The problem with this flow chart is the location of the “operational control” question. That should be the second question after “compensation or hire”. The rest of the flow chart assumes that you are the pilot AND provide the airplane. It’s important to note that Holding Out is a primary differentiator between common carriage and private carriage. BOTH of which require a 119 Cert. The current state of the flow chart gives in to the common misunderstanding that a Commercial PILOT cannot hold out. A PILOT can “hold out” their piloting services/capabilities. A CARRIER cannot hold out unless they have a 119 cert approving 121 or 135 operations.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that was struggling to reconcile this chart. This issue you point out also incorrectly leads to the scenario whereby this chart allows for the pilot to hold out, not retain operational control and still operate the flight carrying persons or property under Part 91. This outcome is clearly not legal and the operation would need a 121 or 135 certificate. Let me know if I’m missing something here.
@@WilliamDavis-yk8xy You are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services", but nothing else. You cannot be offering to transport people or property while holding out however. And this chart is wrong imo because it says you HAVE TO hold out in order to be paid to carry people under part 91...untrue. If another person is providing the aircraft and is the "operator" and takes responsibility for the flight, it doesn't matter whether you are holding out or not (but if you are, it can only be for "pilot services) and you can legally perform that flight and be paid to do so. The operator just can't be paid to be transporting whoever or whatever is onboard that aircraft while you are the pilot (although you as the pilot may not be told this and could cause some issues).
I have been studying part 119.1 for a while now and this is by far the best explanation I have ever seen. Most definitely a video I will be recommending to every commercial student of mine in the future. Thank you so much for your amazing help in explaining the confusing world of the FAA.
FAA published AC 61-142 Sharing Expenses in 2020. It's a good summary, with examples, of when private pilots can share expenses with passengers. The AC also helps explain the key terms "holding out" and "common purpose."
Glad I found this channel. I almost had my commercial last year but life blew up on me so I had to stop before my test and checkride. I plan to go back and finish it very soon and it's so nice to get some good refresh points and this helps me learn so much more than just those boring videos from the big chain companies.
WOW. I have been meeting ground instructors and even they don't have a clear understanding of this but this video and the graph is such a savior. Thank you so much
Thank you so much. Reading through the regs and whatnot helps but doesn’t clarify this topic as much as you did. I am in my commercial training and this really dumbed it down for me. Thank you a lot!
Hey guys! First of all great video really helped me fill in a lot of blanks I was having. Can you explain why if not holding out, not in operational control, and under 20 seat/6K pounds why you can’t operate under part 91. I see where it says that in 119.23 where it is under 135 but the circular seems to lead me to think otherwise. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!
You can. There is an exception carved out that the visual aid doesn't address relating to 119.23(b). If you re-read that reg you'll note the words "except as provided in [91.501(b)]".
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4): "Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist. For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7): "The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;" For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
The only way an operation where you as a commercial pilot receive compensation under part 91 is when the customer either owns or rents the plane you will be flying. At that point they have operational control over that airplane. Also there is no real profit being made so no operational cert is required and is part 91.
The one part I am missing here is what if you are not holding out, but also do not have operational control? I.e. the classic "Passenger owns a plane and asks me to fly him/her somewhere once or twice." In the chart in the video, it seems like if you answer "no" to holding out, you go straight across to the Pax Seats question and either get dumped on Part 135 or 125, which if you do not have operational control, sounds wrong.
My friend did this for a while for a family with a 182. I think this falls under the “willingness to do so category” of holding out. Since holding out is the more legally challenging or tricky option and still leads to part 91, I don’t see why not holding out would be any different.
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4): "Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist. For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7): "The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;" For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
I have one confusing point however, Private carriage still seems to require a part 135 even if you're not holding out. How do you become a part 91 "contract carrier" with a few clients? and no holding out.
There’s a lot of gray area when it comes to Commercial Pilot privileges and limitations. So much gray area, that a lot of pilot examiners themselves don’t know what’s legal.
