Commercial pilot regulations

[SuperPilot]

Can’t find any good info on this question. Any help is much appreciated!

 If say for example, a commercially rated pilot was asked to use their own airplane to pick up someone’s dog (without the person riding along) would it be legal for them to be compensated for that flight? 
 

[Planegary]

I don’t think I would like to be the guy that tries to explain this to the FAA. I believe that even the flights that move pets around are done as donations by donating flight expenses and pilot receiving satisfaction for compensation but no money but there are others here that can correct/clarify if I am wrong. 

[aviatoreb]

17 minutes ago, SuperPilot said:

Can’t find any good info on this question. Any help is much appreciated!

 If say for example, a commercially rated pilot was asked to use their own airplane to pick up someone’s dog (without the person riding along) would it be legal for them to be compensated for that flight? 
 

I would think that a dog is considered cargo as far as the FAA is concerned.  Ask yourself if a commercial pilot in a part 91 airplane is permitted to offer themselves for hire as a cargo operation for hire.

[N201MKTurbo]

What happens between friends isn’t the governments business.

[N201MKTurbo]

If you haul 3 dogs somewhere, can the dogs cover 3/4 of the fuel?

Does each dog require a seat? Or a seat belt?

Edited December 30, 2020 by N201MKTurbo

[Planegary]

What’s legal and what the government knows can be very different things :-)

 

[GeeBee]

47 minutes ago, SuperPilot said:

Can’t find any good info on this question. Any help is much appreciated!

 If say for example, a commercially rated pilot was asked to use their own airplane to pick up someone’s dog (without the person riding along) would it be legal for them to be compensated for that flight? 
 

It would be a cargo flight under Part 135 and would require a 135 operating certificate. The pilot would need to complete a 135 proficiency check as well as the airplane added to the operating certificate.

 

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

It would be a cargo flight under Part 135 and would require a 135 operating certificate. The pilot would need to complete a 135 proficiency check as well as the airplane added to the operating certificate.

 

Exactly.

[aviatoreb]

37 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

What happens between friends isn’t the governments business.

Well that is the answer to any rules we choose to break.  All is well and good, until there is a crash and either the insurance refuses to pay the grieving widows and/or the pilot is held resposible for running a renegade commercial operation.

[aviatoreb]

33 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If you haul 3 dogs somewhere, can the dogs cover 3/4 of the fuel?

Does each dog require a seat? Or a seat belt?

The time we moved a dozen chihuahua for Pilot's-n-paws - they all refused to wear seatbelts.  Every one of them.

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, Planegary said:

What’s legal and what the government knows can be very different things :-)

 

True. But since ignorance is not a defense anyway, it's probably best to try to understand a rule before deciding it's ok to break it.

[Planegary]

sorry I was trying rather unsuccessfully to be funny . 

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, SuperPilot said:

Can’t find any good info on this question.

Other than the rules and other material covering the one and only regulatory knowledge area specific to commercial pilot applicants (all the rest is just a repeat of the private)?

Basic Rule Simplified: Unless it is covered by the FAR Part 119 list of activities a commercial pilot may do without an operating certificate or by some other specific regulation (such as exercising a 61.113 private pilot privilege), a commercial pilot may not carry persons or property for hire in an aircraft provided by the pilot.

[midlifeflyer]

6 minutes ago, Planegary said:

sorry I was trying rather unsuccessfully to be funny . 

So was I. That line usually gets a laugh.

[jlunseth]

11 hours ago, SuperPilot said:

Can’t find any good info on this question. Any help is much appreciated!

 If say for example, a commercially rated pilot was asked to use their own airplane to pick up someone’s dog (without the person riding along) would it be legal for them to be compensated for that flight? 
 

Simple answer, no. To use your own aircraft for commercial purposes requires having a commercial operator's certificate as well as a commercial pilot certificate, and the aircraft also would have to be operated under commercial regs., such as can't be over TBO, must have 100 hour inspections.  The worst part of the commercial operator's certificate is that you need commercial insurance to operate.  When you filled out your insurance application you were undoubtedly asked questions about flight for hire and said no. If you conduct a flight for hire and have an accident, and you don't have commercial insurance, you don't have any insurance at all. You could not even split the cost of that flight with the dog owner, because to split cost there must be a common purpose and the only purpose is flying his dog for him.

Bad news, sorry. 

[GeeBee]

12 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

What happens between friends isn’t the governments business.

It would seem as so until Wickard v Filburn a SCOTUS decision 1942. Roscoe Filburn raised wheat on his own farm to feed to his own animals. The government said he violated the limits on wheat production. The court held that his raising of wheat, even for his own use had an affect upon Interstate Commerce and expanded that most anything affects Interstate Commerce and thus is subject to the regulations Congress propounds upon it. As you may remember aviation was originally regulated by the Commerce Department for this very reason. While most Americans, myself included would be sympathetic to your point of view, the fact is, in aviation they got us under the law of Interstate Commerce.

 

[AerostarDriver]

Register the dogs as a candidate in an election.

