He stated that he held a JAR ATPLf . This is basically a CPL with the written exams for the ATP, he will have around 200 hrs.
So no ATP at all...just a title to wear around that's spelled roughly like "ATP." Got it.
If indeed he's just got 200 hours, then he hasn't even enough to qualify for a wet-in FAA commercial. Somewhat of a leap to operate at learjet speeds while thinking at private pilot C-172 velocity. This indeed sounds like a case of attempting to sprint before one learns to crawl, and do it through a non-existent loophole.
You need to do the CPL & IR exams and 5 hours minimum training for each ride. You then could approach a 135 operator in the US with your new ticket and use their internal training program for the SIC at a cost. Yuo could probably then get it issued at a local FSDO with less questions
In order to enter a training program for a 135 operator, you'll have to be an employee of that operator. In order to do that, you'll need the right to work in the US and to be employed under Part 135...which will include the full background check, visa, enter the drug screening program, and the works. Since most 135 operators today are required under their insurance to obtain training through an approved simulator center, all the certificate holder would do is refer you to a Part 142 training center such as Flight Safety International, or Simuflite. This is really where you should be going in the first place.
If you intend to jump into a learjet as a completely inexperienced pilot, you're essentially reducing the airplane to a single pilot operation. That's really not the way to do business. Setting aside the issue of paying dues...which is irrelevant...the airplane is certificated for two pilots for a reason. It should be flown and operated as such.
If airlines can figure a way to put 200 hour pilots in 747s, biz operators can figure out a way to put a PPL in a jet...
Troll is certainly right...I'm beginning to think he's our long lost banned poster from the tech forum.
Clearly he doesn't have airline experience or experience in a corporate aviation setting. We have published minimums of 4,000 hours for our 747's...but the competitive minimums are closer to 8,000 to 12,000 hours, and we're seeing a lot of applicants lately in the 20,000 hour range. We don't see any resumes from 200 hour pilots, and wouldn't entertain one at less than 4,000 hours anyway.
A corporate operator has no need to go cheap. Generally the passengers on a corporate aircraft are worth more financially than several full airline loads, and typically look for more experienced pilots to fly them. They can afford to.
half the guys in here got thier airline jobs by kissing some serious butt and getting hired way under qualified. That's life.
You got the "airline jobs" part wrong, as this is a corporate forum, general aviation forum, ag forum. You got the "kissing some serious butt" part wrong, too. I've never had a job yet personally based on someone I knew, and my first airline position came well past five thousand hours. I was more than qualified when I hired on. I don't know anyone personally who did as you describe...and as you're clearly not in the know, you don't either.
one way is to simply give him another title and pay him as such 'consultant' 'corporate massage therapist' 'sales' 'marketing' ect
Not according to the FAA. That's a very transparent way to earn a certificate violation and become the subject of enforcement action.
What follows will be some FAA legal interpretations detailing the Administrator's policy on acting for compensation or hire.
March 25, 1997
David Grau, Esq.
212 Mohawk Galleries
733 SW Second Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-3116
Dear Mr. Grau:
This is in reply to your letter of March 17, 1997, to Ms. Lori Brand, FAA Flight Standards District Office, Hillsboro, Oregon. You ask for an opinion regarding certain operations proposed by your client, Air Surveillance Corporation (ACS), an Oregon Company. Based on the information which you have provided, we are of the opinion that pilots conducting aerial surveillance duties for ACS must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate.
You indicate that ACS proposes to offer a unique civilian aerial surveillance and security service, using light, general aviation aircraft, and ground vehicles equipped with radios, night vision devices, and other high-tech electronic systems. The company would provide crime prevention services in rural areas. Apparently, aviation operations would only be conducted under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and would be in compliance with the minimum safe altitude requirements of FAR 91.119.
FAR 61.118 states, in part, that a private pilot may not act as a pilot-in-command of an aircraft for compensation or hire except that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
The proposed business of ASC is surveillance, including aerial surveillance. In our opinion, flight operations would be conducted as an integral part of the commercial endeavor of the company and would not be merely incidental to that business. Therefore, persons who receive compensation for acting as pilot-in-command of ACS flights must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate.
Additionally, the FAA has previously determined that the receipt of flight time to build flying hours is considered compensatory in nature and would require that the recipient hold a commercial pilot certificate.
We hope that this opinion satisfactorily responds to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
John J. Callahan
Deputy Regional Counsel
July 27, 1990
Mr. Melvin J. Huber
2113 West St. Joseph Street Perryville, MO 63775
Dear Mr. Huber:
Re: Request for Legal Opinion
The St. Louis Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO) forwarded your request for a rule interpretation to this office. You frame your inquiry in very general terms, which necessitates a like reply.
In the fact situation you have presented, Corporation A owns an aircraft, which it leases back to an FBO, which in turn uses it as a Part 135 aircraft. You state that Corporation B proposes leasing this aircraft for business purposes, providing its own pilot. You say the pilot is qualified to fly commercially for Part 91 operations. The lease would be on an as-needed basis, with the owner and local FBO retaining control of the aircraft.
You ask if the above may be conducted under FAR Part 91 rules without infringing on Part 135 operations. Also, you ask if the lease would be from the owner or the FBO.
For purposes of this opinion, we must assume that Corporation B's use of this airplane on an as-needed basis is closely related to any hourly type rental. Corporation B rents this plane and provides an employee/pilot to fly it for corporate purposes. Corporation B's use of the plane with its staff pilot for corporate purposes is a Part 91 operation.
You were, however, unclear as to the actual status of the pilot provided by Corporation B. If, as assumed above, the pilot is a corporate employee, we clearly have a Part 91 operation. We also have a 91 operation if B hires a commercially certificated pilot on an as-needed basis from a third party source.