Really enjoyed the video but there is one part of the flow chart that does not make sense. If you answer "no" to holding out, and "no" to the payload question, why would the flow chart not lead to part 91?
If you are NOT holding out and if passengers count is less than 20 and if its less than 6000 lbs, why is it a part 135 operation? Shouldn't it be part 91 instead?
I think one thing he forgot to add in the vid is that any time someone is the PIC (provides the crew) AND provides the aircraft (operational control), you’ll need to comply with 135 and have an Op Certificate. Holding out or not, if whoever has Operational Control is using the flight for a profit, an Op Cert is required. That’s why if a company has their OWN aircraft and hires you to fly them to other job sites, for example, neither the pilot OR the company needs a Op Cert because the flight itself is not profiting the company and the pilot (although receiving compensation) does not have operational control.
You're correct for most normal scenarios. The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4): "Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist. For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7): "The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;" For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
Hey I enjoy your videos keep going. Can you do a video on the best way to transition from Faa charts to Jeppesen Charts, no has really made a video on how to understand Jeppesen charts and I think it will help pilots alot. Thank you
During my IFR training on my cross country with my CFII in the right seat, I experienced about 30 min of actual with an ILS approach down to near minimums. I got spacial disorientation and got nauseous. Had I been alone, I'm sure I would have been a smoking hole in the ground. I had to ask my CFII to take over on the approach. I am about to take my checkride, but I'm afraid to fly in the clouds once I pass.
I hear you it's unsettling for sure. We do our best to simulate it with foggles or something similar, but the world gets very small inside the soup like that. Spring time's coming up which is perfect IFR season, so grab an instructor or experienced pilot and get some practice in it gets easier!
@@flightinsight9111 I'm supposed to take my checkride when our club plane gets out of annual. I don't think I'll have any trouble passing it, but I'm afraid to fly in the soup. I hope I can get past it. By the way, you have the best IFR training videos I've ever seen.
I got my rating and fly in it all the time. If you don’t fly in it after you got the rating what was the point. All that work to learn to just throw it away.
So like EVERY other job field (healthcare, chef, chauffeur, etc…), who can be hired as a private contractor can get paid, it if you wanted a private pilot to fly your private jet that you own, you can’t pay someone to do their job…? That makes zero sense.
If you’re taking money away from any 135 or airline then you can’t do it…. Unless it’s not enough for them to get in on the game and make a profit. That’s all you need to know.
Confused with the flow chart. If holding out but not in operational control, that case is 91, understood. But If not holding out then there's no path to 91 from there?
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4): "Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist. For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7): "The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;" For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
Aerial photography is covered under 119.1(e), so you might not need a carrier certificate, but my reading is that you're still being compensated for flying, and would need a commercial ticket. Again seek out an aviation lawyer for specifics or research if there's been a legal interpretation for this. We're just CFIs here!
Thank you for this fantastic video! Question though - if I am NOT holding out (i.e. a friend asked me to take her to Martha's Vineyard, so I was not advertising this flight at all), and I have a small plane, is this really considered Part 135? I thought all 3 of the questions in the "Common Carriage" box had to be answered with "yes" for it to be considered something beyond Part 91 with a commercial certificate.
Any regulations originating from the government are hopelessly confiusing. Make money with a business...totally illegal. Make money using an aircraft in the course of doing business, like a traveling salesman using the aircraft to see clients, or real estate agent showing properties to clients...totally legal. Only a government could make regulations that confusing.
Yes. There's no requirement to have a class 1 or 2 medical to get your commercial license, but you can't exercise many of the privileges without a class 1 or 2.
What if my plane is registered and belongs to a holding company (of which I'm the 100% shareholder), and that holding company charges $1000 an hour to hire the plane, and I ask my passenger to pay the 'pro rata' rate of $500 an hour?
Not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but this smells like a wet lease where you retain full operational control, if the FAA were to look into the arrangement.
