Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: When do you need a 135?

  1. #1

    Default When do you need a 135?

    I was reading the regs for big game commercial services board and it seems clear as mud.

    Does a guide/outfitter who also provides "transportation services" have to keep a hunt record and a transporter activity report?

    Can a person who is not a guide or an assistant guide fly one of the guides airplanes under part 91? and does he need his own transporter license besides the one the guide business has?

    Can a guide hire or lease someone's plane and hire that person to fly it exclusively for his business under part 91 or would that person have to be a separate entity and have a 135 cert?

    If anyone knows the regs or someone I could get a hold of to answer these I would appreciate it.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Semi-retired in Florida
    Posts
    483

    Default Grizzly 1

    The regs may have changed, but it used to be that:

    Guides were specifically exempt from filing Transporter Report Forms. Dept of Fish and Wildlife Protection once charged me with that as a "violation," but the charge was later dropped because of that specific exemption. They were just harrassing me at the time anyway.

    Any Commercial Pilot cah fly for hire to a guide, I believe. So can a Private Pilot, for that matter, but he can only ask the guide to "share in the expenses" of such flights. Expenses, though, include insurance, tiedown, cost of purchase, gas & oil and so forth. Onen presumes that it's legal for the pilot to ask for 95% of those expenses.

    As for leasing a plane with pilot, this seems borderline, though I don't think there are any regulations against it. It's very likely, since the plane/pilot are not leased to the public as would be a Part 135 operator, that this practice is OK.

    Don't quote me, but research this a little more. Read the guide laws, since the exemption must surely still be there as far as the Transporter Reports are concerned.

  3. #3

    Default

    Looking at the regs now for the first time, it appears as though there have been some changes since 06.

    1. It appears to pertain to protecting hunters from unknown extra charges either from a guide or a transporter by requiring contracts before services begin and spelling out breech of contract

    2. It appears to further prohibit or define what a transporter cannot do to make sure one is not trying to avoid being a guide

    I had a guide tell me that he had his supercub seized by state troopers around Kotz this fall. The guide (who is not a pilot) said he had a transporter license for the business and had an older retired gentlemen doing various jobs around camp as well as flying this cub. He said the troopers didn't charge him with anything yet, but had charged the pilot for not having a his own transporter license or no 135 cert.

    I have had a trooper tell me that I can't fly under a guides business unless I am also a guide or assit guide. I can't be a transporter w/o a 135 cert. I can't be flying for no compensation, if I am burning the guides gas and staying at the guides base, eating etc. And if I am setting up the guides tents before clients get there or other odd jobs for the guide, that I am exceeding what would be allowed as a transporter.

    I couldn't be an assistant guide until next year, I'm sure it's not possible to get a single pilot/single plane 135 anytime this hunting year.

    I had a good year spraying and have the ability simply "twist off" until next spring. Normally I go snowmobiling all winter in wy and mt. This year I bought a cub and wanted to do some flying/hunting/fishing/sightseeing in alaska. I would like to get some more recent cub time and alaska mountain time for a flying job I'm after in the lower 48 or maybe stay in alaska if the right opportunity comes up.

  4. #4
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Thumbs down respectfully disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly 1 View Post
    The regs may have changed, but it used to be that:

    Guides were specifically exempt from filing Transporter Report Forms. Dept of Fish and Wildlife Protection once charged me with that as a "violation," but the charge was later dropped because of that specific exemption. They were just harrassing me at the time anyway.

    Seems to me its pretty clear, but folks try to make the black and white gray to suit them sometimes.

    Any Commercial Pilot cah fly for hire to a guide, I believe. So can a Private Pilot, for that matter, but he can only ask the guide to "share in the expenses" of such flights. Expenses, though, include insurance, tiedown, cost of purchase, gas & oil and so forth. Onen presumes that it's legal for the pilot to ask for 95% of those expenses.

    As for leasing a plane with pilot, this seems borderline, though I don't think there are any regulations against it. It's very likely, since the plane/pilot are not leased to the public as would be a Part 135 operator, that this practice is OK.

    Don't quote me, but research this a little more. Read the guide laws, since the exemption must surely still be there as far as the Transporter Reports are concerned.
    I just posted this and somehow deleted it so this may not be as complete of input.
    In FAR part 115 or 119 or somewhere near, it basically says a commercial pilot can only do a couple different things (flightseeing, cropspraying, walmart greeter) without flying under a 135 cert. So, you can't fly under the FAR's for a guide. WHEN YOU GET YOUR ASSISTANT GUIDES LICENSE, you can check the box for using your airplane while guiding. There's the alaska loophole and you only need a private & 500 AK hours or a commercial. Dude, the problem is it doesn't say you can be an air taxi for the guide. It says you can use your airplane while guiding. So if you are guiding, you will have your name on a contract with the hunter's. So either you better have your name on every hunt contract the guide has (and a judge will probably see right through that so who ya foolin?) or just haul the dudes you are guiding and maybe an incidental or two.
    I realize there are alot of different ways of doing this but only one has you covered.
    Where Grizzly talks about sharing expenses, I believe it says "pro rata" share. But check me. That means you and the dude you are flying with. (In a cub that's 50/50)
    I do the same thing as you (flying for guide, but I guide during this) but I make **** sure I am protected and legal prior to going out . Do all the research yourself like grizz said and don't take anyone elses word as gospel, especially ours. I'm not sure I'd post much more about your fall till you find all this in the regs.
    I'm not trying to kick you in the junk here , but this is the kind of research you are supposed to do BEFORE you head out!
    I will tell you, my opinion is if you are wanting to just fly (without about 50% guiding) for a living in the fall, you can't legally (by the letter of the law and who wants to gamble with their airplane?!) do it without a 135 cert.
    Dude, good luck.

  5. #5

    Default

    These are two different issues:

    Do you need to be a state-licensed transporter (and frankly I don't know much about that )?

    and,

    Do you need a part 135 certificate from the FAA?

    I would understand your reluctance to do so, but it seems to me for the FAA answers it would make sense to contact one of the FSDO inspectors. They were very accommodating when I had similar questions last year.

    But the basic test for the FAA is, is the customer paying to fly from point A to point B, or paying to be guided?

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Rules

    A guide or assistant guide can fly anyone into the field if they are staying and hunting with them. Any one else needs to be on a 135 cert to carry passengers for pay. A 135 cert currently goes for about $25000. There are a couple types of 135 certs. Alot of people has a single pilot cert with one plane on it at a time. There is a basic cert that allows a limited number of planes and pilots. On the same subject, I heard there was a well known guide service that had a commerical pilot flying in drop off hunters without a 135 cert, and that they were being investigated.

    When in doubt get the answers ahead of time from a professional, so it dont cost you your plane

    Terry

  7. #7

    Default

    I spoke with a guy named Victor in the anchorage FAA office that said a guide could lease a plane and have another pilot fly it without a 135.

    The troopers say no and say I need a 135, but haven't shown me where it states that.

    My understanding is that if a guide is licensed and is providing "transportation services" as part of the whole hunting package, and leases a plane and pilot exclusively for his use, the flying is an incidental part of his business

    I spoke with Mike Vivion, a retired us f&w biologist/pilot of 30 years in alaska. He thinks the troopers are out of line. He says unless something has changed in the last year or two many of the fishing lodges have planes that are flown by lodge laborers, many of whom aren't even commercial pilots.

