I saw this and thought someone may be interested (I have nothing to do with it).

http://www.bizquest.com/buy-a-business- ... 47252.html

The business website is: www.Homerflyoutadventures.com

Gee, you don't make a lot of money doing that.... $25K per year net. That probably doesn't include deprecation on the engine.

Just fyi this is a part 91 operation, not a 135 (charter) operation.

Well, now, one has to wonder how he's been getting away with doing what he advertises, considering the very limited commercial flights which are authorized under 91.147, if he's not a 135 operator. Curious.

Cary

If an operator is selling transportation to a location, then it is clearly 135. If an operator is selling a guided angling or bearviewing trip, and airplane transport is part of that trip but not the purpose of the trip, then it is not clearly 135 at least as interpreted for Alaska for many years. That's my understanding.

Troy is right. The flying is considered "incidental" to the purpose of the business by the FAA. Back around 2000 or so, the FAA decided to close that "loophole" and require these operators to be operated under Part 135 rules. Their argument at the time was that. The FAA wanted to improve the safety of these operators by requiring them to comply with 135 rules.

At that time, the biggest proportion of this sector was the big game and fish guiding industry. This was before bear viewing and air tours became popular.

At one public meeting, the FAA rep got up and gave an impassioned speech about how bringing these operators under the 135 system would make Alaska aviation so much safer.

The first member of the public to speak was a long time big game guide, who offered an array of accident statistics, including those which showed that Alaska 135 operators had (at the time) one of the worst accident records in all of aviation. This guide then asked the FAA folks present how bringing guides under the 135 rules would improve their safety. He pointed out (accurately) that the guides at the time had a much better safety record than the 135 industry.

The FAA had no response to that, and that meeting was the end of that initiative.

BUT, before you all rush out and start a part 91 sightseeing operation, understand that the FAA DOES require the operator to acquire a "Letter of Authorization" from them, and an approved random drug testing program must be in place for all pilots. Getting an LOA isn't as simple as it may seem, by the way.

There are lots of cases where planes are operated for hire without the benefit of an operating certificate. Consider flight training.... Or, conduct aerial photography. In these cases you aren't selling an airplane flight, but rather an end product. Flight training or photography.

But, again, flight seeing, while no operating certificate is required, does require an LOA and drug testing. Last I heard, in one case, an operator had waited fourteen months for an LOA.

MTV

I wasn't aware of the interpretation you've described, that providing the flights was only incidental to the rest of the operation. Frankly, I'm surprised that the FAA backed down--they're famous for following the mantra, "don't confuse me with facts; my mind is already made up."

Cary

The other thing the part 91 incidental operators get to enjoy is the same insurance rates that the 135's pay. I guess it's only fair...tough thing to be working 2 of the 3 month season to pay your insurance bill.

In Hawaii we call them 134 and a half carriers.

From an NTSB record on a Ugashik area fatal accident of a Cessna 180, there is an appended section of additional information:

The transportation of passengers via aircraft by guides to fishing lodges, hunting lodges, and camps in Alaska, has been permitted, in the past, by the FAA under CFR Part 91 rules. In January, 1998, the FAA published a notice to operators in the Federal Register. The notice signaled the FAA's intent to require compliance with CFR Part 135 rules to ensure that passengers, transported by air, had the level of safety required of an air taxi operator. Many lodge operators and guides in Alaska applied for, and received, on-demand CFR Part 135 certificates. The Alaska Professional Hunters Association brought suit against the FAA, seeking relief of the Part 135 requirements. As a result of the lawsuit, guides in Alaska may still operate under Part 91 regulations.

The actual decision is available online at:

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/o ... -1051a.txt

The way it reads, I have always assumed that the application of part 91 to businesses that are selling a tourism product that happens to involve a flight, but does not specifically charge for the flight but rather some other specific service or experience that is, in part, accessed by a flight, is not applicable to any other location than Alaska. The fact that the FAA had for 3+ years been telling operators here that they were covered by part 91, then changed their mind, was a specific set of circumstances applicable to this state, and the ruling does not appear to make any attempt to broaden it to other states.

So an operation like that in any other place might well be, in point of fact, a part 135 operation.

Reading that opinion, I conclude that where the FAA mostly screwed up was in the failure to follow the correct NPRM procedure of the Administrative Procedures Act, but the Court was gracious enough to extensively discuss the facts. Although the facts themselves were not necessary to the Court's decision, by doing that, the Court put the FAA on notice that were they to redo things and correctly follow the NPRM process, they'd still lose.

In any event, it's pretty clear from the recitation of the facts that the Court considers the Alaska situation pretty unique, so similar ops in the lower 48 would not likely be as convincing.

On the issue of safety, i.e., whether 135 offers more safety protection for passengers than does 91, if the FAA actually performed the oversight that it theoretically has for 135 ops which it doesn't have by regulation over 91 ops, then I suppose there could be more safety. But if the operators, whether 135 or 91, follow the applicable regs respecting maintaining their equipment, that part of the safety aspect should be a wash. About the only thing I can think of that would give the 135 ops an edge in safety is the requirement that the 135 pilots must pass the ATCO checkride with the FAA every 6 months, whereas a 91 pilot only needs to accomplish his/her biennial flight review with a CFI every 2 years.

Cary

It is not just a coincidence that Senator Stevens, Alaskas senior senator at the time put on his Taz tie (cartoon character Tazmanian Devil) when he discussed this with the FAA. He was Chairman of the Transportation committee at the time.

And, a number of flight seeing operations I know of in the Lower 48 are operating under an LOA, not Part 135, so this is definitely exclusive to Alaska.
MTV