Teaching Comm regs..

middies10

Well-Known Member
Hey guys,

Today, my student and I were briefing in prep for her commercial checkride and she brought up the topic of "common carriage" and all that stuff. Now, I knew the rote definiitions of that info (i.e, wet leases, holding out, etc), but I was so lost at trying to teach her. I just could not find a place to start. Anyone have any good resources or ideas for teaching this?

Thanks a bunch!!
 

scott_l

Well-Known Member
Refer her to Part 119 then create scenarios when she comes back about what she can do as a commercial pilot or not.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
The "good" news is that, unless your DPE worked in an FAA or company division that dealt with compliance with commercial operating requirements, he or she doesn't have much more than rote information either. This is truly an area that can be complex and while a base understanding of "common carriage", "public carriage," and "holding out" is necessary, those terms are really only a backdrop under which the more complicated rules.

IMO, the best approach to understanding the rules (ot just memorizing them) is to separate two concepts at the start: (1) activities that require a commercial pilot certificate and (2) activities that may or may not require a commercial operating certificate. Here's the way I see it working.

Commercial pilot privileges are pretty simple on heir face. A commercial pilot may obtain compensation in connection with an operation that does not also require a commercial operating certificate. That part is simple.

The more difficult question is what requires an operating certificate and what does not. That's where 119.1 becomes an essential study tool, with its list of operations that require a certificate and thoes that do not.

Without getting into the details of each rule, that's really the overview I try to use for assisting my onw understanding of this set of complex regulations.
 

Hammertime

Well-Known Member
I always told my students that the trick to common carriage vs private carriage, was that you can't be a hooker. You pick one person to sleep... *ahem* fly for, maybe two or three, but if you get a reputation for being "open for business," you'll get in trouble.
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
I always told my students that the trick to common carriage vs private carriage, was that you can't be a hooker. You pick one person to sleep... *ahem* fly for, maybe two or three, but if you get a reputation for being "open for business," you'll get in trouble.
What's wrong with that? Charge what you can, make sure your clients don't meet and keep your pimp hand strong.
 

Der_Meister

Well-Known Member
Well I would always say if you are using your "own" airplane then you have to worry about common carriage. If you are flying the owners around go for it then its just 91 flying. Also refer to AC on holding out it might help a but more to explain it.
 

Hammertime

Well-Known Member
Well I would always say if you are using your "own" airplane then you have to worry about common carriage. If you are flying the owners around go for it then its just 91 flying. Also refer to AC on holding out it might help a but more to explain it.
Huh? If you are using your own plane, common vs private carriage is the least of your worries. You have become an unlicensed commercial operator under Pt 135 or 121. I think I see what you are saying in that only 135 or 121 carriers can operate as common carriers, but you can still be considered as holding out if you make your flying services available to the general public irregardless of whom the aircraft owner is.
(Sorry, I'll throw something more up when I'm less sleep deprived.)

Edit: Spelling/grammer error
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
How's this confusing? It gives the rule and provides examples. It's dry and to the point, as it should be.
It's outdated and a bit misleading. For example, it suggests that one can engage in private carriage without an operating certificate. OK, except for two things: (1) I have never heard of a case where the FAA said it was private carriage and exempt; (2) there are operating certificates for private carriage operations.
 

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
Good find, fox. That's the kind of stuff I was referring to.

Note the part that says,

==============================
...Advisory Circular 120-12A, which he had cited in his earlier opinion, had not been revised since 1986 and therefore did not take into account FAR Part 119, which “was issued and became effective later in time” and therefore “better represents the FAA's position with respect to private carriage.” Id. at 1. Balton then set out the text of FAR section 119.23(b)...
==============================

To continue the story, Gorman appealed to the US Supreme Court which refused to hear the case.
 

rframe

pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Good find, fox. That's the kind of stuff I was referring to.

Note the part that says,

==============================
...Advisory Circular 120-12A, which he had cited in his earlier opinion, had not been revised since 1986 and therefore did not take into account FAR Part 119, which “was issued and became effective later in time” and therefore “better represents the FAA's position with respect to private carriage.” Id. at 1. Balton then set out the text of FAR section 119.23(b)...
==============================

To continue the story, Gorman appealed to the US Supreme Court which refused to hear the case.

That case ticks me off. The guy did reasonable due diligence, seeking legal counsel and interpretation from the FAA which agreed with him. Then someone else at the FAA says "nope, tough crap, you're violated".

The FAA does some very good work, but stuff like this is what makes them smell like a horses rear.

Though, to add... once the FAA does tell you to stop doing something, you should probably stop and just get the 135 ticket renewed... so I dont feel too sorry for the guy.
 

caliginousface

Frank N. Beans
Griscom sent a copy of his opinion letter to Monroe P. Balton, FAA Regional Counsel for the Western Pacific Region, who responded that the opinion “accurately reflects the current state of the [FAA's] regulations, Advisory Circular 120-12A and policy on the issue of private carriage.”
FAR section 119.23(b), Balton noted, “is regulatory in nature and must be complied with,” while Advisory Circular 120-12A “is ․ advisory only-a suggested means of complying with the regulations” and “is not regulatory and is not enforced by the FAA.”
On May 21, 2007, Balton drafted a memorandum addressing certification requirements for private carriage by a small airplane operator.   In it Balton stated that Advisory Circular 120-12A, which he had cited in his earlier opinion, had not been revised since 1986 and therefore did not take into account FAR Part 119, which “was issued and became effective later in time” and therefore “better represents the FAA's position with respect to private carriage.”
Yes you can.

Wait, no you can't.

We gon' own you now.

This must be the case a local DPE referenced as to why AC120-12A is no longer a reference.
 
Top