    I applied for and recieved a transporter license from the state of ak and there was no mention of requiring a 135 then. But after reading the regs again, I can't see where it states that I need a separate transporter license in addition to the guides transporter license, unless I am advertising or soliciting hunters myself or charging for flying separately from the hunt. I read it as being all one business, and the guides hunt record fulfilling the requirements for the transportation end of things.

    I have put in requests for answers from the anchorage fsdo, ak state licensing examiner, and the field troopers. Still waiting.

    Any other suggestions as to who to contact to get accurate information?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    520

    Default

    I thought I knew the law, but now I'm really confused! Sounds like one of those cases where you never find out what the law really says until you wind up in court.

    The guy I can think of right now to talk to is Dave Loring in Fairbanks. He's a retired Fish and Wildlife Trooper and currently flies for Wright Air Service. Hope this helps.....Louis

  9. #9

    Default why people may not want to provide a straight answer

    The straight answer is; You, Goosepilotman should comply with part 135. There are no more than a handful of legal Lodge/hunting Alaska guide-pilots operating inside of the rules.

    This is the base line "test" I use in order to satisfy compliance of Part 91 and the Alaska guide pilot rule and he foundation of resolving any other questions any person might have as to what can be legally accomplished including what State licenses and conditions of compliance is required to legally conduct commercial operations under part 91; including the specific special rules regarding the Alaska guide-pilot provision used t
    o avoid the higher standard of compliance of part 135 regulations and operate a legal commercial enterprise under part 91 the Alaska guide-pilot rule matured to this
    In a nut shell the intent of the U.S. Congressional amendment to tile 49 and interpretation of the Alaska guide pilot part 91 special provision is:
    • :....... you provide accommodations.....YOU do the flying; YOU do the guiding for that spcific operation
    • If you are conducting commercial hunting (guide pilot) operations under part 91 you must also poses a registered guides license (an assistant guides license does not qualify anyone as a guide pilot) and personally guide the client you fly; otherwise your operating outside of the rules of part 91 and the special provision.
    There is a gross and GROWING abuse of part 91 and the special provisional rule. The special provision provides no public benefit as it stands now.

    As it is now it is a
    practice of deception, subverts the basic purposes of the FAA and is nothing more than a "special" rule for "special" people.

    Don't count on things staying the same much longer. This "test" wont change but enforcement will change things ..........AND THEN it will truly be a special provision of the rules for truly special people and be of great public benefit.

    I don't know that I am right completely but it was in my own best interest to know and understand all aspects of compliance with the law in this field. I am pretty certain I am right and that I know the subjects I am talking about.

    There is a clear cost burden and significant economic disadvantage between those who comply with the higher standards of part 135 and those who avoid even the rules of part 91 entirely. While the enforcement authorities ignore the obvious violators of this "piece of the puzzle" there exists a long standing and growing list of additional economic and discriminatory disadvantages and violations as a result of non enforcement of the FAR's and Alaska guide legislation generally.

    This list is incomplete but identifies significant underlying issues that affect commercial carriers (transporters) operating under the part 135 regulations.
    • Interference with commerce, economic disadvantaged, harassment by enforcement agents who are responding to guides who get their skirts wet and make complaints. In response to the complaints some agents attempt to intimidate one and show favor to another. State and federal agencies are conspiring to selectively make charges, and selectively ignore abuses sending clear signals as to "who is on first base". The same agencies add to the confusion because one enforcement officer/agency interprets "pieces" of the law in one way and the other sees it differently. The foreseeable result is violations of civil rights by intentional and selective interpretation [negligent and willful misconduct by enforcement agents] and prosecution of the law. Thats my experience. I don't believe I am the only person to experience this.
    From my perspective it is at least time to quit "ignoring the issues" and the carrying on of business as usual and adopt a platform to effect the necessary change to level the playing field.

    Clearly I am writing from my own point of view; my understanding of civil government, law, compliance with law and my experience in this field. I am not a smart man; I am not perfect and I am not an attorney but a person does not have to measure up to all of those standards to know when they are personally and as a class being deliberately oppressed and discriminated against, intimidated, wrongfully accused, charged and generally damaged and harmed. With laws and regulations on the books how or how they are not enforced contributes significantly to all the issues I raise.

    This whole "mess" related to 135/91/guide/outfitter/transporter/Alaska guide pilot even has significant negative impact on the management of the States resources.

    Illegal Alaska guide pilot operators and the self serving special interest groups do not want to hear what I have to say. They are not going to want to have any in depth investigative "reporting" on the mess they have created by pushing their agenda way too far. They wont want to "test" their arguments in the court. The State Legislature itself is not going to appreciate yet another round of changing "guide" licensing laws.

    If you did the research I am sure there is no other regulated State Licensed group with more legislative changes than transporter/guide/outfitters. I believe the reason for the constant annual changes to the rules that govern this occupational State licensed group is because it is very difficult with our system of government to lobby and then legislate long standing rules that are enacted only to satisfy a special interest. As a class or group the special interest mission of the guides has been to close the doors and restrict who/how others use what the guides think of as "their" resource. lodge operators and Guide/outfitters entire economic interest comes from the public resource; it is not in their best interest to let anyone else use that same resource. In the final analysis guide/outfitter legislation like Alaska has oppresses and supersedes the rights of others. That is why they (legislators and guides) can not get the "rules" right and why no one piece of the transporter/guide/outfitter licensing legislation has stood the test of time.

    Besides the fact that much of the guide licensing/legislation especially the guide/assistant guide licensing regulation is ridiculously unjustified it clearly serves only one purpose. It is all for them; a one way street.

    I am only going to offer one example but I could rip off a bunch equally preposterous and oppressive examples of how deep the special interest guide-->licensing and -->regulations go and do not just affect the rights of Alaskans.

    If you own piece of land and a cabin you can rent it out to any person on the planet; including an alien in support of any outdoor activity; furnish it with food, heat, generate power, provide a boat, a wheeler, even throw an airplane in the mix. You can cook for people and can easily "qualify" to 'guide' for any purposes imaginable. As the owner of the property you may have been born and raised in that cabin and know every inch of the territory and successfully, safely and ethically harvested 200 deer
    yourself .

    But if a resident wants to take his son on a hunt and wants to rent your cabin to hunt out of; unguided.........you as the owner of the property are prohibited by protectionist special interest guide legislation to rent to the resident. The legislature took up a bill last year to "fix" this and could not get it done because they supposedly need more "information" from enforcement??

    None the less as it is written into regulation that it is perfectly acceptable for the owner to rent the cabin to a registered and licensed hunting guide who could then rent the cabin to the resident hunter and his son or conduct his own guiding business from the cabin; or even sub lease the cabin to another registered and licensed guide.

    A transporter is barred by guide licensing legislation/regulation from renting the cabin from the owner and transporting any clients to hunt from the cabin. The transporter could lease the cabin and provide services to any other class of outdoor adventurer.

    Are you hearing me...........this stuff is so interrelated it is perverted and the legislature is in so deep and likely themselves confused that they can not even fix this "example".

    If you got this far in reading great. Goosepilotman you will have to read further to get to the "story" I set out to tell you. I did not intend to write the "what's wrong with this system" manifesto. I am trying to stay on point in explaining why Goosepilotman can not get a straight answer to his question and provide my perspective of what he is getting into. Goosepilot's question was not complicated but it raises a mine field of issues that I know something about and what I can tell him might accelerate his learning curve.

