courts get involved and when they do it is because there was a bitter dispute over a punitive action.

On a practical level, as long as you stick to the standard paths for time building as a new commercial pilot you will rarely encounter any trouble over how you are using your certificates.