Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Murphy Moose

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2

    Default Murphy Moose

    I have been reading a lot about the Murphy Moose homebuilt and am wondering if it is possible to use such an aircraft commercially. I would think you would not be allowed to fly passengers for pay but what about cargo?

    Are there situations in Alaska to fly cargo only in such a plane and make a living? I am not a pilot (yet) and don't live in Alaska however I am curious and appreciate any thoughts on this subject and any thoughts on the Murphy Moose in general.

    regards,

    John K.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Amateur-built experimental aircraft are restricted to non-commercial use. Flying for-hire is prohibited. They can be used for flight instruction, though.

    The Moose looks like a nice airplane. I've talked to owners who love them. Here's a site to look at.
    http://www.goflyamoose.com/

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Thanks for your reply.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    520

    Default

    With an experimental you can't transport passengers or cargo for compensation or hire. You may get away with something like getting hired by a mine as an expediter and using the plane in that capacity, where the flying is incidental to your job. Any other thoughts on this?....Louis

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis View Post
    With an experimental you can't transport passengers or cargo for compensation or hire. You may get away with something like getting hired by a mine as an expediter and using the plane in that capacity, where the flying is incidental to your job. Any other thoughts on this?....Louis
    Sure; thats what some fishing lodge operators and hunting guides do. They "hire" pilots with their own airplanes as "guides" and get around the FAA commercial carry regs that way........I don't know why your idea would not work the same way as long as it is only frieght, who cares if it is an experimental aircraft?


    By the way..........the MM is an awesome airplane for personal use anyway.


  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    Sure; thats what some fishing lodge operators and hunting guides do. They "hire" pilots with their own airplanes as "guides" and get around the FAA commercial carry regs that way........I don't know why your idea would not work the same way as long as it is only frieght, who cares if it is an experimental aircraft?
    The FAA cares, and they put it in writing. Line (a)2 is very specific.
    http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY...6?OpenDocument

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    The FAA cares, and they put it in writing. Line 2 is very specific.
    Yep; your are correct, very specific.

    The regs must not be that specific regarding the commercial carry rules related to lodges and hunting guides who "hire" guides to fly their airplanes.........must be easier for them to avoid compliance because they are not using an "experimental" aircraft?


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    If you're referring to lodges avoiding part 135 air taxi requirements? Hiring a guide with his own plane is legal. That guide should be operating as a commercial pilot while flying for the master guide or lodge operation, but he's doing so under Part 91 rather than Part 135.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    If you're referring to lodges avoiding part 135 air taxi requirements? Hiring a guide with his own plane is legal. That guide should be operating as a commercial pilot while flying for the master guide or lodge operation, but he's doing so under Part 91 rather than Part 135.
    Would you happen to have a reg handy that backs that up..........it seems like the act of "guiding" or "hired to guide" is done on the ground with a fishing pole or gun in your hand and hauling people around in the airplane would be considered a commercial flight operation? They are not the same things; are they, guiding and flying that is?


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    FAR 91.147 dictates requirements for pilots who carry passengers for compensation. You may argue that a "guide" is being paid for guiding, not flying, but if the employment of that guide was contingent upon the guide providing transportation of the client in an airplane? You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the flight component of the guide responsibilities wouldn't be part of the compensated services.

    I'm sure there are "guides" who fly clients without the proper commercial airman's certificate and commercial aircraft maintenance programs. I'm also sure I wouldn't climb into their airplanes. I prefer to use guides who maintain higher standards.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Avalanche wrote: Sure; thats what some fishing lodge operators and hunting guides do. They "hire" pilots with their own airplanes as "guides" and get around the FAA commercial carry regs that way........

    You sure have a lot of negative ideas and comments concerning how guides operate in this state without any real knowledge on the subject or sustantial facts to back your statements up! A contracting guide with at least 500hrs of Alaska time can use an aircraft in his operation because the flight is incidental to the guiding. The client purchased a hunt and an aircraft is used for transportation to and from the hunting area. It is not a flight seeing tour, which falls under Part 135 regs. If the guide is hired with an aircraft that guide can pilot it with a client if they will be hunting or fishing and the flight is incidental to the hunting or fishing. If a lodge/guide leases an aircraft from someone and the person flying it will be a pilot and not a guide that person must have a commercial rating to fly for compensation. Get off the guide bashing unless you can back it with facts!

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    FAR 91.147 dictates requirements for pilots who carry passengers for compensation.
    "Requirements for pilots" is only a "part" of the regulations that define a commercial flight operation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    You may argue that a "guide" is being paid for guiding, not flying, but if the employment of that guide was contingent upon the guide providing transportation of the client in an airplane?
    So; if the "hired" cook meets the requirements of FAR 91.147, and as a condition of employment he/she is also providing transportation to the client in an airplane; this would not be a "legal" part 91 flight operation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the flight component of the guide responsibilities wouldn't be part of the compensated services.
    Right....it is clear that the Part 91 regulation does not allow for "partial compensation" or as a "condition of employment" of the flying "guide" or "cook" as being in compliance with a Part 91 flight operation?

    I am agreeing with your earlier post too......"Hiring a guide with his own plane is legal."

    It seems that to stay under part 91 rules and avoid the part 135 regulations:
    A) the client would have to fly with the guide who he contracted (paid the money to) with for the "guided" trip..........and
    B)that the "guide" who received the money from the client would be required to be both the pilot AND the guide? And
    C) the "contracted guide" is precluded from employing "pilots" unless the flight operation is conducted under part 135.


