The Hangar

voretaq7

01:12

So Magnetoz asked the stall question, should we ask the engine failure question? :)

Anonymous

sure

casey

@Lnafziger our buffer wasn't so nice, when heavy our approaches were in the upper 130's and our flaps 45 max was 145.

Bret Copeland

03:29

@Lnafziger based on your answer, I take it you've flown gliders before?

Lnafziger

@BretCopeland Yeah, I was in a glider club for a couple of years.

In Kentucky, so it wasn't the best weather for it, but I had fun!

Bret Copeland

That's pretty sweet.

Lnafziger

You should really check it out, it's pretty cost effective and a great way to get flight time too.

Bret Copeland

Low fuel burn?

Lnafziger

Yeah, right?

Bret Copeland

03:34

I'm not sure New York City is the best place to try to go fly gliders. There are some places a ways north of here.

Anonymous

uhmm... aviators

Anonymous

I'm about to make what i think is a dumb question but:

Anonymous

►

Anonymous

can this (@ 9:11) happen irl

voretaq7

@BretCopeland I'm always surprised when they're doing glider training out of Brookhaven

Anonymous

03:38

because judging by that, now i'm lethally afraid of gliders

voretaq7

@PatoSáinz can you overstress the airframe and cause the wings to fall off? Absolutely. You can do it in a 737 too if you're beating the crap out of it like that guy was

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 no thanks.

Anonymous

@voretaq7 holy shit

Anonymous

TIL i learnt planes are compilcated pieces of engineering

Lnafziger

@PatoSáinz Hahaha, they are designed to be stronger than that, but if you are doing things that you aren't supposed to do you can break anything.

Anonymous

03:40

planes are more magical than magnets

voretaq7

@BretCopeland Would that be the usual brookhaven no thanks, or the gliders in particular? :)

@Lnafziger you mean you're not supposed to try to make the wings flap?! I thought they worked like birds...

Anonymous

after watching that disinforming video i thought that too, vore

Anonymous

lol

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 I have no experience to base that on.

Lnafziger

Yeah, kinda like the guy who did that with the rudder and broke the tail off the airliner. :(

Anonymous

03:42

the only flight sim i've used apart from google earth's bult in one

Lnafziger

@PatoSáinz You need to quit watching those videos. That guy is an idiot.

Anonymous

is Top Gun 2: Second Mission in NES

Anonymous

landing is really damn hard

Anonymous

@Lnafziger lol why? care to ebloggerate?

Anonymous

I like how Dan Nerdcubed gives me a little laugh every day, I cannot see anything wrong with that

voretaq7

03:43

@PatoSáinz well he tried to make an airplane's wings flap like a bird...

Anonymous

@voretaq7 that's the sims fault, we all know planes are designed after birds

Anonymous

ask your local FSDO about that

voretaq7

Ornithopter

An ornithopter (from Greek ornithos "bird" and pteron "wing") is an aircraft that flies by flapping its wings. Designers seek to imitate the flapping-wing flight of birds, bats, and insects. Though machines may differ in form, they are usually built on the same scale as these flying creatures. Manned ornithopters have also been built, and some have been successful. The machines are of two general types: those with engines, and those powered by the muscles of the pilot. Early history of the ornithopter The Sanskrit epic Ramayana (4th Century BC) describes an ornithopter, the Pushpaka V...

Anonymous

cool drone

voretaq7

@PatoSáinz click through, there are (well, were) manned ones

Anonymous

03:46

just did, weird machines, all remind me of icarus

Lnafziger

@DannyBeckett I removed general-aviation from this question aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1389/… because prop airplanes are used in the airlines too, so it isn't a question specific to GA.

@PatoSáinz As long as you aren't trying to learn from it and only watch them for amusement. ;-)

Anonymous

@Lnafziger sure

Danny Beckett

04:21

@Lnafziger Great, thanks for your help!

Lnafziger

@DannyBeckett Thank you!

Danny Beckett

04:56

@voretaq7 are you around?

voretaq7

mmmmaybe

Danny Beckett

can I give you the login for the bot? it's easier than getting all this in Git, and shiz

it's how @Lnafziger made his commands, also..

voretaq7

@DannyBeckett you can, but git is betters :-)

Danny Beckett

I know... just takes me a bit longer, but I do commit everything

wanna move to GL?