    Law is assumed to be made on the basis of protecting the public interest and safety and not restricting specific rights and not conflicting with other laws. Law is assumed to be interpreted and regulated in such a way as to line up with the intent........but the process is definitely supposed to prevent special interest groups or a class of people from violating rights of any other class of people.

    At some point before long there is going to have to be committed decisions made regarding the identification and a sorting out of the intraconnected pieces in order to achieve compliance with all of the law. Both Federal and State.
    • When it becomes common knowledge to Alaska residents how special use Legislation introduced and/or pushed through by guide/lodge lobbyist and State Legislators (many of whom are/were also lodge operators and hunting guides) has affected and limited our opportunity to access and economic pursuit, added to our costs to hunt, fish; limited the use of our property, interfered with our rights to conduct business and topping it off special use legislation has negatively affected game management issues. One can only hope that Legislators will pay attention when the time comes and citizens will out perform special interest lobby's that are bent on maintaining the status quo while they rearrange the rules and press on for one more year.
    • When it is revealed to the traveling public (tourist from outside of Alaska) the level of interference Alaska Legislators have gone to to establish and protect the special interest of lodge operators and hunting guides their will be more pressure to reset the course that has violated the tourists rights and undermined their trust in the system. Those people have been led to believe "Hey the State and Federal enforcement officers, the FAA, the State of Alaska are all aware of what we are doing here in Alaska and why we are here........everything must be on the up and up and to the "standards" we expect or we might not have considered coming". If they knew the truth they would think twice about coming and subjecting themselves to the uncertainty. It is just a given all this oversight and regulatory authority is protecting our interest; right? When this class of citizens find out what is going on these people are going to start pressing their own State and Federal Legislatures to get involved and dig into this mess and pretty soon we will have people all over the US telling us how to fix this problem too!
    If those who operate lodge and guiding services under similar circumstances in America (who obviously compete for the same dollars as Alaskan operators) find out what is going on and get organized and press their own professional associations to look into this situation or...... hunters who have hunted all over the world find out the incredulous licensing regulations/qualifications of assistant guides and start asking "What is the real reason I am Forced to fly with operators who are not in compliance with even the most limited laws that are supposed to be in MY interest, Forced to hunt guided with assistant guides who have no real
    qualifications to guide this hunt........and again led to believe it is for my own good and in My best interest that I have to be guided........but if I had a camera in my hand I could do anything I want and on my own......... after considering all that I am hunting on Federal lands too.......I am after all a US citizen, Alaska is America not a foreign country.....I live in Colorado and I can go to Montana and hunt anything without a guide...hunting is a legal sport and I am totally capable of doing this on my own. I could charter a plane/operator that I know now does have a higher standard of compliance, accountability and oversight and do this on my own.....but I am Forced into this mess and limited too and it is costing me quite a bit of money........When the world catches on to we might see shows like Anderson Cooper "keeping them honest" and 60 minutes reporting and asking.......just what is going on in Alaska with all this stuff. That (or when someone or God forbid some "EVENT" really shines the light on the situation) will further tarnish the image of State Legislators and Alaska in general.


    We might have an administration and an attitude in the Legislature now that leans more towards what is right rather than rolling over to special interest. So maybe things will begin to be set right without extreme intervention but some THING or SOME GROUP is going to have to get it moving in the right direction.

    When change comes compliance is going to cost the operators time and money and change the way pilot-guides operate. When it heats up the FAA is going to complain about man power and that is legitimate. The special interest lobby groups are going to complain about cost......and want more time........but thats a smoke screen and bs. That is the same "reasoning" they used to keep from coming into compliance 8 years ago so complaining that those are issues still is not at all true or legitimate in any way.

    The smart operators are already getting a sense of change and have started shopping for certificates....so Goosepilot it is a gamble if you buy a certificate now or wait for the feds to start handing out single pilot operating certificates again but I hope they don't. It would be going backwards I think if they start passing them out now.



  10. #10

    Default NOT the whole pilot/guide/135/transporter--story

    OK.....here's another part story.

    Way back when; like 1963 the CAB went after a guy named Marshall for some reason. Marshall was out on the ice guiding/flying for polar bears. What ever they went after Marshall for, he argued and won. Establishing that a hunting guide did not have to comply with carry for hire regulations. The guide was guiding and the flight was truly incidental to the real mission.

    In the simplest analysis what has transpired since Marshal is a subversion of the mandate the FAA. The mere existence of the FAA is the assurance to the public that the regulatory and over site by that Agency is committed to public safety standard that any and every single commercial flight operates (Marshall is not considered commercial flight operations) to a prescribed set of standards. Those Standards the public has come to rely on now for generations.

    Marshall does not meet the publics understanding and perception of the FAA's mandate and the industries obligation to meet a high standard through compliance with regulation.

    With thousands of flights and unsuspecting passengers being carried by operators all over Alaska that can not even pass the "Marshall Test" equates to fraud, deception and abuse of discretionary authority on the part of the Feds. Negligence and unethical practices on the part of the operators. The only person coming out on top is the person who took your money.

    On behalf of the publics best interest; in 1998 the FAA decided it was time to reign in the illegal flight operations of lodges and guides and a real bonding occurred within the lodge/guide industry. They organized and took the FAA to court and stopped them dead in their tracks from requiring operators who were/are operating "outside of Marshall" (and therefore not even in compliance with part 91) to come into compliance with part 135.

    Why did the courts intervene? Because the lodge/guide industry claimed it would be a hardship; cost too much money; disrupt business and they needed some time to come into compliance. 45 years?

    Isn't it clear to everyone that the industry is not going to voluntarily comply? Goosepilotman.......can you find any 135 operators that just to hear the words FAA doesn't put the fear of God into them. I don't get it; safety in numbers maybe?

    Later in 98 the US Congress amended federal regulations and made Marshall a formal part of the US code adding a special provision for Alaska guide pilots. The US Congress affirmed the Marshall "test" and calling it the Alaska guide pilot special provision. Simply put if you fly and guide you are legal to operate a commercial guiding enterprise under part 91 for that particular flight.

    I think enough time has passed since Marshall and the Amendment (a combined 45 years) by the US Congress that the FAA can "turn the lights on now" and their can be no valid excuses not too.

    The lack of the enforcement of the Marshall rule is probably the foundational reason we have so many issues today.......it's just been too darn easy and cheap for guides and lodge operators to get into and stay in the commercial flying business. Their consumption of the resource has jumped 100 fold in the last 20 years and the old time air taxi flyer's are nearly gone. The residents who don't fly and choose to hunt un-guided are reduced to standing on the sidelines and watching the "industry" consume the resource.

    Apathy does not excuse the current state of affairs OR guarantee that things wont change quick once the Feds actually enforce part 135 rules on anyone operating outside of Marshall. Or when the average sportsmen get organized and throttle an out of control, outside the law, unethical "industry" that is costing them opportunity.


    Anyway........ when you can try and find an old Alaska Sportsman's magazine copy from the 40's you will see that fly in Alaska hunts and fishing trips were then and are nearly still today Alaska by definition. that old magazine will really give anyone a case of nostalgia.

    Now literally thousands of people are providing those type of commercial services you will see advertised in that old magazine issue. Even 30 years ago there were only a handful or 2 of honest to God Alaska guide-pilots. That is the same today; only a handful or 2. So maybe fundamentally not that much has changed at all if only Marshall was enforced we would know if the spirit of Alaska is intact.