I guess the next question is what do you want to do with that airplane. There are lots of federal regulations regarding how that commercial operator gets paid. Which one do you want to fall under?
If I have the appropriate medical and get my commercial as a VFR only, then later get my IFR rating, do I need to retake the commercial checkride? Or does it automatically default to commercial IFR privileges? I realize that's backward from how 99% of pilots do it, but I'm just curious.
It really does seem like the FAA's approach to "protecting the public" is to make piloting so expensive that only the corporations they're going to work for after retiring can afford to do it.
So, according to this flow chart, one can operate under common carriage just fine under part 91 and without any air carrier certificate as long as they dry lease the aircraft...
my guy just want to tell you how much I appreciate your videos. in December I passed my rotor instrument and your IFR cheatsheet was extremely helpful and only required minimal tweaking to be relevant for my mins. Today I passed my commercial check ride and this was the last video I reviewed. The only suggestion I would make is adding some info about private carriage exceptions to this cheat sheet but beautifully put together
If you fly from Martha’s Vineyard with another person and this person pays for your dinner, you are not being compensated for the flight, you are being compensated for the dinner. Is this still considered compensation and if so, is there realistically any way the FAA could find out someone else than yourself paid for that dinner?
It is still considered compensation under the same standard as a bribe: What matters is not whether or not you are being compensated for the flight, but the _appearance_ of being compensated for the flight (with bribery, whether or not there is wrongdoing is irrelevant; what matters is the _appearance_ of wrongdoing). Now, with that said, the next question is whether or not the FAA has to _prove_ that the dinner is compensation for the flight, and I don't have the answer to that, but my guess would be probably not: after all, they happily handed an infraction to Trent Palmer for flying recklessly when it was clear to any reasonable person that he was evaluating the safety of a proposed landing zone. Is there a way for them to realistically find out about it? Unless they are following you, or unless someone reports the dinner, probably not? Just bear in mind that if they do find out and take action against you, you will have _no_ recourse: They're a government agency.
I believe you have some incorrect information in this video but correct me if I’m wrong. If I fly under private carriage under what you call a dry lease I can fly under part 91. (Ex: if a buddy owns his own airplane and ask if I am a pilot and can fly him I can do so because I was not holding out and it’s a part 91 operation not 135) Your saying if Im under private carriage and flying a small aircraft that it is a part 135 operation and that’s incorrect.
I see what you are talking about in 119.23 however, AC 120-12A states “private carriage may be conducted under FAR parts 125 or 91”. These directly contradict each other.
@@wired2drone38 AC 120-12A appears to be pretty outdated. (1986) It references 91.181 and 91 subpart D and these don't even have anything to do with this stuff anymore. 91.181 is course to be flown in IFR... If you're flying with a dry lease you're likely just providing "pilot services" and you are probably not engaging in private carriage at all. The entity who has operational control (your buddy who provided the plane) needs to be concerned with what kind of compensation THEY are gaining from this operation. If it is incidental to their business and the airplane has a capacity of
I’m getting lost at the “holding out” box. If I’m not holding out, but I am getting compensated and carrying persons from place to place, my only options are to operate under part 125 or 135? Couldn’t I operate under part 91 if I do not have operational control and am not holding out? Thanks for any clarification.
if i am in a flying club and a family member is not, would they be allowed to pay me to fly them somewhere? it sounds like in this case, id have operational control and would need a part 135 certificate, but can someone confirm this?
@@flightinsight9111 The other arrow points towards YES this IS common carriage. In this case then you would absolutely need a certificate but yet the arrows point toward no? This is extremely confusing.
This is, by far, the clearest explanation of an extremely confusing subject that I have heard. The decision tree really simplifies it. Well done!
Thanks, John I'm glad to hear it. There are little things left out here and there, but there always are when dealing with aviation law!
Agreed
Agreed
Bravo! And thank you! I’m working on my Commercial SEL now and this really helped!