Lnafziger

05:25

@DannyBeckett You could just add us to the git project and let us branch and merge like a normal team does. ;-)

Danny Beckett

come to the other room! :) @Lnafziger

Lnafziger

@DannyBeckett can't, I'm on my phone and getting ready for bed. Talk to you tomorrow! :)

Danny Beckett

@Lnafziger no worries! night!

Anonymous

05:43

Boeing reveals “the biggest breakthrough in biofuels ever”- Plants that can be grown in the desert with salt water, easily broken into carbohydrates.

voretaq7

@PatoSáinz yeah yeah but can they turn that shit into avgas yet? :)

roe

08:00

@Lnafziger; -1 FPM takes just short of 14 feet of runway if you are 1/16th of an inch above it with a touchdown speed of 75 kts. :)

Qantas 94 Heavy

11:51

!!summon 12308

Otto the Autopilot

@Qantas94Heavy Registered; need 0 more to execute

Stack Exchange

12:53

This Day in Aviation: 30 January 1948

posted on January 30, 2014 by Bryan Swopes

30 January 1948: Orville Wright, inventor of the airplane, died at Dayton, Ohio after suffering a heart attack. He was 76 years old. This photograph is dated 20 December 1943. © 2014, Bryan R. Swopes The post 30 January 1948 appeared first on This Day in Aviation.

abelenky

16:19

Found this one today:
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/2263-whats-funniest-thing-you-have-ever-heard-over-radio-101.html#post1569838

(on the Funniest things on the Radio discussion)

But its not funny... its absolutely terrifying.

Philippe Leybaert

16:33

OMG

voretaq7

. . .

that's.... that beats the angel flight that rolled right over the hold short line and called up tower like it was no big deal

here's the question: Do you think the guy heard the phone number?

Philippe Leybaert

Probably not, but I guess he won't be flying anytime soon

abelenky

I know I've "heard" what I expected to hear once or twice, instead of what was actually said. But never after multiple corrections like that.

voretaq7

16:49

I've misheard clearances before but it's hard to mistake "Hold Short" for "Cleared For Takeoff"

perhaps we need lolcats in the tower. "Runway? YOU NO CAN HAS. Phone Number? DO NOT WANT!"

(I suppose that would also pass for ATC-Yoda)

abelenky

I love it. That'd be an awesome meme, (to a very small fraction of the population)

voretaq7

N12345> OHAI2Tower! I CAN HAS LANDING?
TWR>    N12345 Moar Airplanes? DO NOT WANT! You can has holding pattern.

roe

17:24

You've got to be very unfamiliar with phraseology to get those two mixed up. I've misheard "G hold short N" as "G H N" (taxi clearance), and a frequency once "121.825" as... something.. completely.. different.. and nowhere near plausible, but that didn't stop me from reading it back :)

Stack Exchange

18:59

http://aviationhumor.net/thanks-for-not-throwing-up/
Aviation Humor
Thanks For Not Throwing Up
admin
1391108223

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 did you get the email I sent you about tonight and the train?

voretaq7

19:24

@BretCopeland yup

Bret Copeland

okay

voretaq7

I'm behind on answering emails (like about a month behind. If anyone asks tell them you found my corpse :} )

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 we keep increasing the number of status emails here at SE. When I started we had 8 teams sending out status emails once per week. Now we have 12.

voretaq7

@BretCopeland . . . I see Stack Exchange has lost sight of the first principle of email: Send nothing which does not require a response

Soon you'll abandon that nice home-grown monitoring system for a proper Nagios spam factory

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 if you think I got fewer than 17 monitoring system emails in the last two days, you'd be wrong.

If you thought none of them applied to me whatsoever, you would be correct.

voretaq7

19:32

I received..... um.....