    Those guys back in the day had it to themselves and virtually no land use regulations either. I don't know if I am articulating this very well but no one I know, myself included, wants the spirit of those days to become....History. No one really has ever wanted that spirit to become History. The old guard probably wanted to protect that spirit too but at the same time they realized they were likely headed towards the end of an era. It became a race to the finish line.

    The old guard turned into a greedy bunch who saw it slipping away; they saw someone getting a bigger piece than they were getting, restrictions and changes to authorized land use and a stream of or new people coming "in" making the old gaurds piece smaller yet......and further pressurizing the situation. Many times they literally fought with each other over "their right" to harvest the resources and instead of focusing on fixing a looming problem they must have felt forced to race; for the wrong reasons. Greed and arrogance.

    In the mid 90's; about the time the FAA put them on notice that it was game over as far as the flying goes they had to start to pretend to like each other. They convinced the Legislature somehow that they were working together to protect the resource that was left and in the best interest of everyone. I doubt any of them actually believed that.

    The resource is not all gone but in my view the reserves are extremely depleted. It will take some time to stop the descent and restore the rights of others if we begin to recover now. I have been here in Alaska and was in the business more or less for 35 years, but on the outside looking in. And thats what I saw.

    We need to stop the spin if we are going to preserve that Historical spirit (at least the image). I think the Alaska guide pilot provision is the way to stop the spin. Maybe what happened in 63 was the right decision and the maybe the system works recognizing that what Congress did 8 years by affirming Marshall and establishing Alaska guide pilot special provisions the spirit will live.........if the rule is enforced.

    Think about it.........the only people who can fly and guide are the guys who actually only fly AND guide..........those guys are the real deal in every respect and exemplify the spirit. And I don't mean just hunting guides but any kind of wilderness guide who flys his own airplane AND guides the client. That is the epitome of the spirit of Alaska.........and there have always only been a few and there will only always be a few. They know who they are........and they are the real deal.

    Enforcing the regulations that are in effect now with out changing anything else will have positive and significant impact on the resource. Some will loose business but that always happens when things change. After all there has been given another 9 years to get ready for the change. Anything less than than enforcement is more of the same.......headed in the wrong direction.

    We have to share it the resource opportunity freely and manage it wisely. Something is going to have to give and this time it is going to have to be the special interest groups who take the brunt of it.

    It wont be easy to accomplish; this special interest group is the Texas version of "the good ol' boys'.

    The change is a fair; the playing field level and 100% of everyones attention can be focused on habitat, wildlife conservation and enhancement of the resource; before the big business commercialization interest.
    OK.....here's a story.

    Way back when; like 1963 the CAB went after a guy named Marshall for some reason. Marshall was out on the ice guiding/flying for polar bears. What ever they went after Marshall for, he argued and won. Establishing that a hunting guide did not have to comply with carry for hire regulations. The guide was guiding and the flight was truly incidental to the real mission.

    In the simplest analysis what has transpired since Marshal is a subversion of the mandate the FAA. The mere existence of the FAA is the assurance to the public that the regulatory and over site by that Agency is committed to public safety standard that any and every single commercial flight operates (Marshall is not considered commercial flight operations) to a prescribed set of standards. Those Standards the public has come to rely on now for generations.

    Marshall does not meet the publics understanding and perception of the FAA's mandate and the industries obligation to meet a high standard through compliance with regulation.

    With thousands of flights and unsuspecting passengers being carried by operators all over Alaska that can not even pass the "Marshall Test" equates to fraud, deception and abuse of discretionary authority on the part of the Feds. Negligence and unethical practices on the part of the operators. The only person coming out on top is the person who took your money.

    On behalf of the publics best interest; in 1998 the FAA decided it was time to reign in the illegal flight operations of lodges and guides and a real bonding occurred within the lodge/guide industry. They organized and took the FAA to court and stopped them dead in their tracks from requiring operators who were/are operating "outside of Marshall" (and therefore not even in compliance with part 91) to come into compliance with part 135.

    Why did the courts intervene? Because the lodge/guide industry claimed it would be a hardship; cost too much money; disrupt business and they needed some time to come into compliance. 45 years?

    Isn't it clear to everyone that the industry is not going to voluntarily comply? Goosepilotman.......can you find any 135 operators that just to hear the words FAA doesn't put the fear of God into them. I don't get it; safety in numbers maybe?

    Later in 98 the US Congress amended federal regulations and made Marshall a formal part of the US code adding a special provision for Alaska guide pilots. The US Congress affirmed the Marshall "test" and calling it the Alaska guide pilot special provision. Simply put if you fly and guide you are legal to operate a commercial guiding enterprise under part 91 for that particular flight.

    I think enough time has passed since Marshall and the Amendment (a combined 45 years) by the US Congress that the FAA can "turn the lights on now" and their can be no valid excuses not too.

    The lack of the enforcement of the Marshall rule is probably the foundational reason we have so many issues today.......it's just been too darn easy and cheap for guides and lodge operators to get into and stay in the commercial flying business. Their consumption of the resource has jumped 100 fold in the last 20 years and the old time air taxi flyer's are nearly gone. The residents who don't fly and choose to hunt un-guided are reduced to standing on the sidelines and watching the "industry" consume the resource.

    Apathy does not excuse the current state of affairs OR guarantee that things wont change quick once the Feds actually enforce part 135 rules on anyone operating outside of Marshall. Or when the average sportsmen get organized and throttle an out of control, outside the law, unethical "industry" that is costing them opportunity.


    Anyway........ when you can try and find an old Alaska Sportsman's magazine copy from the 40's you will see that fly in Alaska hunts and fishing trips were then and are nearly still today Alaska by definition. that old magazine will really give anyone a case of nostalgia.

    Now literally thousands of people are providing those type of commercial services you will see advertised in that old magazine issue. Even 30 years ago there were only a handful or 2 of honest to God Alaska guide-pilots. That is the same today; only a handful or 2. So maybe fundamentally not that much has changed at all if only Marshall was enforced we would know if the spirit of Alaska is intact.

    Those guys back in the day had it to themselves and virtually no land use regulations either. I don't know if I am articulating this very well but no one I know, myself included, wants the spirit of those days to become....History. No one really has ever wanted that spirit to become History. The old guard probably wanted to protect that spirit too but at the same time they realized they were likely headed towards the end of an era. It became a race to the finish line.

    The old guard turned into a greedy bunch who saw it slipping away; they saw someone getting a bigger piece than they were getting, restrictions and changes to authorized land use and a stream of or new people coming "in" making the old gaurds piece smaller yet......and further pressurizing the situation. Many times they literally fought with each other over "their right" to harvest the resources and instead of focusing on fixing a looming problem they must have felt forced to race; for the wrong reasons. Greed and arrogance.

    In the mid 90's; about the time the FAA put them on notice that it was game over as far as the flying goes they had to start to pretend to like each other. They convinced the Legislature somehow that they were working together to protect the resource that was left and in the best interest of everyone. I doubt any of them actually believed that.

    The resource is not all gone but in my view the reserves are extremely depleted. It will take some time to stop the descent and restore the rights of others if we begin to recover now. I have been here in Alaska and was in the business more or less for 35 years, but on the outside looking in. And thats what I saw.

    We need to stop the spin if we are going to preserve that Historical spirit (at least the image). I think the Alaska guide pilot provision is the way to stop the spin. Maybe what happened in 63 was the right decision and the maybe the system works recognizing that what Congress did 8 years by affirming Marshall and establishing Alaska guide pilot special provisions the spirit will live.........if the rule is enforced.

