FAR question

moxiepilot · November 13th, 2005, 10:31

I'm having brain drain here -

The question was posed to me, "Can I rent a plane to fly cargo from NYC to Toronto," to make it short & sweet. What reg am I looking for that says, "No, you can't rent a plane to fly cargo?"

seagull · November 13th, 2005, 15:01

Look up what you are legal to do under Part 91 (applicability) and then Part 135 and 121.

Aside from that, the issue would also be the rental companies insurance and the issue of having the legal right to fly freight between the U.S. and Canada, which would fall under the 1st and 2nd freedom under the Chicago Convention, which would mean that you would have to be granted that right through the U.S. Dept of State and the Canadian Ministry of Transport as well as Trade (just an assumption for the Canadian part, but probably a close guess!).

Not sure which of the violations would get you in more trouble, but I think that I'd rather deal with the FAA and CAA than customs!

jrh · November 13th, 2005, 15:55

What? You're a CFI now and you don't magically have all the answers?

Try looking at 14 CFR 61.113, "Private pilot privileges and limitations". That's where the "incidental to your business" rule comes from. So if for some reason flying the cargo is incidental to your business--say, you want to personally deliver a critical package--then it would be legal.

You could also look at 14 CFR 119 if you're referring to commercial pilots, not private pilots. 119.1(b) basically says that unless you're doing one of the operations listed in 119.1(e), such as flight instruction, sightseeing, pipeline patrol, etc., then you're governed by Part 125, 135, or 121.

If you look at 119.5(b), it says that if you're authorized to fly as a commercial operator, you'll be issued an operating certificate. And from 14 CFR 1.1, you can find that a "commercial operator" is somebody who runs an enterprise for profit, not something that is incidental to another business. Then look at 14 CFR 135.1(a)(1). That is saying that Part 135 governs people with an operating certificate from Part 119.

Ok, now look at 14 CFR 119.5(k). That's the reg that says you can't advertise or offer to perform an operation subject to "this part," meaning 119, 121, 125, or 135, unless you are authorized to do so. Being authorized to do so involves getting an operating certificate and meeting all the other requirements of Part 119. I think this is where the "holding out" concept comes from.

So since flying the cargo is not listed in 119.1(e), it probably falls under Part 135. In order to fly under Part 135, according to 119.1(b) and 135.1(a)(1), you need an operating certificate, because you're a commercial operator, according to Part 1.1. But you don't have one. Additionally, since you don't have one, you can't advertise or offer to perform the operation, according to 119.5(k). Therefore, the whole situation would be illegal.

I hope I got everything interpretted correctly. Does that make sense?

moxiepilot · November 13th, 2005, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrh

What? You're a CFI now and you don't magically have all the answers?

ha ha ha. *sticking my tongue out at you AND scrunching my nose*

I was thinking along the same lines of 119 leading into 135 ops as well since IMHO this isn't an incidental to business op but more of a I want to fly for money op.

Not only that, but yes - you do make sense. Thanks guys for doing all the work for me.

Keeding keeding. Just Keeding

seagull · November 13th, 2005, 22:07

Even if it does fall under the "incidental" clause for the U.S. CFR, it still might not be legal under the bilateral agreement. It would be up to customs to decide that one!

Chris_Ford · November 13th, 2005, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by seagull

Aside from that, the issue would also be the rental companies insurance and the issue of having the legal right to fly freight between the U.S. and Canada, which would fall under the 1st and 2nd freedom under the Chicago Convention,

Wouldn't it be 3rd and 4th freedoms? 1st is overflight and 2nd is emergencies, isn't it?

seagull · November 14th, 2005, 14:28

I think you're right about that, hadn't thought about it. I know it wasn't 5th freedom, and I think 2nd freedom is the "tech stop" one, normally for fuel, but could include emergencies, I suppose.

November 13th, 2005, 10:31	#1
moxiepilot Old Skool Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: CFI / CFII in PA Posts: 2,670	FAR question I'm having brain drain here - The question was posed to me, "Can I rent a plane to fly cargo from NYC to Toronto," to make it short & sweet. What reg am I looking for that says, "No, you can't rent a plane to fly cargo?"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 13th, 2005, 15:01	#2
seagull Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 2,044	Look up what you are legal to do under Part 91 (applicability) and then Part 135 and 121. Aside from that, the issue would also be the rental companies insurance and the issue of having the legal right to fly freight between the U.S. and Canada, which would fall under the 1st and 2nd freedom under the Chicago Convention, which would mean that you would have to be granted that right through the U.S. Dept of State and the Canadian Ministry of Transport as well as Trade (just an assumption for the Canadian part, but probably a close guess!). Not sure which of the violations would get you in more trouble, but I think that I'd rather deal with the FAA and CAA than customs!

November 13th, 2005, 15:55	#3
jrh Old Skool Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,720	What? You're a CFI now and you don't magically have all the answers? Try looking at 14 CFR 61.113, "Private pilot privileges and limitations". That's where the "incidental to your business" rule comes from. So if for some reason flying the cargo is incidental to your business--say, you want to personally deliver a critical package--then it would be legal. You could also look at 14 CFR 119 if you're referring to commercial pilots, not private pilots. 119.1(b) basically says that unless you're doing one of the operations listed in 119.1(e), such as flight instruction, sightseeing, pipeline patrol, etc., then you're governed by Part 125, 135, or 121. If you look at 119.5(b), it says that if you're authorized to fly as a commercial operator, you'll be issued an operating certificate. And from 14 CFR 1.1, you can find that a "commercial operator" is somebody who runs an enterprise for profit, not something that is incidental to another business. Then look at 14 CFR 135.1(a)(1). That is saying that Part 135 governs people with an operating certificate from Part 119. Ok, now look at 14 CFR 119.5(k). That's the reg that says you can't advertise or offer to perform an operation subject to "this part," meaning 119, 121, 125, or 135, unless you are authorized to do so. Being authorized to do so involves getting an operating certificate and meeting all the other requirements of Part 119. I think this is where the "holding out" concept comes from. So since flying the cargo is not listed in 119.1(e), it probably falls under Part 135. In order to fly under Part 135, according to 119.1(b) and 135.1(a)(1), you need an operating certificate, because you're a commercial operator, according to Part 1.1. But you don't have one. Additionally, since you don't have one, you can't advertise or offer to perform the operation, according to 119.5(k). Therefore, the whole situation would be illegal. I hope I got everything interpretted correctly. Does that make sense?

November 13th, 2005, 22:07	#5
seagull Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 2,044	Even if it does fall under the "incidental" clause for the U.S. CFR, it still might not be legal under the bilateral agreement. It would be up to customs to decide that one!

November 14th, 2005, 14:28	#7
seagull Old Skool Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 2,044	I think you're right about that, hadn't thought about it. I know it wasn't 5th freedom, and I think 2nd freedom is the "tech stop" one, normally for fuel, but could include emergencies, I suppose.