2

($BOSS decided to archive some of his email. He has so much email the copy-then-delete that all the IMAP programs do causes the disk usage to balloon)

I'm on the fence about whether "Server is OK now" violates the "require a response" rule, but it's important because the OK message clears the issue in our ticketing system :P

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 so, requires a response. Just not necessarily a human response.

voretaq7

@BretCopeland often it preempts the human response (but the system that used to fall down and create those problems was retired last year. HAPPY DANCE!)

this reminds me, it's really time for me to do the annual availability report. I have one more day before I'm actually late doing it :P

Bret Copeland

@voretaq7 "Annual Availability Report: Still Single."

voretaq7

@BretCopeland "Dating the fish. Cheating on it with a lizard and an airplane."

(what does the fish care as long as I keep putting food and plants in the tank?)

Bret Copeland

Fish are the worst people.

voretaq7

20:23

@BretCopeland you've not met my lizard.

Actually I'm not even sure I still have a lizard. The only signs I have that he exists are the fact that worms disappear from the food dish and shit appears on the shit-towel. Someone could be breaking in to my apartment, eating the worms, and leaving lizard poo in the tank...

Bret Copeland

I think lizards make better people than fish.

voretaq7

well the lizard isn't always lording his 6 degrees of freedom over me

I come home and the fish swims to the corner of the tank and floats up and down watching me. "Look what I can do! I can move vertically and you can't!"

Bret Copeland

Somehow, I'm still not jealous.

voretaq7

he's a lot more fun in the summer when he wants to come out of the tank and play

I tried to introduce him to the lizard once - apparently lizards look like food to a fish.

Lnafziger

21:13

@roe But only if you can reduce the decent rate at exactly 1/16". It might take a little longer to stabilize out at -1fpm though! ;-)

Bret Copeland

21:39

Alright @voretaq7 I'll see you in about an hour and a half? I'll be the one in a blue coat and probably cold looking.

call/email/text me if anything changes.

Lnafziger

@p1l0t Instead of posting all of those comments (which is not what they intended for) why don't you come to chat where we can discuss it?

casey

@Lnafziger thanks for the A and commentary in the holding out Q.

and I second that motion

At least it clearly demonstrated the need for that Q and a good answer. Lots of confusion on that subject

Lnafziger

@casey No problem.. We have 34 deleted comments on my answer now, lol.

casey

yea, I replied to one on his answer and he was deleting some of those as I typed

Lnafziger

I've tried to get him to come to chat but he keeps ignoring that.

casey

21:53

:)

It would probably end up with a defense of 61.113 and how it somehow pertains to the question of commercial private carraige

Lnafziger

probably. I'm done responding to him on the question though. They aren't for discussions.

Good question though! Too bad more people aren't paying attention to it.

And the comments on his answer are about to the point where they should be removed too.

p1l0t

Guys this is wrong

I don't understand how you think someone with a CPL can just take passengers for compensation legally you are putting out false information.

Philippe Leybaert

22:08

In Belgium there's a special provision in the law that covers flying people around (sightseeing) for money. There are several restrictions, most importantly you have to land and takeoff from the same airport and the flight should be less than 1 hour in duration. Is there something similar in the U.S. ?

p1l0t

Check out what the subpart C refers to gpo.gov/fdsys/search/…

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title14-vol3/pdf/… You have to be 121 or 135

Lnafziger that's from the 119.21 link you commented on mine.

Phillippe the US is very similar to that this what they aren't getting

The only exceptions are outlined in 119.1(e)

Philippe Leybaert

I'm just saying that it is perfectly legal to do that in Belgium with just a CPL. As long as you operate within those restrictions

p1l0t

in the U.S. the exceptions are in 119.1(e) but they are for things like aerial photography, banner towing, carrying skydivers, NOT carry passengers for hire.

Lnafziger

Hey @p1l0t, thanks for joining us here. The comments aren't the place for a discussion like we were having.

Philippe Leybaert

so my question is still unanswered then: is it allowed to do sightseeing for pay in the U.S. (with just a CPL)

p1l0t

22:13

You guys accepted the wrong answer

I'm sorry but what you are saying taking a passenger from point a to point b and charging them for it beyond cost sharing requires 135 or 121

Lnafziger

And I know exactly what subpart C refers to, it's the part that I put in bold before that which I was pointing out to you. That entire section doesn't apply because it says "Each person who conducts airplane operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage..."