    Think about it.........the only people who can fly and guide are the guys who actually only fly AND guide..........those guys are the real deal in every respect and exemplify the spirit. And I don't mean just hunting guides but any kind of wilderness guide who flys his own airplane AND guides the client. That is the epitome of the spirit of Alaska.........and there have always only been a few and there will only always be a few. They know who they are........and they are the real deal.

    Enforcing the regulations that are in effect now with out changing anything else will have positive and significant impact on the resource. Some will loose business but that always happens when things change. After all there has been given another 9 years to get ready for the change. Anything less than than enforcement is more of the same.......headed in the wrong direction.

    We have to share it the resource opportunity freely and manage it wisely. Something is going to have to give and this time it is going to have to be the special interest groups who take the brunt of it.

    It wont be easy to accomplish; this special interest group is the Texas version of "the good ol' boys'.

    The change is a fair; the playing field level and 100% of everyones attention can be focused on habitat, wildlife conservation and enhancement of the resource; before the big business commercialization interest.

    later........


  11. #11

    Default

    I think I got most of what you said.

    I see some good points and agree 100% with most of them if I'm reading it right.

    The troopers have said you have to be a guide, class a, or assistant guide to fly under 91.

    I would agree, not all assistant guides are "qualified" to guide. Some are great, but some don't know any more than the 1st time hunter in AK they are guiding and sometimes less.

    I know of one such example. A college age assist guide on a brown bear hunt. Pretty sure assist guide had never been to the ak penn or on a brown bear hunt. Hunter had shot a brown bear in ak in the past and was nearly three times as old as assist guide.

    Back to my present situation. I don't see in the AK regs where it states only a guide, class a, or assist guide is legal to also fly. It only states that if you are one of those that you have to have a commercial pilot license or 500hr in AK.

    Personally, I think you should have to have both. Just because you have flown in AK doesn't automatically make you a commercial trained pilot. And a commercial rated pilot, for sure, doesn't qualify to safely fly in AK with no AK or similar flying experience.

    But if the rules say you can fly under 91 as an incidental part of the guiding business, then anyone "qualified" to fly should be able to fill that position. If its a one man show, the pilot would be the guide and there would be one hunter. This would be the truest, purest form of the Marshall situation. But what if you want to grow the business or just want to make more efficient use of your equipment? I mean it just makes more business sense to use the tents, plane, bigger quantity of supplies, for more than just one person per season. That gets you to employees; guides, packers, cooks, pilots, etc. If you do that, then you probably can't be flying when you need to be guiding or vice versa. Hell, you might not be able to guide because its almost a full time job for someone to just take care of business issues; employees, guides, fuel, supplies, or other day to day problems and logistics, future clients etc. Where do the regs define the situation when employees are a part of the whole equation let alone the one on one situation? Where do exceed 91 and enter 135?

    An example similar to this and one I know thoroughly is an ag aviation business. If I have a spray bussiness, I need to:
    1. be a commercial pilot.
    2. I need a state spraying license that proves I know chemicals, crops, pests and application methods etc
    3. a licensed plane
    4. insurance
    5. FAA 137 cert

    Now if I want I can buy another plane or lease a plane and hire a commercial pilot to fly it. He needs a state spray license and flies under my 137.
    If it gets really busy, like this year, I might run 1-3 of my own planes and hire an additional 2-20 planes and pilots. Now these planes and pilots I hire own and insure their own planes and have to test and get the state spray license if they are from out of state. They are doing what I tell them to spray and they all fall under my part 137. If there is a problem that pilot and I are held accountable. Even if it is totally a pilot's problem, it still boils down to being my business and ultimately I am responsible.

    "You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility"

    When it gets that busy, I have to take myself out of the plane and put a hired pilot in there so I can be in the office to deal w/ past, present, and future customers, organize pilots, ground crews, organize fields to spray, get a $30k load of jet A coming every couple of days etc

    I think these regs are the most ambiguous ever, yet could have the most severe penalties if you are found guilty of some poorly or undefined situation.

    enough for now

  12. #12
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Holy COW mega post!

    Goosepilot, you wrote: I spoke with a guy named Victor in the anchorage FAA office that said a guide could lease a plane and have another pilot fly it without a 135.

    That's true, but you, the driver still have to be a guide or commercial pilot. (and if you are a guide you have to be guiding the guy you are flying) Think about it this way....Where is the line drawn? Can a student pilot fly for a guide? Can a non licesensed guy fly for a guide?
    Also you said mike vivion told you such and such about a couple fishing lodges. Apples and Oranges. Big Game Guides are not a fishing lodge.

    AVALANCHE, you wrote a bunch (I couldn't get through half) but its clear you don't like guides, but remember we all aren't bad. There are a few bad apples no doubt (like anything else), but I have never been asked to conspire with every other guide to screw everybody over. Maybe I didn't get the invitation. It gets old that when someone has a bad experience hunting, it ends up: "guides are all evil and my hunt sucked because of the guides". Dude, I never did anything to you.
    I would like to speak to one mis truth you posted because it, unlike most of your post, is pertinent to the subject:
    YOU WROTE:
    If you are conducting commercial hunting (guide pilot) operations under part 91 you must also poses a registered guides license (an assistant guides license does not qualify anyone as a guide pilot) and personally guide the client you fly; otherwise your operating outside of the rules of part 91 and the special provision.
    Not per the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (new name I believe) who issue the guide licenses under the Big Game Commercial Services Board. Where did you get that? Post a source. Here's mine below. Oh, and when you sign your assistant guide paperwork it asks if you are gonna use your airplane to guide with.

    GOOSEPILOT,
    http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pub/BGCSStatutes.pdf
    is the link for guiding rules and requirements. You should know these before heading afield.
    SEE: Sec 08.54.610 subpara c (REGISTERED GUIDE)
    I don't see a gray area although AVALANCHE IS CORRECT that this gets bent and tweaked ( sounds like may have happened in your case) but its ILLEGAL! Also see: http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pgui.htm
    This is the link to the Big Game Commercial Service Board. Look at the big yellow block at the bottom. They are not playing now adays! Too many people have the viewpoint AVALANCHE has and they are weeding out the guys who don't play by the rules so maybe folks won't think that way. Well, they are trying. It won't be overnight.

    I still don't see a gray area: Either get a 135 cert, assist. guide license and hunt with the guy you are flying every time, or break the law.

  13. #13
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Cool AND

    Maybe this is what the FAA guy was talking about....

    Who carried the liability coverage when you were doing this? Do you think the guides insurance was covering you? The reason I ask is because every (I think every....most at least) insurance company we have talked to wanted the Registered Guide to lease the aircraft and hire the pilot even if the hired pilot is the owner of said airplane. Whatever the ins. co wants I say. Also, if you read the regs for hauling for a guide it doesn't explicitly say an assistant has to hunt with the guys he hauls. Sooooo by the letter of the law you MAY get away as an assistant guide flying all the RG's stuff like a 135 guy would but I don't think that's the intent of the reg. I would make a phone call to the board down there if I were to get into that situation and get a name since it could result in loss of an airplane!

  14. #14

    Default akhuntgooepilot

    AK/Greetings.

    AK wrote:Apples and Oranges. Big Game Guides are not a fishing lodge.