Still extremely confusing
I have a stage check today and I still don’t know how to explain this 🤣
I love the government
Always say you’d ask the FSDO before they start asking
even if you think you know the answers
@@thenelsonbruhs722this is the way😂
The problem with this flow chart is the location of the “operational control” question. That should be the second question after “compensation or hire”. The rest of the flow chart assumes that you are the pilot AND provide the airplane.
It’s important to note that Holding Out is a primary differentiator between common carriage and private carriage. BOTH of which require a 119 Cert.
The current state of the flow chart gives in to the common misunderstanding that a Commercial PILOT cannot hold out. A PILOT can “hold out” their piloting services/capabilities. A CARRIER cannot hold out unless they have a 119 cert approving 121 or 135 operations.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that was struggling to reconcile this chart. This issue you point out also incorrectly leads to the scenario whereby this chart allows for the pilot to hold out, not retain operational control and still operate the flight carrying persons or property under Part 91. This outcome is clearly not legal and the operation would need a 121 or 135 certificate. Let me know if I’m missing something here.
@@WilliamDavis-yk8xy You are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services", but nothing else. You cannot be offering to transport people or property while holding out however. And this chart is wrong imo because it says you HAVE TO hold out in order to be paid to carry people under part 91...untrue. If another person is providing the aircraft and is the "operator" and takes responsibility for the flight, it doesn't matter whether you are holding out or not (but if you are, it can only be for "pilot services) and you can legally perform that flight and be paid to do so. The operator just can't be paid to be transporting whoever or whatever is onboard that aircraft while you are the pilot (although you as the pilot may not be told this and could cause some issues).
I have been studying part 119.1 for a while now and this is by far the best explanation I have ever seen. Most definitely a video I will be recommending to every commercial student of mine in the future. Thank you so much for your amazing help in explaining the confusing world of the FAA.
FAA published AC 61-142 Sharing Expenses in 2020. It's a good summary, with examples, of when private pilots can share expenses with passengers. The AC also helps explain the key terms "holding out" and "common purpose."
Thanks, that circular had some good insight.
Glad I found this channel. I almost had my commercial last year but life blew up on me so I had to stop before my test and checkride. I plan to go back and finish it very soon and it's so nice to get some good refresh points and this helps me learn so much more than just those boring videos from the big chain companies.
Going thru that exact scenario rn im reviewing this and im having a dreadful experience woop
WOW. I have been meeting ground instructors and even they don't have a clear understanding of this but this video and the graph is such a savior. Thank you so much
Thank you so much. Reading through the regs and whatnot helps but doesn’t clarify this topic as much as you did. I am in my commercial training and this really dumbed it down for me. Thank you a lot!
Hey guys! First of all great video really helped me fill in a lot of blanks I was having. Can you explain why if not holding out, not in operational control, and under 20 seat/6K pounds why you can’t operate under part 91. I see where it says that in 119.23 where it is under 135 but the circular seems to lead me to think otherwise. Some clarification would be greatly appreciated!
You can. There is an exception carved out that the visual aid doesn't address relating to 119.23(b).
If you re-read that reg you'll note the words "except as provided in [91.501(b)]".
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4):
"Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation".
So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist.
For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7):
"The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;"
For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
The only way an operation where you as a commercial pilot receive compensation under part 91 is when the customer either owns or rents the plane you will be flying. At that point they have operational control over that airplane. Also there is no real profit being made so no operational cert is required and is part 91.
Great video! Thanks for getting this to us, commercial students.
The one part I am missing here is what if you are not holding out, but also do not have operational control? I.e. the classic "Passenger owns a plane and asks me to fly him/her somewhere once or twice." In the chart in the video, it seems like if you answer "no" to holding out, you go straight across to the Pax Seats question and either get dumped on Part 135 or 125, which if you do not have operational control, sounds wrong.
