[olympus]

No, they claim they were operating under Part 91 (non-commercial) rules since they didn't take money for the flights. Part 91 rules are less strict, in particular they don't require a commercial license.

I'm not sure which jets they were flying, but most business jets have a two person crew requirement, and a student pilot would not meet the crew requirements. It doesn't sound like their short response completely covers the FAA's allegations, but getting the flights to be considered Part 91 would be a big piece of it.

[travisjungroth]

There are commercial operations under Part 91, and they require a commercial license. Air tours and corporate flying where the airplane is owned by the company are in there, for example. I've done them both.

[olympus]

You're right that there are commercial flights that fall under part 91 rules. However in this case I think TapJets response was trying to say that their pilot didn't require a commercial rating, which would answer the FAA's claim of "a commercial pilot certificate was required."

[travisjungroth]

I bet the flights will be considered to have been under 91 (don’t see how it would be 135 or 121). I also think it won’t help them at all because these are commercial flights either way.

You seem to be both speaking with authority and saying the opposite of what I’d expect here. What’s your background in aviation law?

[olympus]

I have no backround in aviation law, just aviation. I’m a private pilot, my dad is a commercial pilot, and my cousin works for a charter jet company. I work with several pilots, and a few previous coworkers have retired from the USAF and fly for the airlines. We have arguments about the rules all the time. We pull out the FARs all the time just to win.

My interpretation of the TapJets response wasn’t that they were saying that the pilots had commercial ratings, it’s that they were saying that they didn’t need one, i.e., it was a non-commercial flight. TapJets doesn’t give any details, and neither does the FAA. But flying a light jet non-commercially can happen, so it’s not like TapJets is obviously in the wrong. Several celebrities own and pilot their own jets without commercial ratings.

I think in the end the FAA will stick with their ruling, I doubt they would issue an emergency revocation if they were on the fence.

[revelation]

You believe this elementary fact in their own rules escaped the FAAs lawyers?

[olympus]

No, I’m interpreting what TapJets said in their response. I’m sure the FAA has some solid evidence and they get to make and interpret the rules. But here’s what we have as public knowledge.

FAA: You flew flights with unqualified pilots and with private ratings.

TapJets: All our flights were legal under FAR Part 91.501.

They didn’t dispute that the flights happened, and they didn’t dispute that they had passengers. They didn’t claim that the pilots did have commercial ratings. Thus, they must be claiming that they viewed the flights as non-commercial.

[klodolph]

Is “not taking money” good enough for part 91?

[olympus]

Not exactly, and the TapJets response doesn't fully lay out that they met all the requirements for Part 91 flying, but they mentioned non-paying passengers.

You can fly under part 91 rules commercially but there are restrictions on how you can operate. You can operate under part 91 rules non-commercially, like I do, and that basically means that my passengers can only pay for their fair share of the gas burned. I can't make any profit. If the trip only burns 20 gallons I can't ask them to pay to fill up my tanks (51 gallons). But I can let them buy me a hamburger, as long as that's something they would have done anyway if I didn't take them flying.

Every flight under part 135 is considered "commercial," meaning that pilots must have a commercial rating as well as numerous other requirements like extra maintenance, inspections, and record keeping. Even if there are no paying passengers, a flight might still be under part 135 rules, but I'm not sure about the specifics.

I believe it's legal (but I'm not a lawyer) for a plane that flies under part 135 rules one day to be operated under part 91 rules the next day. Imagine flying a chartered flight under part 135 rules to Los Angeles. While on the ramp, the 100-hour inspection comes due, but the plane is still current with it's annual inspection. The owner of the jet would still be allowed to use it under part 91 rules, but it would not be allowed to conduct another charter flight until it passed the 100-hour inspection.

[AceyMan]

Just to address the Part 91 vs 135 for commercial flight: it is legal provided there are no revenue generating cargo or passengers aboard (e.g., zero people and a couple of lost bags = nope, because bags are freight).

The carriers commonly make use of Part 91 for reposition flights to move equipment into place to resume original schedules following weather diversions or whatnot.

(me: Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher)

[god_bless_texas]

no..."Compensation" according to the FAA is frighteningly broad.

Example. Compensation can be interpreted as "the prospect of a return favor".

like a stick of gum.