    I don't get what you are saying? Airplanes operations and FAR's compliance issues are not the same for everyone?

    AK wrote: Maybe I didn't get the invitation. It gets old that when someone has a bad experience hunting, it ends up: "guides are all evil and my hunt sucked because of the guides". Dude, I never did anything to you.
    I would like to speak to one mis truth you posted because it, unlike most of your post, is pertinent to the subject:

    Ak...I did do not want to come across as not liking guides but I knew it would be perceived that way.

    Guides have rights like anyone else. What I don't like is the way special interest legislation turns into regulation that subverts the rights of others. I respect guides rights to lobby for those special interests and the right to look after them selves.

    When other peoples rights are infringed on through that process someone will at some point advocate for change. No one would expect any special interest group to restore the right that very group lobbied to get.

    And Dude; you correct you have never done anything to me. Guides are no different than any other "group" and the ol one bad apple deal applies to every group....and I am not a perfect person. I appreciate that you did not take my view as a personal attack as being intentionally...personal towards you.

    I want to approach you on a couple of things you wrote:
    "because it, unlike most of your post, is pertinent" and "you wrote a bunch (I couldn't get through half)"

    If you did not get through half (which I understand, I probably would not read something like that either) you may not be able to know that I might have stayed on point; mostly.

    The subject was (the mega post I think you called it) compliance and the lack of compliance with aircraft operations and the storm those issues have spawned.

    The point is;
    If sometime in even the last 20 years the guides and lodge operators had come into compliance with the rules like other aircraft operators have within the continental U S either voluntarily or by enforcement the whole landscape would be different today.

    There is bound to be a reckoning. When one group stays outside the law and the rest of the legitimate competing interest comply with the law the predictable outcome is that at some point things will get out of balance. And for some the reckoning may be nearly catastrophic.

    YOU WROTE:
    If you are conducting commercial hunting (guide pilot) operations under part 91 you must also poses a registered guides license (an assistant guides license does not qualify anyone as a guide pilot) and personally guide the client you fly; otherwise your operating outside of the rules of part 91 and the special provision.
    AK wrote:Not per the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (new name I believe) who issue the guide licenses under the Big Game Commercial Services Board. Where did you get that? Post a source. Here's mine below. Oh, and when you sign your assistant guide paperwork it asks if you are gonna use your airplane to guide with.

    First: I think you will agree that the Alaska Department of Com. has absolutely nothing...like '0'...to do with the regulation of pilots, aircraft, and flight operations. If the FAR's don't allow it; the State can not waive an FAR and make it legal.
    Second: I think you will agree that an assistant or Class A guide can not contract hunts.

    Third: The assistant guide does not provide any related accommodation in the forms of camps or lodges.

    The conclusion is that the assistant guide is an employee of the guide or contractor; receiving compensation from the contracting guide to perform a specific guide operation.

    The transporting of the registered guides client(s) by the assistant guide would not be incidental in nature.

    Talk to you later.

    Oh, yah one final thing. I don't have a link for you but I will see if I can find one. I could be wrong.









    Goosepilot; thanks for making it through that post. dont want to do that again.

    The troopers have said you have to be a guide, class a, or assistant guide to fly under 91.

    Look at it this way. It does not matter what qualifications you have if you are flying the airplane.......not guiding.......that is a commercial flight operation. The troopers and most everyone but the FAA attorney "think" they are understanding it correctly. The FAA legal department is going to tell you.....just what I said.

    It only states that if you are one of those that you have to have a commercial pilot license or 500hr in AK.

    Again.........it is the FAA that has the oversight authority and it does not matter what the state says. If you are flying for hire that is a commercial operation. NOW......if you have 500 hrs. a private license and some kind of guide license and you hop in a cub...put your client in the back seat and fly off into the bush and tie your airplane down and start guiding your hunt the next day........you are in compliance.
    and you are only legal on that flight operation. I think you might get away with doing a couple of gear hauls to set the camp or some meat hauls post hunt........but it would be clear to everyone that you are actually guiding.....getting paid to guide......and the flying is incidental to that specific operation.

    Where do the regs define the situation when employees are a part of the whole equation let alone the one on one situation? Where do exceed 91 and enter 135?

    You exceed part 91 and Marshall provision........the moment flying the airplane is not incidental to that particular guide pilot operation. That is precisely the point that the FAA steps in and says.......you have violated the regulation too. That is why there are very few true guide pilot operations.

    I think these regs are the most ambiguous ever, yet could have the most severe penalties if you are found guilty of some poorly or undefined situation.

    The regs are not at all ambiguous. In your area of expertise you have understand them. You know when you are in and you know when you are out of compliance.

    What is confusing you is you see and are aware of so many flight operations that.......one person tells you they are legal this way and for these reasons.......then another person tells you they are legal for this and that..........and in truth....when you look for those regs and authorizations so you know for your self what the deal is you can not make it add up! And it is nagging the heck out of you cause you see and you are aware of what is going on out in the bush and yet know one is getting violated.......no one seems too worried about the flight operations they are conducting.....and it is business as usual.

    Well; why dont you call 907 271 2000....FIDO Anchorage. Ask for Howard Martin. Howard is the Chief Legal Council for the Northern Region a nice guy who really will tell you like it is. The reason you can not put the pieces together is because they are not there. Part 91 is there ala Marshall and 119/135 is there.

    Need any high time bush pilots with no spray experience this winter??



    52 Minutes Ago 18:37 goosepilot

  15. #15

    Default

    Thanks for the contact info. I will check with these guys in addition to Cynthia at the AK licensing office.

    Sorry, Winters in MN,ND aren't a lot different than AK especially in the ag world.

    Need any high time ag pilots with some bush experience this winter? Seriously

    Probably should just let it rest, but its the weekend and I don't have anything better to do. Here goes

    Apples and oranges
    Big game and fishing lodges

    I understand that there are probably vast differences between these two commercial businesses as far as the state of AK is concerned.

    As Avalanche points out the FAA FAR's the compliance issues are the same for all aviation

    So here is what I am wondering about.
    If the Troopers, USF&W, AK Big Game, and FAA say that
    1. a Class A or assistant guide (someone obviously not the business owner) (employees) can fly, basically commercial (incidental or whatever), under part 91 and don't even have to be a FAA commercial pilot, how is that different than a commercial pilot (private pilot for that matter) hired as an employee of the guide business to do non guiding jobs one of which is flying that guides hunting clients, camping gear, food, fuel etc?

    The troopers and the Ak Big Game (dept of comm) do say you can fly if you are a guide, class a, or assistant guide.

    I don't see in the regs where it is limited to or says you have to be one of those three to fly.

    That is why I say it is ambigous. It really doesn't state what you have to be to qualify to fly nor specifically restrict say a packer or other non guide type.

    I've got to think there has to be a few guide businesses that provide transportation services that don't have a 135 and have someone other than themselves do some flying?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong. If not, they might want to ask a few of these questions themselves.

    I hope no one gets the idea I'm trying to do anything illegal or unethical (just plain wrong is probably the best term)
    I'm just looking for honest, true explanation of the current Law

  16. #16

    Default

    well (AVALANCHE), you sit here and say that every guide that flys should get a part 135 cert, that would mean a large flux of applications (into the hundreds)...

    when the fact is, the FAA is so understaffed at this time, they cant even handle existing part 135 applications! Some are talking about having to wait 2-3 years just for the FAA to begin looking at your application for a part 135..So what do you think would happen if every guide in Alaska would have to get a cert?