That operation would not be common carriage because they aren't holding out to the public.

p1l0t

Subpart C—Certification, Oper-
ations Specifications, and
Certain Other Requirements
for Operations Conducted
Under Part 121 or Part 135 of
This Chapter

Lnafziger

Yes? I agreed with you on that part.

p1l0t

SO then you CANT

without an air carrier certificate

Lnafziger

No, I didn't agree with you on that part.

p1l0t

22:15

Subpart C—Certification, Oper-
ations Specifications, and
Certain Other Requirements
for Operations Conducted
Under Part 121 or Part 135 of
This Chapter

Lnafziger

Can you paste it one more time? ;-)

p1l0t

Subpart C—Certification, Oper-
ations Specifications, and
Certain Other Requirements
for Operations Conducted
Under Part 121 or Part 135 of
This Chapter

Philippe Leybaert

I'll come back when you guys are done :)

Lnafziger

@PhilippeLeybaert I don't blame you.

p1l0t

Did you read the AvWeb aritcle?

Lnafziger

22:16

Yes

If I remember correctly, I even commented that I thought that it was a very good article.

It just didn't make the case that what I said was wrong.

p1l0t

Because you CANNOT take a passenger up for compensation and be "fine" not legally anyway

I'm sorry but that one little part of your answer is VERY misleading

Lnafziger

I know that you feel that way, but I believe that you are wrong.

p1l0t

Seriously if I was your friend and I asked you to take me to another airport with my friend from the FSDO and I would pay for the airplane and give you $50/hr as a pilot would you take me? Without any 121 or 135 cert?

Lnafziger

You can't if you are holding out to the public, because that would fall under the definition of 119.21

Yup

p1l0t

That's not legal though. How is it legal?

Lnafziger

22:20

Because it doesn't meet the requirements of needing a 135 certificate. (119.21)

because you aren't holding out

p1l0t

You agree with me on a commercial operator right?

The definition in FAR 1.1

And that carrying passengers or property you must follow the appropriate guidelines in 119.1

Lnafziger

yup

We agree on most of it, lol

Just not on what requires a 135 certificate and what doesn't.

p1l0t

OK the only exceptions to having a 121 or 135 or 125 are listed in part (e)

(e) Except for operations when com-
mon carriage is not involved conducted
with airplanes having a passenger-seat
configuration of 20 seats or more, ex-
cluding any required crewmember seat,
or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or
more, this part does not apply to—

Lnafziger

Correct, that lists some things that are specifically exempt.

p1l0t

And it lists things like student instruction, skydiving, aerial photography, crop dusting,

but not carry a passenger from point a to point b

and that is where you are wrong

My answer is far more accurate

I'm not being a dick, I just wanted you to clarify that better in your answer I shouldn't have even had to write my own but it especially shouldn't be voted down and quite frankly I think it is the better answer

Lnafziger

22:25

So let me ask you a question.

p1l0t

If you think a kid with a CPL can go and rent a plane or buy one and start flying even friends to block island or something it is wrong

Lnafziger

What requires me to have a 135 certificate in order to be paid for an operation classified as private carriage (as opposed to common carriage)?

p1l0t

It is listed in 119.1

casey

@p1l0t AC-120A specifically says private carriage may be conducted under part 91, subpart D.

p1l0t

That's business or personal flying not for compensation

casey

22:27

it is for the private carriage of persons or property, and as a commercial pilot I can charge for my services conducted under part 91

Lnafziger

It doesn't say that it's business or personal flying. It says that it is not common carriage.

Philippe Leybaert

I don't want to interfere with your fun interchange, but if it is not allowed like p1l0t says, then a commercial pilot without an operator license is just as limited as a private pilot? (apart from the boring photography and dusting work)

p1l0t

yes

CPL is nothing but saying YOU can get paid but not that you can be an air carrier

casey

@PhilippeLeybaert He's arguing that with a commercial certificate the only thing you can do is get hired by a 135 or 121 operator

p1l0t

exactly except crop dusting or whatever

casey

22:28

@p1l0t we are showing how you can do these things and not be an air carrier

p1l0t

How

casey

the point of the Q is "what is private carriage", because if you do private carriage then you are not an air carrier and do not need an operating cert.

