[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.