  17. #17
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default Ok, Didn't The Link Work???

    AVALANCHE, you are telling me how things should be and why in your opinion. I am telling you the REGULATIONS AND RULES! That's what was asked. The rest of it is irrelevent in this post and merely your opinion and I don't care. I would disagree with alot of it but its not the issue anyway.


    GOOSEPILOT, you wrote:
    The troopers and the Ak Big Game (dept of comm) do say you can fly if you are a guide, class a, or assistant guide.

    I don't see in the regs where it is limited to or says you have to be one of those three to fly.

    That is why I say it is ambigous. It really doesn't state what you have to be to qualify to fly nor specifically restrict say a packer or other non guide type.

    I've got to think there has to be a few guide businesses that provide transportation services that don't have a 135 and have someone other than themselves do some flying?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong. If not, they might want to ask a few of these questions themselves.

    I hope no one gets the idea I'm trying to do anything illegal or unethical (just plain wrong is probably the best term)
    I'm just looking for honest, true explanation of the current Law

    DUDE, READ THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES YOU WROTE THAT I COPIED TO THIS POST!!! YOU ARE ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION! YOU SAY YOU DON'T SEE IT IN THE REGS, BUT I POSTED THE LINK TO THE VERY SENTENCE IT SAYS THAT!!!!!!! I POSTED THE ENTIRE GUIDE REGS YESTERDAY, TOO. WHAT IS THE QUESTION? GUIDES DON'T NEED 135'S AND NEITHER DO THE ASST'S UNDER THEM. READ THE REG. THERE'S NOTHING AMBIGUOUS. THE HONEST TRUE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW IS IN MY LAST POST. ALASKA HAS STEPPED IN AND SAID HOLD ON FAA, WE WANT TO ADD THIS LITTLE CAVIAT. THAT'S IT. AGAIN, YOU SHOULD KNOW ALL THIS STUFF INSIDE AND OUT BEFORE YOU WENT AND FLEW FOR A GUIDE THIS FALL, BUT AT LEAST YOU ARE TRYING TO BE LEGAL. PLEASE REREAD THE STUFF I POSTED. IT IS THE GUIDING REGS. KNOW ALL THAT WITH THE FAR'S AND YOU'LL ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION. PM ME IF YOU STILL DON'T GET IT AND I'LL TRY TO HELP MORE IF CINDY R. DON'T GET YOU SQUARED AWAY AT COMMERCIAL SERVICES. YOU MAY GET MORE THAN YOU BARGAINED FOR WHEN YOU TELL THEM ABOUT YOUR FALL......
    IF THERE IS SOMEWAY I CAN HELP PM ME. I'D BE GLAD TO. I AM NOT READING THIS THREAD ANYMORE, THOUGH.

  18. #18

    Default k..im done too

    GOOSEPILOT wrote:
    The troopers and the Ak Big Game (dept of comm) do say you can fly if you are a guide, class a, or assistant guide.

    I don't see in the regs where it is limited to or says you have to be one of those three to fly.

    That is why I say it is ambiguous. It really doesn't state what you have to be to qualify to fly nor specifically restrict say a packer or other non guide type.

    I've got to think there has to be a few guide businesses that provide transportation services that don't have a 135 and have someone other than themselves do some flying?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong. If not, they might want to ask a few of these questions themselves.

    I hope no one gets the idea I'm trying to do anything illegal or unethical (just plain wrong is probably the best term)
    I'm just looking for honest, true explanation of the current Law.


    AVALANCHE wrote:

    Goosepilotman.........first of all there are more than "a few guide businesses that provide transportation services that don't have a 135" but I think that you intuitively understand this.....and I want to tell you "thanks" for the initial post....and the interaction. I don't accept identifying the problem as; one of ambiguity.

    "THE" problem is: The State of Ak. rule making process.
    "No amount of lobbying by special interest groups is going to change facts"

    RELATED TO FLIGHT OPERATIONS
    THE FED'S MAKE THE RULES
    THE FED'S ultimately INTERPRET THE RULES
    THE FED'S ultimately ENFORCE THE RULES (some times)
    The regs and case law is tested and clear in defining a flight operation that is "INCIDENTAL IN NATURE"
    If the client is not "your contracted client" AND the your contract does NOT include the normally associated lodging and/or camps AND you are not the pilot ........the flight operation does not qualify you under the category of "operators defined as Alaska guide Pilot".
    The FED's ultimately determine if the flight operation is.......INCIDENTAL IN NATURE.
    To determine if the flight operation being considered can be legally conducted under part 91 special provision for Alaska guide pilot
    the "test"
    • Is this flight operation "INCIDENTAL IN NATURE" to the primary business concern of the "guiding pilot".
    • Is the guiding pilot contracted by the client to provide the related accommodations in the form of camps or lodges
    If the answer is no to the first part then that flight operation must be conducted under part 135 regulations and is not a legal flight operation under part 91 including the special provision for ALASKA guide pilot.

    If the answer is yes to the second part then it must be clear that the guiding pilot is primarily [fully engaged in the physical activity of] guiding the client flown in order to conduct the flight operation under part 91 special provision for Alaska guide pilot.

    The answer IS no to the first part if the guiding pilot is not fully engaged in the physical activity related to guiding the client flown.
    The answer IS no to the first part if the guiding pilot receives pay or compensation for the flight operation.
    The answer IS no to the first part if a person or entity other than the business of the guiding pilot is contracted by the client to provide the related accommodations.
    The answer IS no to the first part if the guiding pilot is providing the aircraft AND not contracted to provide the related accommodations.
    It does N-O-T matter NOW and it has NEVER mattered what the STATE guide regs say........or what the Troopers say in terms of "qualifying pilots and flight operations" ie guides, assistant guides class A guides........ "hired" lodge pilots actingas guides........bear viewing guides.....what ever the 'type' guide service provided to a client........there is nothing the STATE can do to qualify a flight operation as a legal operation

    The language is clear
    OPERATORS DEFINED AS ALASKA GUIDE PILOT

    "the flight activities of each individual pilot must be incidental in nature, and not the primary business concern of that pilot"

    "incidental to guiding and the furnishing of lodge or other accommodations in the form of camps"

    Goosepilotman....I am breaking this down for the last time. If I have anything wrong I will let you know as soon as I know.

    IT ALL GOES BACK TO
    "THE MATTER OF RALPH E. MARSHALL, 39 CAB 948"
    __________________________________________________ _____
    GOOSEPILOTMAN......Please pass this [between the red lines] on to AKhunt if you think it is appropriate to do........he wrote that he was not going to read this thread anymore and invited you to PM him....he did not offer the same to me. TO: AK-hunt from AVALANCHE because I believe you are capable of understanding what is going to happen and accept it and that maybe you can "help" the tribe cope with the reality of what is happening.

    THE REGISTERED GUIDE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN RECEIVE MONEY AND CONTRACT A CLIENT FOR A GUIDED HUNT AND PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE FORM OF A LODGE OR A CAMP

    So, in the sense that a "contract" to hunt big game is exclusively the property [responsibility] of the registered/contracted guide and the guided client; the primary business concern of that big game registered Alaska guide pilot COULD NEVER BE CONSIDERED TO BE AND NEVER WAS INTENDED TO BE a "business" (that is the whole point of the discussion; the point of MARSHALL) in the sense that a Lodge is a business. So enforcing the law NOW on big game hunting guides does not have the same impact on registered big game hunting guides like it will on a Lodge business.