Lnafziger

@PhilippeLeybaert Actually, that is mostly correct. You have to be an air carrier to advertise to the public and fly anybody who comes along.

Philippe Leybaert

That's how I'm interpreting the answer as well, which seems extremely limited but I have zero knowledge about aviation law in the U.S.

(I'm talking about p1l0t's answer here)

p1l0t

OK one of us is misinterpreting private carriage then

Lnafziger

22:30

@PhilippeLeybaert And as a commercial pilot, you can be paid to fly for an air carrier (who has the certificate) or get paid for operations which don't require an air carrier certificate.

That's the crux of the question.

"Do you or do you not need an air carrier certificate to fly a friend if he pays you.". I say no, @p1l0t says yes.

Philippe Leybaert

Which brings me back to my sightseeing question. If you guys are all ready :-)

Lnafziger

Well, I say "no" as long as you aren't "holding out" to the public.

casey

and I agree

Philippe Leybaert

So the answer to my question is that there's no such exception in the U.S. (like in Belgium)

casey

with @Lnafziger that is

p1l0t

22:33

Private Carriage is just that: private flying in which the pilot needs only a private pilots license. A private pilot flies under basic operating rules and can carry passengers as long as the passengers do not pay any form of compensation for the flight or the aircraft.

Lnafziger

@PhilippeLeybaert I missed your sight seeing question. What was that?

Ummm, no. Private carriage has nothing to do with the pilot license.

Philippe Leybaert

In Belgium there's a special provision in the law that covers flying people around (sightseeing) for money. There are several restrictions, most importantly you have to land and takeoff from the same airport and the flight should be less than 1 hour in duration. Is there something similar in the U.S. ?

p1l0t

You can't say you are flying Part 91 and then charge for it (beside pro-rata)

Philippe Leybaert

An additional (important) limitation is that you're only allowed to do 50 flights a year

Lnafziger

and if you were to pay someone involved in private carriage, they need to have a commercial license.

p1l0t

22:34

Phillipe in the US the exceptions are in 119.1(e) and I THINK sight-seeing may also be included

Lnafziger

@PhilippeLeybaert Yes, sightseeing flights have to stay within 25 miles (no "flights a year" limit though).

@PhilippeLeybaert There are some other restrictions too (the pilot has to be on a drug testing program for one).

@p1l0t Sightseeing is included in that list

p1l0t

You guys seem to think you can charge for private carriage and that where I think you are misguided.

Lnafziger

@p1l0t Right, like I said, that's basically what our debate surrounds.

p1l0t

Pilots who fly for business or are employed by businesses operate in a twilight zone known as Private Carriage for Hire. They work under rules that allow flights where the flying is "incidental" to the primary business of the company for whom the pilot is flying (see FARs 61.113(b) and 91.501).

Philippe Leybaert

8

Q: Should "call up the FSDO" be regarded as an answer?

I was taking a look at the following answer, which said: Call up your local FSDO (that's the acronym for the FAA's Flight Standards District Office) and ask them. Go to the source! Now this could be a reply for almost anything regulatory-related, but sometimes isn't very useful. Should thes...

There's your answer :)

p1l0t

22:37

Business pilots cannot fly an aircraft for compensation or hire unless it is incidental to the business of the company they fly for. Generally, business pilots involved in flying small airplanes are subject to the restrictions of FAR 61.113. In addition, certain pilots are allowed to fly relatively small aircraft, for compensation or hire, if they do so in one of the specialized operations permitted by FAR 119.1(e).

Lnafziger

@p1l0t It sound to me like you are confusing some of the "special exceptions" allowed for private pilots (flying in furtherance of a business, etc.) with the difference between when an air carrier certificate is needed or not.

@p1l0t Notice that the article refers to "Business pilots". The article is specifically referring to private pilots and what they are and are not allowed to do.

