Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-23-2011, 07:23 AM   #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
FlaZoomie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Lear & EMB-145
Posts: 77
Question Part 135 aircraft but with non-135 pilots

Trying to wrap by brain around the following:

Background:

Part 135 operation with one turbo prop, single pilot rated aircraft

Aircraft not owned by the 135 operator but has management agreement for 100% control of the aircraft. Owner not allowed to "fly" without permission from the 135.


Thoughts/question:

Can part 91 flights be conducted in the aircraft with pilots that are NOT on the 135 cert ?

For example, the owner wants to go on a trip and there is a non-135 rated pilot doing "contract flying" for the aircraft. 135 operator says this okay per their "management agreement" as they are still "controlling" the flight.

I disagree. What's to "protect" that the pilot "follows the rules of the GOM/OPSSPECS" if he/she has NOT gone thur 135 training, check ride, etc.

Trying to find FAR words to support my conclusion, which is the aircraft is on a 135 cert and therefor all crew for that aircraft must also be on the 135 cert even if doing 91 flying for the aircraft owner.

In other words, once 135, everything is 135 as it pertains to the crew used even for owner 91 flying....

FAR reference for this.....
FlaZoomie is offline  
Old 04-23-2011, 01:59 PM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
skydisaster's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: First Officer
Posts: 308
Default

I believe that this document help you to think through this topic. http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgorders.nsf/0/2cb5ef03329af90f862572600078650e/$FILE/N8000_347.pdf

To my knowledge, there is no FAR to prevent the scenario that you described, but it does fall under operational control restraints imposed by the certificate holder's Ops Specs. While it is perfectly permissible for a part 91 crew to fly the airplane for the owner, when the next 135 flight is flown conformity to 135 maintenance requirements must be established. The simplest way to address this issue is to always have the airplane by a 135 crew, but that is not actually a requirement.
skydisaster is offline  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:25 PM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 341
Default

This situation often plays out when a 135 aircraft is being sold or demoed to potential buyers, or even just after the prebuy before the OST form is filed and the sellers D085 is amended. Operational control still lies solely with the selling operator, yet part 91 flights will likely take place (either demo or acceptance) with the buyers own pilot(s) filling a seat.
PW305 is online now  
Old 04-23-2011, 06:24 PM   #4  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: 121 Right Seat
Posts: 43
Default Do you need an RVSM LOA for 91 ops?

If I have part 135 OpSpecs granting me RVSM authority, when I conduct Part 91 operations, am I also required to have obtained an LOA?

No, provided that:
1-The aircraft is operated under the operator name listed in the OpSpecs.
2-The flight is conducted in an area of operations listed in the OpSpecs.
3-The aircraft is operated under the conditions under which the OpSpecs were granted.
elssaw is offline  
Old 04-24-2011, 11:43 PM   #5  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
FlaZoomie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Lear & EMB-145
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skydisaster View Post
I believe that this document help you to think through this topic. http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgorders.nsf/0/2cb5ef03329af90f862572600078650e/$FILE/N8000_347.pdf

To my knowledge, there is no FAR to prevent the scenario that you described, but it does fall under operational control restraints imposed by the certificate holder's Ops Specs. While it is perfectly permissible for a part 91 crew to fly the airplane for the owner, when the next 135 flight is flown conformity to 135 maintenance requirements must be established. The simplest way to address this issue is to always have the airplane by a 135 crew, but that is not actually a requirement.
@skydisaster -->> thanks for the reference....
FlaZoomie is offline  
Old 04-24-2011, 11:54 PM   #6  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
FlaZoomie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Lear & EMB-145
Posts: 77
Default

@PW305 and elssaw --->>> thanks for the words/thoughts
FlaZoomie is offline  
Old 04-25-2011, 06:46 AM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
3XLoser's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: awkward
Posts: 239
Default

I've flown plenty of 91 legs for 135 operators, mostly repositioning flights that are not deadheads billable to the client (if a client pays for a round-trip charter consisting of a live leg, and a deadhead leg, I don't consider that deadhead to be 91, because the client paid for the leg, although it's empty). If the leg is truly 91, I don't see why the pilots should have to be 135 current. A trip for the owner is non-revenue flying, and the certificate holder (135) essentially becomes a management company if they retain operational control.
3XLoser is offline  
Old 04-25-2011, 07:00 AM   #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Coto Pilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 642
Default

When flying for commuters a long time ago that were operated under part 135, when the weather was below 135 to depart, it wasn't uncommon for them to cancel the flight and have you go under part 91.
Coto Pilot is offline  
Old 05-05-2011, 03:11 AM   #9  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 10
Default

We have owners fly their aircrafts that are part 135 all the time. There is no problem flying 91 with a 135 aircraft. The only thing that cant change is the maintenance. If the aircraft is part 135 you always have to adhere to the 135 maintenance regs.
Feenomm is offline  
Old 05-05-2011, 04:57 AM   #10  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 77
Default

It sounds like the 135 operation in question only has one aircraft. Based on if that is the case I think it really depends on how the "exclusive" lease agreement required by the FAA is setup between the owner and the 135 company. Is it a LLC (leasing company) that did not pay sales tax on the aircraft that owns the aircraft and is leasing the airplane exclusively to the 135 operation who is paying the owner back an hourly rate plus sales tax. If that is the case than technically the airplane is going to be operated by the 135 operation and the owner will more than likely be paying the 135 operation to operate the aircraft and pay the 135 operation for the use of pilot. In this case the aircraft would not be operated under part 91 rules and would be considered a charter flight even though the aircraft is technically owned by the passenger. This is a very grey area and more than likely the FAA would not enforce it but they could.

On the other hand if the operator operates multiple aircraft and has a non exclusive lease with the owner than there would be no issue with the owner using his airplane and contracting the pilot services through the operator. This would be a part 91 flight using a typical 91 management agreement. As previously stated after a 91 flight operated by the owner a 135 MX validation would be required. The only legs that require a 135 crew are those that are 135 legs. Technically you can exceed your flight time limitations as an example as long as it is on the last leg and a dh leg because you are now operating under part 91 rules which is not subject to duty flight time limitations.

I think the key issue that distinguishes this from most other situations is that the charter operator only has one aircraft and is required to have an exclusive lease in place. (Or legally should as per OpsSpec A008.)
dapper993 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passenger Planes Sit Idle Because No Pilots Want To Fly Them. Ellen Regional 82 12-17-2011 11:52 AM
MEH/F9/RAH/Lynx Proposals are now avail. YXnot Major 1077 02-18-2011 09:17 PM
Flying the MiG-23 ryan1234 Hangar Talk 8 04-02-2010 09:08 AM
Update: ExpressJet SkyWest meritflyer ExpressJet 70 06-12-2008 09:05 PM
American Eagle shedding senior pilots FDX aviator Cargo 2 08-09-2007 11:00 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:33 AM.