Therapy dog Murfee elected in mayoral election in Vermont (ajc.com)

 

On a more realistic note, I would argue that this would fall under private carriage assuming two things, you had a contract in place and served only a small number of clients.

[kortopates]

Of course the privilege's of a commercial pilot comes up on every commercial oral exam, after questions on the written. The examiner makes sure the candidate understands that a commercial cert alone doesn't enable them to fly their aircraft for compensation without an operating certificate authorizing the operation! Makes it hard to even plead ignorance. Although people push the limits on sharing expenses all the time, should things go sideways the repercussions could be very severe wrt to risking insurance and your pilot cert. 

[jlunseth]

1 hour ago, AerostarDriver said:

On a more realistic note, I would argue that this would fall under private carriage assuming two things, you had a contract in place and served only a small number of clients.

I took your comment constructively, which is how it was intended, and went and did a little research. There are two Advisory Circulars that apply, AC 120-12A which was issued in 1986, and the recent 61-142. See https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 120-12A.pdf and https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2020/Jun/61-142_Shared_Expenses.pdf.

I think the answer is unfortunately still no under 119.23(b). It provides:

§119.23   Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.

(b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in §91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall—

(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part;

(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only to commuter operations; and

(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.

I have highlighted some of the language with italics. In sum, it says that although it is not necessary to obtain a 121 or 135 Operators Certificate, it is still necessary to obtain a Certificate. The certification and operations are governed by Subpart C, which people can go look up, but generally they they are extensive, and 119.23(b)(2) appears to require that the operations be conducted under part 135. 

Now, interpretation of the regs. can be tricky, they are convoluted, for example, 119.1 (a) would appear to say that 119 does not apply to noncommon carriage at all, but it still does under 119.23 (1)(a) (there is an "or" between (a) and (b), so if either one applies you are unfortunately within Part 119).  119(a)(1) says it applies to anyone "operating or intending to operate civil aircraft- (1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; ..." It does not contain a limitation to common carriage, and 119.23 says just that, private carriage is covered by 119. So you would need an Operator's Certificate. 91.501(b) is no help I am afraid. There certainly could be something in the Regs that I am not seeing.

Also, bear in mind generally that although there has been some pushback in the Courts against the long-standing doctrine that a Federal Agency's own interpretation of its regulations is authoritative, that is still the rule. In other words, and FAA reg. will be interpreted by the FAA to say what the FAA wants it to say. Unfortunately.

I am a lawyer, but not an aviation lawyer, so take this for what it is worth. The FAA has been on the warpath about "commercial operations" lately, because of air "rideshare" attempts, so they are not very friendly to ways around their rules.

Now, one could go to a FSDO, get an application for a very limited private carriage certificate, fill it out and probably in the end get it, with all kinds of operational strings attached. Then you could take the flight. However, there is still the insurance thing.....

[AerostarDriver]

@jlunsethThank you for breaking that down, I clearly had not followed private carriage all the way through.

However, I would still look at 91.321 - Carriage of candidates in elections.

[N201MKTurbo]

So, I understand the laws, but even here on Mooneyspace, members often ask other members to give them a ride somewhere, usually for maintenance. By the letter of the law, this isn’t allowed. Your friend asks to go sightseeing, at the end of the flight you pull up to the pumps and he shoves his card in the pump. Not allowed. How many of us have never done any of these things?

lf some stranger come up and offers to pay you to take them somewhere, you obviously have to say no.

[jaylw314]

55 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, I understand the laws, but even here on Mooneyspace, members often ask other members to give them a ride somewhere, usually for maintenance. By the letter of the law, this isn’t allowed. Your friend asks to go sightseeing, at the end of the flight you pull up to the pumps and he shoves his card in the pump. Not allowed. How many of us have never done any of these things?

lf some stranger come up and offers to pay you to take them somewhere, you obviously have to say no.

IIRC yes, if you give a fellow MS'er a ride, technically, you can only be paid half the cost of fuel, oil and fees.

A funny solution is to give the fellow MS'er, their spouse, and one of their friends a ride.  Now your fellow MS'er can cover 3/4 of the cost of the flight 

[N201MKTurbo]

17 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

IIRC yes, if you give a fellow MS'er a ride, technically, you can only be paid half the cost of fuel, oil and fees.

A funny solution is to give the fellow MS'er, their spouse, and one of their friends a ride.  Now your fellow MS'er can cover 3/4 of the cost of the flight 

But it only counts if you were going there anyway. If you made a trip just to pick someone up, that’s not allowed.

If you put a fine point to the regs, the only thing you can do is haul your self around. Wouldn’t dropping your kids off at college be in the grey area?

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, AerostarDriver said:

would argue that this would fall under private carriage

Doesn't matter. Private carriage requires an operating certificate, like this one.

 

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, AerostarDriver said:

@jlunsethThank you for breaking that down, I clearly had not followed private carriage all the way through.

However, I would still look at 91.321 - Carriage of candidates in elections.

Yes. If a law  requires you to be paid for carrying candidates, the FAA says it's ok.