The line between Part 91 and Part 135 is crossed, however, if the pilot also comes from the same source as the airplane. Renting or leasing a plane and pilot constitutes a 135 operation on the part of the lessor and pilot. Even if the parties couch the arrangement in terms such as a separate rental of plane and pilot, the 135 line is crossed. To remain squarely within Part 91 rules under your example, the pilot must either be a corporate employee or an independent contractor from a source removed from the lessor of the airplane.
We cannot address your second question on whether the lease is from the actual owner of the plane or the FBO. The answer to that will vary depending on the terms of the lease or rental agreement, the leaseback arrangement between the owner and FBO and perhaps the operations specifications for the 135 operation at the FBO; to name a few variables. Issues of this nature are best handled by your personal attorney as they may affect civil liability.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this question. If you desire further clarification you may present more detailed facts to your local FSDO.
Sincerely,
Timothy C. Titus Assistant Chief Counsel
November 6, 1990
Ms. Judy Lincoln
President, Soaring Society of America
P.O. Box E
Hobbs, NM 88241-1308
Dear Ms. Lincoln:
This is in further response to your letter dated July 19, 1990, and follows the August 14, 1990, interim response of Mr. George Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Northwest Mountain Region. You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders.
Based on your letter and a memorandum to our office from Mr. Thompson, we understand that in the specific circumstances applicable to the Soaring Society of America (SSA), no money is paid to the private pilot. However, the glider pilot does pay a tow fee to the glider club, which provides the tow aircraft without charge to the tow pilot.
The opinions at issue are:
1. Letter dated February 11, 1978, from Clark Onstad, Chief Counsel, to Mr. Forrest Blossom of SSA.
2. Memo dated February 22, 1978, from Jonathan Howe, Acting Chief Counsel, to AEA-
3. Letter dated April 5, 1978, from Edward Faberman, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Mr. Leonard E. Samuelson, Jr.
4. Letter dated June 26, 1980, from William Sacrey, Chief, Operations Branch, to Ms. Loretta Belter.
5. Memo dated April 28, 1982, from Joseph Budro, Chief, Flight Standards Branch, to Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division.
6. Memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division.
Your concern, as outlined in your letter and the attached commentary, is that the 1978 opinions (Documents 1, 2 and 3 above) appear to support the position that the tow pilot under the circumstances described need not have a commercial pilot certificate, while Document No. 6 says that such operations would require a commercial pilot certificate. I believe that these two lines of opinions can be explained by reference to the specific sections of §61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), to which they apply.
§61.118 provides, in relevant part:
Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
* * * * *
In this paragraph from §61.118 there are two distinct prohibitions that apply to a private pilot. The first prong of §61.118 says a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. As the question arises in the glider context, the first issue to be addressed is whether an aircraft towing a glider is "carrying passengers or property."
Document No. 1, the Onstad letter, concluded (in paragraph 5) that "a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them." From this premise, it followed that a tow pilot with only a private pilot certificate would not be violating the first prong of §61.118. Once it was decided that the glider and its occupants were not property or passengers, the issue of compensation or hire became irrelevant to the first prong of 61.118.
The Documents cited above are consistent in supporting this conclusion. See, in addition Document No. 1, No. 2 (paragraphs 3 and 4), and No. 3 (paragraph 3).
The second prong of §61.118 says that a private pilot may not, "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft". There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting "for compensation or hire”. With regard to this second prong of §61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under §61.118.
Only one of the documents you enclosed with your letter squarely addresses this issue. In Document No. 6, paragraph 4, Bernard Geier noted
that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act, within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for compensation or hire.
In summary we are left with two conclusions that may seem contradictory as applied to the tow plane situation. On the one hand, there is the Onstad letter (Document No. 1) and others holding that since a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them, a private pilot may tow a glider without running afoul of the first prong of §61.118.
On the other hand, there is the conclusion of the Geier letter (Document No. 6) that building flight time by towing gliders is considered to be an operation for compensation or hire; thus a private pilot towing a glider would run afoul of the second prong of §61.118.
One explanation is that Mr. Onstad and the others who reached the same conclusion simply did not address the second prong of §61.118. It appears that Mr. Onstad skirted the issue when he noted that the tow plane pilot does not "receive any remuneration other than the eligibility of flying the tow plane." It is unclear what "eligibility" means in this context, but in any event Mr. Onstad did not directly address the question of building flight time in this letter. In the sixth paragraph of his letter, he took at face value SSA's statement that the pilot received no remuneration for his service, and did not consider whether building flight time was considered "compensation or hire."
4
That means the Onstad letter is correct as far as it goes, but is an incomplete analysis of the issues. To the extent that it was intended to address the second prong, or can be reasonably read to address the second prong, this opinion, not the Onstad letter, now controls.
It could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved. The FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot's motives or intentions are on each flight.
One solution to this problem would be for private tow plane pilots not to log their time, a practice which I understand the Palouse Soaring Society (PSS) pilots have already adopted (according to Mr. Thompson's August 14, 1990 letter to SSA). I gather that this is not a hardship, since, as you note in your commentary:
In the case of the PSS, each private rated tow pilot has already logged flight time in excess of the commercial pilot minimums noted in 61.129(b), and thus has no motive to 'build flight time' towing gliders. If compensation, hire, gain or advantage were desired, any of these pilots could readily obtain his commercial pilot rating and find a more efficient means to 'build flight time'....
Another alternative would be for the PSS pilots to obtain their commercial pilot ratings, which would resolve the §61.118 prohibitions concerning private pilots.
This interpretation has been coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Office of Flight Standards at FAA Headquarters. We hope that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division