@p1l0t And I agree with everything that they say.

p1l0t

exactly because it is talking about Private Carriage

Lnafziger

@p1l0t But they don't say that a commercial pilot can never accept money to fly someone unless they are flying for an air carrier.

Philippe Leybaert

Doesn't the AC say "Carriage for hire which does not involve "holding out" is private
carriage" ?

Isn't that what it's all about?

p1l0t

They ONLY exceptions are outlined in 119.1(e)

remember we are still in agreement about it falling under a commercial operator yes?

casey

22:39

@p1l0t from the AC "Private carriage has been found in cases where three contracts have been the sole basis of the operator's business. " That seems to imply you can charge for your services.

p1l0t

incidental to the operator's business and again it's PRIVATE CARRIAGE

casey

read again -- sole basis -- not incidental

p1l0t

Private Carriage is just that: private flying in which the pilot needs only a private pilots license. A private pilot flies under basic operating rules and can carry passengers as long as the passengers do not pay any form of compensation for the flight or the aircraft.

casey

no, private carriage is specifically "not common carriage"

p1l0t

You guys both owe a beer.

Private flying involves no compensation unless specifically authorized by certain FARs. Commercial flying -- because it involves the carriage of passengers for hire -- must be done under the especially strict guidelines of certain FARs. Private flying can be done under Part 91, the General Operating and Flight Rules.

The FAA distinguishes commercial operations as involving either private Carriage for Hire ("Non Common Carriage"), or "Common Carriage." These terms are partially defined in FAR 119.3.

FAR 1.1 defines commercial operator which puts us in 119 which says that the only flying not 121,125,135, etc.. is 119.1(e)

Sorry guys the private carriage is part 91 you can't charge for that beyond pro-rata

Lnafziger

22:45

Okay, so which certificate is required if you want to fly your friend for money (like in my example)

p1l0t

135

Lnafziger

Which regulation says that?

p1l0t

119

Lnafziger

okay, which subpart?

p1l0t

119.1

(applicability)

Lnafziger

22:47

No, that doesn't specify that a 135 certificate is required. It says that 119 covers the operation.

p1l0t

c) Persons subject to this part must
comply with the other requirements of
this chapter, except where those re-
quirements are modified by or where
additional requirements are imposed
by part 119, 121, 125, or 135 of this chap-
ter.
(d) This part does not govern oper-
ations conducted under part 91, subpart
K (when common carriage is not in-
volved) nor does it govern operations
conducted under part 129, 133, 137, or
139 of this chapter.

The only exception is 119.1(e)

Lnafziger

Right, I'm with you there.

So how do you determine whether you fall under 121, 125, or 135?

p1l0t

119.1

Lnafziger

Where does it say which certificate that you need. I'm not asking whether or not you actually need one, but which one?

p1l0t

2) The certification requirements an
operator must meet in order to obtain
and hold a certificate authorizing oper-
ations under part 121, 125, or 135 of this
chapter and operations specifications
for each kind of operation to be con-
ducted and each class and size of air-
craft to be operated under part 121 or
135 of this chapter;

Lnafziger

22:49

(that isn't in 119.1)

p1l0t

Yes it is gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title14-vol3/pdf/…

casey

I'm going to defer to the FAA on this @p1l0t. Call your FSOD and ask the 135 guy about AC 120-12A

p1l0t

casey you don't understand what private carriage is do you?

Lnafziger

@p1l0t Listen closely: WHICH air carrier certificate do I have to have? 121, 125, or 135? Which regulation tells me WHICH ONE APPLIES?

You don't get all 3. Different rules require different certificates.

p1l0t

You guys just refuse to admit you are wrong. I am citing the regulation here. You guys are citing and advisory ciruclar that says "In summary, persons intending to conduct only private operations in support of other business should look cautiously at any proposal for revenue-generating flights which most likely would require certification as an air carrier."

casey

22:52

I do, I have had this conversation with a FSDO inspector (when the FAA came by to borrow one our seminoles for staying current)

Lnafziger

No, I have to but you are ignoring it.

