Not if he creates the proper PT91 dry lease for the other pilots use. MH has dry leases nailed.

Not if he creates the proper PT91 dry lease for the other pilots use. MH has dry leases nailed.

In fact he can’t provide the pilot which is too bad. These sorts of situations are where the 135 rules really overreach. Someone can pay me (assuming I’m a CPL holder) to fly them in their plane that I’ve never flown before and we’re part 91 but they can’t pay me to fly them in my plane which I fly all the time without it being part 135. Pretty dumb if you ask me. But then the idea that we instituted a whole new set of rules in response to one crash is pretty dumb to me.

In fact he can’t provide the pilot which is too bad. These sorts of situations are where the 135 rules really overreach. Someone can pay me (assuming I’m a CPL holder) to fly them in their plane that I’ve never flown before and we’re part 91 but they can’t pay me to fly them in my plane which I fly all the time without it being part 135. Pretty dumb if you ask me. But then the idea that we instituted a whole new set of rules in response to one crash is pretty dumb to me.

Sorry I meant what if the plane is U/S for say an extended period. What happens?

Andrew

Clearly letting any pilot with an airplane and a CPL fly "customers" for hire (ala Uber/Lyft) would be a big problem. But what about when your best friend who's flown with you many times before badly want's you to fly him and his wife to his MIL's funeral a couple states away but doesn't want you to be financially burdened for the effort? The craziest one I recall was when someone offered to fly a customer to a recreational outing for free and the FAA sanctioned him for obtaining compensation in the form of "goodwill". Take that to the extreme and you'd be in trouble for allowing anyone to accompany you on a flight where they didn't cough up their pro-rata share. Another scenario for private pilots is getting in trouble for flying an airplane you don't own somewhere and leaving it there (e.g. for maintenance). By doing so you'd be receiving "compensation" in the form of free flight time even though no money exchanged hands and you paid for the fuel.

There are many such flights that fly under the radar today that really shouldn't be illegal but the FAA's stance has pretty much always been that if there's any possibility that the pilot is benefiting in any possible way the flight is illegal unless it's conducted under part 135 regardless of whether there's an attempt to provide flights to the public or profit in any way.

Of course there are some issues with deciding where to draw the line but it seems at this time the FAA's line is quite a few area codes from reality.

That is in fact exactly what I want. Let’s review the facts of that hypothetical situation.

- The airplane is maintained to part 91 for hire standards and so is above the maintenance level of the planes many of us fly all the time.

- The Pilot is a CPL. Assuming he isn’t going to stay within 50nm he’s also Instrument rated.

- The customer or their representative who is arranging the flight is a rational human being capable of reading and understanding the statistics associated with flight in various classes of GA airplanes.

Given those facts why is it our job to protect the customer from themselves in some way. Also is there some data out there to suggest that flights completed under part 135 are any safer than those completed under part 91 when aircraft type is controlled for? I’m not aware of any.

There is no such thing as part 91 FOR HIRE standards.

There are Part 91 Standards, Part 135 Standards, and Part 121 Standards for maintenance.

There is no such thing as part 91 FOR HIRE standards.

There are Part 91 Standards, Part 135 Standards, and Part 121 Standards for maintenance.

91.409 does not change any maintenance standards for PT91. The same maintenance standards apply to a 91.409 For Hire aircraft as a non-for hire aircraft. Unlike a different level of maintenance standards for PT135 or PT121.

All 91.409 requires is the 100 hour inspections to confirm it meets the standards of all other PT91 aircraft.

I think Joel brings up a good point though of course it’s not legal. But what really is the difference between compensation for instruction vs compensation for travel?

I can tell you that I know people who will have pax go get a student pilot certificate and then they’ll take you anywhere. I’d never do it because I’m not going to put my ratings on the line and I don’t need the money, but for a starving CFI I can understand it.

Clearly letting any pilot with an airplane and a CPL fly "customers" for hire (ala Uber/Lyft) would be a big problem. But what about when your best friend who's flown with you many times before badly want's you to fly him and his wife to his MIL's funeral a couple states away but doesn't want you to be financially burdened for the effort? The craziest one I recall was when someone offered to fly a customer to a recreational outing for free and the FAA sanctioned him for obtaining compensation in the form of "goodwill". Take that to the extreme and you'd be in trouble for allowing anyone to accompany you on a flight where they didn't cough up their pro-rata share. Another scenario for private pilots is getting in trouble for flying an airplane you don't own somewhere and leaving it there (e.g. for maintenance). By doing so you'd be receiving "compensation" in the form of free flight time even though no money exchanged hands and you paid for the fuel.

There are many such flights that fly under the radar today that really shouldn't be illegal but the FAA's stance has pretty much always been that if there's any possibility that the pilot is benefiting in any possible way the flight is illegal unless it's conducted under part 135 regardless of whether there's an attempt to provide flights to the public or profit in any way.

Of course there are some issues with deciding where to draw the line but it seems at this time the FAA's line is quite a few area codes from reality.

91.409 requires additional maintenance activity to take place on the airframe (100 hour inspections) when it is used for hire or provided for flight training. To say that 100 hour inspections are not maintenance goes against sense. In fact part 43 appendix D gives a handy list of the tasks one must do to constitute a 100 hour inspection.

It is the same tasks and standards applied to all other PT91 aircraft. Just on a different interval.

Contrast that with PT135 maintenance standards - all TBO's must be adhered to; all mandatory SB's must be performed; aircraft modifications require an STC, etc. That is clearly a different, higher, standard of maintenance then PT91.