    Big game guided hunts are one on one activities. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MARSHALL and I now I understand and concede that you are right in writing "Apples and Oranges. Big Game Guides are not a fishing lodge." You made another good point and I appreciate your reasoning in that regard.

    45 years after Marshall it is much more reasonable for the Feds to consider and justify regulatory amendments related to the Alaska guide pilot rules for Lodge BUSINESSES than it will be to justify any more "special provisions" to the rules to accommodate big game registered guides.

    I predict that the Feds will make that distinction clear too........big game hunting pilot guides ARE NOT the same as Lodge Businesses.

    What will happen before long then is that LODGE Business Operations will be looking to put some distance between themselves and the registered big game hunting guide pilots.

    DIRECTLY Sorry Dude ....I don't make the rules.......I just do my best to comply; and please consider the possibility that I could be a registered big game guide too........
    __________________________________________________ ______
    AVALANCHE wrote
    This might be the first step to solving "THE" problem:
    • Tasking the State of Alaska's Office of the Attorney General to make a comprehensive review specifically considering the question;
    Does the STATE of ALASKA GUIDE REGULATIONS conflict with; attempt to make or invalidate civil rights of citizens under the Constitution?

    When the comprehensive review by the attorney generals office of the State of Alaska is "briefed" STATE law makers will have no trouble understanding how STATE guide regulations come into compliance with the Federal law.

    That is the point the "AMBIGUITY" you speak of will go away.

    The pro's will not have any trouble understanding "why" State regs are changing and accepting what has to be done. The pro's will understand that what is being done is not "changing the way business is done" but clearly regulating guide operations by first complying with Federal law.

    Every professional person; responsible for making STATE law, enforcing the law or complying with the law associated with guiding and operating a lodge and conducting flight operations in ALASKA will be on the same page.

    The emotional and arrogant (is not professional) guides and lodge operators and the weak and easily influenced law makers are going to have a heck of a problem coming to terms with changing State law to comply with Federal law.

    STATE Legislators with a complete understanding of why guide regulations have to be changed will be able to clearly articulate to their constituents:
    1. why they are changing STATE law
    2. why the STATE can not effect CHANGE to Federal law related to the special provisions for Alaska guide pilot under part 91 and the civil rights of others
    3. including the reasoning that considers public interest rises above special interest
    The STATE rule enforcement agencies AND the Federal enforcement agencies will be on the same page related to guide pilot flight operations and enforce the law in a consistent manner.

    It will in be clear to anyone "in the business" considering "a flight operation" that "the flight" must comply with either part 135 or Part 91 inclusive of the special provision for ALASKA guide pilot.

    Anyone in the business of conducting or enforcing guide pilot operations in ALASKA will be on the same page.



    RELATED TO FLIGHT OPERATIONS
    THE FED'S MAKE THE RULES
    THE FED'S ultimately INTERPRET THE RULES
    THE FED'S ultimately ENFORCE THE RULES

    To determine if the flight operation being considered can be legal under the part 91 special provision for Alaska guide pilot or if the flight operation being considered is a part 135 flight the "test" is:

    IF you are not the REGISTERED BIG GAME GUIDE or the guide contracted to provide the related accommodations in the form of camps or lodges......the flight operation involving a client of the contracted guide.........if not being flown by the contracted guide...........then that flight operation falls under part 135 regulation and is not a legal flight operation under part 91 including the special provision for ALASKA pilot guide.

    """""""It does N-O-T matter what the guide regs say........or what the Troopers say about who can "fly" ie guides, assistant guides........."hired" lodge pilots acting as pilot guides........bear viewing guides.....what ever guide service being provided to a client........if the client is not "your" client you do not qualify under the category of "operators defined as Alaska guide Pilot".

    """"""""""When it comes to "flying" whether the "flying" is personal and pleasure........commercial.....OR INCIDENTAL IN NATURE.......it is the FED's who make the rules........it is the FED's......who interpret the rules.............relative to ANY FLIGHT OPERATION""""""""""""

    The FED's ultimately determine if the flight operation is.......INCIDENTAL IN NATURE.

    The language is clear
    OPERATORS DEFINED AS ALASKA GUIDE PILOT

    "the flight activities of each individual pilot must be incidental in nature, and not the primary business concern of that pilot"

    "incidental to guiding and the furnishing of lodge or other accommodations in the form of camps"

    Goosepilotman....I am breaking this down for the last time. If I have anything wrong I will let you know as soon as I know.

    TO: AK-hunt because I believe you are capable of understanding what is going to happen and accept it. Maybe you can "help" the tribe cope with the reality. Please pass this on to him....he said he was not going to read this thread anymore and invited you to PM him....he did not offer the same to me.
    • THE REGISTERED GUIDE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN RECEIVE MONEY AND CONTRACT A CLIENT FOR A GUIDED HUNT AND PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE FORM OF A LODGE OR A CAMP
    hired pilots.....assistant guides and class A assistant guides are clearly not directly contracted to provide guide services.....tell him I am sorry....I don't make the rules.......I just do my best to comply; and to consider the possibility that I could be a big game guide too........

    AVALANCHE



















  19. #19

    Default

    I think Avalanche has it nailed... Very detailed analysis.

    I do not have experience with the guiding element, however I have done significant Part 91 flying 300 hrs+/yr for supporting survey work for 10 consecutive years, based out of different villages and regional hubs around the state. I was ramp checked every year, sometime multiple times, as it was a very obvious flight operation going on. The rules and guidelines outlined in Avalanche's response was exactly the criteria and the evaluation the FAA did each time:
    ================================================== ====
    Are you being paid as an employee? YES...
    Does your company position description include piloting mentioned? NO
    Do you receive any additional compensation other than your normal salary for flying?- NO
    Is your salary within range of your non-aviation profession (not inflated)? - YES
    Is the aircraft owned or lease by the company to show operational control? - YES
    Is the insurance carried for aircraft non-commercial in nature? - YES
    Does the company only charge for professional services, and not for providing flights? - YES
    Are flight portions of professional services only accountable as true operational costs, and not equivalent Air Taxi rates, or arbitrary or non-documentable by audit costs beyond proof able operational costs? YES
    Is any offer made by the company or pilot to provide flight service (holding one self out). - NO
    Is pilot current, and provide for his own documentation for airmen credentials? YES
    Does the employer set flight schedules, or request flights for clients, guests, other employees, agents or others? NO
    ================================================== =======
    With those questions answered with the stated responses, you are normally going to be viewed as being within the guidelines of Part 91. Any question answered differently would be a show stopper, and you would be most likely viewed as being in violation of FARs relating to receiving compensation for hire.

    Having gone through this several times a year, and audits by Federal auditors for federal contacts we were working on, I can tell you that you better be complying with the true intent of the FARs because an in depth investigation by the FAA or an audit by GAO will look at all of these questions very carefully and you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and as an airman your are liable for your piloting actions, not your employer.

    Part 91 is just what it is meant to be. Those who try to circumvent the rules by really trying to do commercial flying under the guise of Part 91 walk out on very thin ice. When in doubt, if you are collecting money for flight services for a member of the general public, you had better be Part 135 or 121 IMHO.

  20. #20
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default found the Alaska Statutes and Regulations, Big Game Commercial Services Board.

    http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pub/BGCSStatutes.pdf This might clear up some questions? It still talks in circles.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •