Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

12 Answers

Can I fly my friend in his plane or if he owned a fraction of it for hire under part 91 with a commercial pilots license with an instrument rating?

Asked by: 9875 views , , ,
Commercial Pilot, FAA Regulations

Can I fly my friend in his plane or if he owned a fraction of it for hire under part 91 with a commercial pilots license with an instrument rating?

Can I fly his friends in his plane or a fraction of his plane for hire under the same part with the same credentials?

Or or would these be under part 135?

thanks!

Ace Any FAA Written Test!
Actual FAA Questions / Free Lifetime Updates
The best explanations in the business
Fast, efficient study.
Pass Your Checkride With Confidence!
FAA Practical Test prep that reflects actual checkrides.
Any checkride: Airplane, Helicopter, Glider, etc.
Written and maintained by actual pilot examiners and master CFIs.
The World's Most Trusted eLogbook
Be Organized, Current, Professional, and Safe.
Highly customizable - for student pilots through pros.
Free Transition Service for users of other eLogs.
Our sincere thanks to pilots such as yourself who support AskACFI while helping themselves by using the awesome PC, Mac, iPhone/iPad, and Android aviation apps of our sponsors.

12 Answers



  1. Mark Kolber on Aug 26, 2014

    One can’t answer the question with any certainty without more information about the co-ownership arrangement and the nature of the flight.

    Corporations often enter into co-ownership arrangements in which each company owns a share of the aircraft and independently hires its own pilots. Your scenario is similar.

    Generally speaking, so long as the part-owner has what the FAA refers to as “operational control” of the aircraft and hires the pilot, the basic job of flying the aircraft for that owner is considered to be in Part 91, not Part 135.

    There are, as usual, factors and pitfalls that can produce a Part 135 result. That’s why companies entering into share arrangements hire lawyers to draft agreements establishing the necessary “operational control” factors and why one can’t give a solid anwser without a lot more information.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  2. Mark Kolber on Aug 26, 2014

    BTW, I did not discuss “flying his friends.” That is too close to Part 135 for me to give even even a general answer without a lot more information.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  3. Kris Kortokrax on Aug 26, 2014

    I would say that your friend could pay you to fly him around in his airplane. If he and others own shares of an airplane, I would say that he can pay you to fly him around in the airplane when he has access to the airplane.

    I would also say that your friend could pay you to fly his friends around in his airplane. Your friend could not, however, charge his friends for the flights. He can give transportation away, but cannot charge for it without possessing an Air Carrier certificate.

    This is the same type of arrangement that exists in the corporate flying world. A company such as GM or Google, who owns an aircraft, can fly their personnel or customers or “friends (think political allies)” around on their aircraft without an Air Carrier certificate.

    The key is that no charge can be made to the passengers for the flights.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  4. Mark Kolber on Aug 26, 2014

    Kris, how do you feel about the applicability of FAA Chief Counsel opinions and NTSB decisions saying the generation of good will may be construed as a form of compensation to the analysis of the guest question? Good example is the 2013 Silverberg letter where the Chief Counsel said suggesting and offering to facilitate an optional donation to a charity of the guest’s choice might be a form of compensation because even the suggestion generates good will for the company?

    (and Google can take advantage of the 91.501(b)(5) and (6) exemptions)

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  5. Kris Kortokrax on Aug 26, 2014

    The distinction I would draw between what I said and Siverberg is that in the Silverberg letter there is mention made of the passengers making donations to charities. The FAA stated that the encouraging or facilitating donations could be considered compensation.

    In my answer, I stated that there could be no charge to the passengers. If I wasn’t clear that there should/could be no solicitation of donations, I apologize.

    I didn’t want to muddy the waters with 91.501, however 501(d) also allows recouping the identified expenses for flights under (b)(3), (b)(7) and (c)(1).

    Also, Silverberg was written in reference to 91.501 which only applies to Large and Turbine Powered Multiengine aircraft. There are companies out there operating helicopters and airplanes such as the Pilatus and Caravan who can still provide free transportation on their company aircraft.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  6. Sam Dawson on Aug 26, 2014

    Bradley
    As you can see the simple answer is “yes”. There are, however, many things that can lead you into part 119 operations so my recommendation would be to have your friend consult an aviation attorney about what he wants to do to protect you against enforcement action and both of you against liability.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  7. Steven Porter on Aug 26, 2014

    Similarly, I have also been wondering this situation. Say person A and person B are both fractional owners of an aircraft (or additionally fractional owners of a club or llc that owns an aircraft). Can person B have person A fly them somewhere and cover the costs if person A holds a commercial certificate?

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  8. Kris Kortokrax on Aug 26, 2014

    You kind of need to watch your terminology. Fractional ownership is covered by 91 Subpart K and requires many of the same things as a 135 operation such as a manual and a training program.

    A better way to put it would be if A and B were co-owners of an aircraft.

    If you and I own an aircraft and I have a Commercial certificate with an instrument rating and you have only a Private certificate with no instrument rating, you could pay me to fly you in our aircraft on a trip that would be flown in IMC.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  9. Mark Kolber on Aug 26, 2014

    I’m not concerned about the optional donations or that it was a Subpart F operation (which allows more not less flexibility that basic Part 91 rules). Or even the NBAA Exemption applying those relaxed rules to non-Subpart F aircraft used for business. I am concerned about language like:

    Therefore we caution that receipt of good will through facilitation of charitable donations in some circumstances may be construed as compensation, and thus would be in violation of part 91 operating rules.

    and similar language in other sources such as “Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation” in the Murray Superbowl case.

    Yes, one can look at Silverberg as “really” being all about the optonal donations. And you can look at Murray as “really” being all about passengers paying someone else for the transportation. Or you can look at the “goodwill as compensation” language the FAA and NTSB use and be extra cautious.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  10. Kris Kortokrax on Aug 27, 2014

    I’m looking at things in the context of the original question.

    The poster has a Commercial certificate and instrument rating.
    He is going to be paid (compensated).
    He is not holding out to the public. It is a private arrangement.
    As long as his friend (who owns the plane or a part of it) does not charge his friends any money for the flight and he (the airplane owner) pays the pilot and expenses, there should be no problem.

    I see nothing contrary to the regulations concerning his proposal.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  11. Mark Kolber on Aug 28, 2014

    So am I. But our different viewpoints (in my case occupational hazard) means we see the question differently and that’s why you are willing to answer and I am not. I see the “buts” and “ifs” that haven’t been stated and which can potentially change the answer 180°.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  12. Bradley Dill on Sep 18, 2014

    Kris Kortokrax,

    Do you know where that is in 91? Referring to this reply:

    would say that your friend could pay you to fly him around in his airplane. If he and others own shares of an airplane, I would say that he can pay you to fly him around in the airplane when he has access to the airplane.

    I would also say that your friend could pay you to fly his friends around in his airplane. Your friend could not, however, charge his friends for the flights. He can give transportation away, but cannot charge for it without possessing an Air Carrier certificate.

    This is the same type of arrangement that exists in the corporate flying world. A company such as GM or Google, who owns an aircraft, can fly their personnel or customers or “friends (think political allies)” around on their aircraft without an Air Carrier certificate.

    The key is that no charge can be made to the passengers for the flights.

    Thanks,
    Brad

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


The following terms have been auto-detected the question above and any answers or discussion provided. Click on a term to see its definition from the Dauntless Aviation JargonBuster Glossary.

Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.