Right at the moment, I am trying to lead you to the answer.

p1l0t

Lnafziger you don't get it though you have to fall under one of those three the only exception is part 119.1(e)

Lnafziger

If you will answer my question. :)

@p1l0t Great! Which one though?

casey

@p1l0t as I noted for you earlier, that "summary" is a warning to heed to remain a non-common carrier

p1l0t

I would say 135 because I doubt your small plane is an airliner

Lnafziger

22:53

@casey Correct.

@p1l0t Okay, that's a guess. Which regulation states the requirements?

@p1l0t (I'll help you out. It's 119.21)

p1l0t

intending to conduct only private operations

is the key

119.21 is not private carriage

It says each person will comply with subpart (C)

Lnafziger

125 applies to private carriage with more than 20 seats (or 6,000 lb payload).
135 applies to common carriage.
121 applies to scheduled operations and large airplanes

p1l0t

Subpart C sets out 121 and 135

exactly you guys are 135

Therefore you both owe me a beer

:)

casey

@Lnafziger I applaud your effort but I have to bow out, dinner calls.

p1l0t

^ you accepted the wrong answer

casey

22:57

No, I accepted the right one, and It will remain accepted

p1l0t

and you are WRONG

casey

It is correct based upon my interpretation of the regs, the AC and conversations with the Dallas FSDO

p1l0t

It's FALSE

The Dallas FSDO said what?

casey

Everything I've said (and @Lnafziger) has been consistent with what the FSDO told me. Call yours.

p1l0t

Really

I can point out the appropriate regs

You are claiming to have called but yet you don' t get it still

You guys are telling people that they can carry people for compensation with just a CPL and it is FALSE

casey

23:01

No call, it was a face-to-face

p1l0t

And he said sure go ahead

to what exactly?

casey

and we are clarifying under what conditions a CPL can do so, not just that a CPL can

p1l0t

NO you have not

casey

he affirmed that if we were conducting private carriage in accordance with that AC we were fine

it was a hypothetical posed to him

we were a 61 flight school

p1l0t

Private Carriage is just that: private flying in which the pilot needs only a private pilots license. A private pilot flies under basic operating rules and can carry passengers as long as the passengers do not pay any form of compensation for the flight or the aircraft.

casey

23:03

no, re-read that AC and understand it. that is not what it says

Lnafziger

agreed casey

Sorry, I had to step out for a minute

But 135 is only required for common carriage.

That's what 119.21 says.

casey

no problem. dinner is calling me.

ill be around later

Philippe Leybaert

In the end, whether allowed or not, the restriction about "not holding out" also means that nobody will ever know if your friend pays you cash to take you from point A to B. So does it really matter?

Lnafziger

Yeah, and I need to leave the office to head home. I'll be on later too if you will be here @p1l0t. I'd love to discuss this further with you!

@PhilippeLeybaert Haha, well just because they don't catch you doesn't make it legal. :)

Philippe Leybaert

I know, but in the real world, that's how things usually work :)

p1l0t

23:06

Well we see to all be on the same page except private carriage

Lnafziger

@p1l0t Agreed

@p1l0t Well, my "official" argument is that you don't need a 135 certificate if you aren't "holding out" to the public.

@p1l0t You still here?

p1l0t

Don't confuse the "public vs private carriage" issue with the need for an operating certificate (I used to - this stuff ain't easy). If you look at the typical Part 135 Operating Certificate, the first space after identifying the holder will describe the type of operations. For a 135 private carriage operation, it will say "Private Carriage Operations."

Lnafziger

@p1l0t Okay, I have to leave for a bit so can we set this aside until later?

@p1l0t And could you do me a favor and read this page on comments and what we use them for here at Stack Exchange?

@p1l0t That's why I deleted so many of your comments earlier. It had nothing to do with this discussion.

(All of the chat logs remain as public record too. :-) )

p1l0t

You guys don't seem to want to budge but I think I have clearly made my point and now you are trying to evade

Lnafziger

@p1l0t Please? :)

casey

23:16

@p1l0t a 135 carrier can be authorized for common and and non-common (private) carriage. The AC clarifies that you can conduct non-common (private) carriage under part 91 rules. You need not be a 135 carrier if that is all you do and you are not holding out to the public.

Philippe Leybaert

23:27

round and round we go

Transcript for