My friend did this for a while for a family with a 182. I think this falls under the “willingness to do so category” of holding out. Since holding out is the more legally challenging or tricky option and still leads to part 91, I don’t see why not holding out would be any different.
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4):
"Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation".
So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist.
For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7):
"The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;"
For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
I have one confusing point however, Private carriage still seems to require a part 135 even if you're not holding out.
How do you become a part 91 "contract carrier" with a few clients? and no holding out.
Amazing video. I've watched this four times. Thank you.
There’s a lot of gray area when it comes to Commercial Pilot privileges and limitations. So much gray area, that a lot of pilot examiners themselves don’t know what’s legal.
Yeah I have a gut feeling my DPE wont really go in the areas that were included during the later portions of the video haha
Great video but keep in mind that 91.501 is for large/jet aircraft only.
Really enjoyed the video but there is one part of the flow chart that does not make sense.
If you answer "no" to holding out, and "no" to the payload question, why would the flow chart not lead to part 91?
I have the same question
AWESOME VIDEO THIS IS AMAZING FOR MY COMMERCIAL CHECKRIDE LOL THANK YOU
Thank you so much for these videos. They help so much.
If you are NOT holding out and if passengers count is less than 20 and if its less than 6000 lbs, why is it a part 135 operation? Shouldn't it be part 91 instead?
I think one thing he forgot to add in the vid is that any time someone is the PIC (provides the crew) AND provides the aircraft (operational control), you’ll need to comply with 135 and have an Op Certificate. Holding out or not, if whoever has Operational Control is using the flight for a profit, an Op Cert is required. That’s why if a company has their OWN aircraft and hires you to fly them to other job sites, for example, neither the pilot OR the company needs a Op Cert because the flight itself is not profiting the company and the pilot (although receiving compensation) does not have operational control.
You're correct for most normal scenarios.
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4):
"Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation".
So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist.
For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7):
"The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;"
For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
Wonderful video and review! I will be starting my commercial training this month! This was very helpful. Thx !
Thank you for clarification!
Hey I enjoy your videos keep going.
Can you do a video on the best way to transition from Faa charts to Jeppesen Charts, no has really made a video on how to understand Jeppesen charts and I think it will help pilots alot. Thank you
Check it out here! ruclips.net/video/ecoO56yuI7M/видео.html
During my IFR training on my cross country with my CFII in the right seat, I experienced about 30 min of actual with an ILS approach down to near minimums. I got spacial disorientation and got nauseous. Had I been alone, I'm sure I would have been a smoking hole in the ground. I had to ask my CFII to take over on the approach. I am about to take my checkride, but I'm afraid to fly in the clouds once I pass.
I hear you it's unsettling for sure. We do our best to simulate it with foggles or something similar, but the world gets very small inside the soup like that. Spring time's coming up which is perfect IFR season, so grab an instructor or experienced pilot and get some practice in it gets easier!
@@flightinsight9111 I'm supposed to take my checkride when our club plane gets out of annual. I don't think I'll have any trouble passing it, but I'm afraid to fly in the soup. I hope I can get past it. By the way, you have the best IFR training videos I've ever seen.
I got my rating and fly in it all the time. If you don’t fly in it after you got the rating what was the point. All that work to learn to just throw it away.
@@adrianotravis6833 but if I'm dangerous, nothing is worth that.
So if I hold out to fly someone else’s plane (dry lease), then would I still need an operator cert for the holding out or no?
Thank you so much!
So like EVERY other job field (healthcare, chef, chauffeur, etc…), who can be hired as a private contractor can get paid, it if you wanted a private pilot to fly your private jet that you own, you can’t pay someone to do their job…? That makes zero sense.
Props… thank you sir.
Thanks!
Really helpful 👍🏼
You can tow gliders and get paid as a private pilot
How it works from dry lease perspective? I can dry lease and charge people and fly under part 91? I can’t find more reference how it really works
So you're saying you can practice common carriage with no operators cert under part 91 if you don't have operational control?
good video
If you’re taking money away from any 135 or airline then you can’t do it…. Unless it’s not enough for them to get in on the game and make a profit. That’s all you need to know.
So if I rent a Cessna and let my friend pay me I need 135?
love it!
Confused with the flow chart. If holding out but not in operational control, that case is 91, understood. But If not holding out then there's no path to 91 from there?
I was wondering the same thing
So essentially, a private carriage in a 172 would be conducted under part 135?
The chart isn't exactly clear enough for this. You can provide your pilot services, whether holding out or not (you are allowed to hold out for your "pilot services" only), if you are not the operator and the operator is not being paid to transport the property or passengers you are flying onboard the aircraft. See 91.501(b)(4):
"Flights conducted by the operator of an airplane for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation".
So long as the operator isn't being paid to have you fly these people, then you can legally perform the flight. However, the operator could've been paid without you the pilot knowing so that's another interesting twist.
For property, see when it's allowed via 91.501(b)(7):
"The carriage of property (other than mail) on an airplane operated by a person in the furtherance of a business or employment (other than transportation by air) when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, that business or employment and no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the carriage other than those specified in paragraph (d) of this section;"
For this, you can carry such property and be paid to do so, so long as the operator (person who hired you and would be providing the aircraft) is doing so in furtherance of his/her business or employment.
@@bulletbling what a stud
So what if I fly as a private pilot and while doing so I take aerial pictures and sell them back on the ground?
Aerial photography is covered under 119.1(e), so you might not need a carrier certificate, but my reading is that you're still being compensated for flying, and would need a commercial ticket. Again seek out an aviation lawyer for specifics or research if there's been a legal interpretation for this. We're just CFIs here!
Thank you for this fantastic video! Question though - if I am NOT holding out (i.e. a friend asked me to take her to Martha's Vineyard, so I was not advertising this flight at all), and I have a small plane, is this really considered Part 135? I thought all 3 of the questions in the "Common Carriage" box had to be answered with "yes" for it to be considered something beyond Part 91 with a commercial certificate.
I don’t believe that’s allowed. You can provide pilot but not aircraft and pilot.
You have operational control
You cannot provide the aircraft, but she can rent the aircraft for the flight and be the operator and you can be paid to fly her.
Any regulations originating from the government are hopelessly confiusing.
Make money with a business...totally illegal. Make money using an aircraft in the course of doing business, like a traveling salesman using the aircraft to see clients, or real estate agent showing properties to clients...totally legal. Only a government could make regulations that confusing.
Can you obtain a commercial license on a cl3 medical or BasicMed, and then not use it until you have a Cl1 or 2?
Yes. There's no requirement to have a class 1 or 2 medical to get your commercial license, but you can't exercise many of the privileges without a class 1 or 2.
What if my plane is registered and belongs to a holding company (of which I'm the 100% shareholder), and that holding company charges $1000 an hour to hire the plane, and I ask my passenger to pay the 'pro rata' rate of $500 an hour?
Not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but this smells like a wet lease where you retain full operational control, if the FAA were to look into the arrangement.
I guess the next question is what do you want to do with that airplane. There are lots of federal regulations regarding how that commercial operator gets paid. Which one do you want to fall under?
If I have the appropriate medical and get my commercial as a VFR only, then later get my IFR rating, do I need to retake the commercial checkride? Or does it automatically default to commercial IFR privileges? I realize that's backward from how 99% of pilots do it, but I'm just curious.
No you don’t. You can do them in either order.
It really does seem like the FAA's approach to "protecting the public" is to make piloting so expensive that only the corporations they're going to work for after retiring can afford to do it.
THANK YOU GUYS, SHIT !
So basically, you can NEVER fly for hire out of your own airplane unless you have some sort of operating certificate?
For the most part, yeah. There may be exceptions, but I wouldn't bother.
So, according to this flow chart, one can operate under common carriage just fine under part 91 and without any air carrier certificate as long as they dry lease the aircraft...
my guy just want to tell you how much I appreciate your videos. in December I passed my rotor instrument and your IFR cheatsheet was extremely helpful and only required minimal tweaking to be relevant for my mins. Today I passed my commercial check ride and this was the last video I reviewed. The only suggestion I would make is adding some info about private carriage exceptions to this cheat sheet but beautifully put together
If you fly from Martha’s Vineyard with another person and this person pays for your dinner, you are not being compensated for the flight, you are being compensated for the dinner. Is this still considered compensation and if so, is there realistically any way the FAA could find out someone else than yourself paid for that dinner?
It is still considered compensation under the same standard as a bribe: What matters is not whether or not you are being compensated for the flight, but the _appearance_ of being compensated for the flight (with bribery, whether or not there is wrongdoing is irrelevant; what matters is the _appearance_ of wrongdoing).
Now, with that said, the next question is whether or not the FAA has to _prove_ that the dinner is compensation for the flight, and I don't have the answer to that, but my guess would be probably not: after all, they happily handed an infraction to Trent Palmer for flying recklessly when it was clear to any reasonable person that he was evaluating the safety of a proposed landing zone.
Is there a way for them to realistically find out about it? Unless they are following you, or unless someone reports the dinner, probably not? Just bear in mind that if they do find out and take action against you, you will have _no_ recourse: They're a government agency.
Just pay with cash xD
I believe you have some incorrect information in this video but correct me if I’m wrong. If I fly under private carriage under what you call a dry lease I can fly under part 91. (Ex: if a buddy owns his own airplane and ask if I am a pilot and can fly him I can do so because I was not holding out and it’s a part 91 operation not 135) Your saying if Im under private carriage and flying a small aircraft that it is a part 135 operation and that’s incorrect.
Check 119.23 for this distinction.
I see what you are talking about in 119.23 however, AC 120-12A states “private carriage may be conducted under FAR parts 125 or 91”. These directly contradict each other.
@@wired2drone38 AC 120-12A appears to be pretty outdated. (1986) It references 91.181 and 91 subpart D and these don't even have anything to do with this stuff anymore. 91.181 is course to be flown in IFR...
If you're flying with a dry lease you're likely just providing "pilot services" and you are probably not engaging in private carriage at all. The entity who has operational control (your buddy who provided the plane) needs to be concerned with what kind of compensation THEY are gaining from this operation. If it is incidental to their business and the airplane has a capacity of
This is a huge help. Walking me through the graphic step by step made things so much clearer
Good luck on the checkride!
This graphic is incorrect
Please explain
Very good explanation, thank u sir
Is there a somewhere we can get the flow chart in an electronic version? Thank you in advance
send me an email at training@flight-insight.com and I'll send you a pdf
Awesome explanation! This helped me understand this subject a lot more as I am going through my commercial training! Thanks!
I’m getting lost at the “holding out” box. If I’m not holding out, but I am getting compensated and carrying persons from place to place, my only options are to operate under part 125 or 135? Couldn’t I operate under part 91 if I do not have operational control and am not holding out? Thanks for any clarification.
if i am in a flying club and a family member is not, would they be allowed to pay me to fly them somewhere? it sounds like in this case, id have operational control and would need a part 135 certificate, but can someone confirm this?
Question, if you are willing to hold out but you offer a dry service, no operational control you can still operate at part 91?
This is an amazing video, thank you! CME checkride comming soon so this is great review!
Round 17 let's go!
Thank you so much ❤❤❤
Hey great explanation. I do have one question about the "Yes" arrow between "Pax seats
Sure! It's actually a relatively recent change as you used to be able to do non common
@@flightinsight9111 Got it. Thanks!
@@flightinsight9111 The other arrow points towards YES this IS common carriage. In this case then you would absolutely need a certificate but yet the arrows point toward no? This is extremely confusing.