  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Once Ted Steven's is put to pasture I believe Alaskan lodges will lose their fight and part 135 will be enforced. The threat's been out there for 10 or 15 years. The feds will ultimately prevail. I don't think it'll hurt the legit operators much, either.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    A contracting guide with at least 500hrs of Alaska time can use an aircraft in his operation because the flight is incidental to the guiding.
    This is true and the contracting guide would be in compliance with the "incidental" rule provided the contracting guide is actually not paying someone else to actually guide the client. In other words; the contracting guide must also guide the client and as a condition of contracting with the client........also providing lodging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    The client purchased a hunt and an aircraft is used for transportation to and from the hunting area.
    Yep; as long as the client is flying with the contracted guide and the contracted guide is providing the "guided services" and the guided services include lodging............the flight operation is legal; "incidental in nature" under part 91.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    If the guide is hired with an aircraft that guide can pilot it with a client if they will be hunting or fishing and the flight is incidental to the hunting or fishing.
    You just changed gears dude. Now your talking about a "hired guide with an airplane". This is an entirely different relationship than a client who has contracted a guide with an airplane.

    The relationship between a "hired" guide with an airplane and the client is not contractual. The flight operation is not incidental "in nature" to the "hired" guide with an airplane". In addition the "hired" guide with an airplane is not providing any "lodging" either which further concludes the flight operation is not incidental in nature to the business of the "hired" guide with an airplane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    If a lodge/guide leases an aircraft from someone and the person flying it will be a pilot and not a guide that person must have a commercial rating to fly for compensation. Get off the guide bashing unless you can back it with facts!
    If a lodge/guide leases an airplane and hires a pilot.........then one can only conclude that the "pilot" is being paid to fly; and that my friend is the definition a commercial operation.


  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Pid View Post
    Once Ted Steven's is put to pasture I believe Alaskan lodges will lose their fight and part 135 will be enforced. The threat's been out there for 10 or 15 years. The feds will ultimately prevail. I don't think it'll hurt the legit operators much, either.

    Agreed; totally.


  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    75

    Default

    So; if the "hired" cook meets the requirements of FAR 91.147, and as a condition of employment he/she is also providing transportation to the client in an airplane; this would not be a "legal" part 91 flight operation?
    It would be legal if the cook was also a commercial pilot and they were on the insurance policy of the guide as a pilot. If you are hired as a cook/pilot you need to have a commercial rating because part of your job would be to fly for a paycheck.

    It seems that to stay under part 91 rules and avoid the part 135 regulations:
    A) the client would have to fly with the guide who he contracted (paid the money to) with for the "guided" trip..........and
    B)that the "guide" who received the money from the client would be required to be both the pilot AND the guide? And
    C) the "contracted guide" is precluded from employing "pilots" unless the flight operation is conducted under part 135.
    Under state law guides/outfitters don't operate under 135 regs and they can employe a pilot as long as the pilot is commercial rated. Most will also require an instrument rating and high time to keep insurance costs down. It also doesn't help their reputation if low time pilots are crashing with clients! Most lodges are extremely picky in who they allow to fly.

    Guides can contract a hunt and not personally guide it but still fly because the flight is incidental to the booked hunt. Conversly a guide may contract a hunt and guide but not fly if they lease or own an aircraft and employe a commercial pilot to fly it. They can also use an airtaxi and the airtaxi would fall under 135 regs because the nature of the business is to provide flights for hire.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    It would be legal if the cook was also a commercial pilot and they were on the insurance policy of the guide as a pilot. If you are hired as a cook/pilot you need to have a commercial rating because part of your job would be to fly for a paycheck.
    OK; maybe it is not an important distinction in that the client bought (contracted) the "trip" from the "guide" and the contract to provide lodging and guide services is between the guide and the client, and not the cook/pilot.

    And maybe it is not relevant that the "guide" employs the cook who also happens to be a qualified pilot and as a condition of employment the cook also provides.........at the required commercial pilot level.........pilot services for compensation.

    Maybe the fight activities of the individual pilot/cook is not the "primary business concern" and "ferrying" the guides contracted clients is incidental in nature.

    After all that, it still may not be important that the pilot/cook is not providing any lodging either and the intent of the employment and compensation agreement between the guide and the pilot/cook somehow reflects that cooking is what the person was hired to do and flying is incidental to cooking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    Under state law guides/outfitters don't operate under 135 regs and they can employe a pilot as long as the pilot is commercial rated.
    As I am sure you know, all flight operations are regulated by Federal Laws and a States regulation can not "waive" or circumvent any Federal Flight Standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    Guides can contract a hunt and not personally guide it but still fly because the flight is incidental to the booked hunt.
    Agreed, this is a common practice.

    But; the primary business concern of the "flying guide" in this case is; flying and not guiding. Flying is not incidental in nature to the person conducting the flight operation; which is regulated by Federal Flight Standards.

    Also, it may not be in anyones best interest to continue to ignore that in Marshall Vs. CAB the courts "only" considered a person conducting the flight operation was also the "contracted" guide; and in fact the person "guiding" the client being flown. The contract relationship between the "guide" and the client also included lodging and only then did the flying become justified as "incidental" in nature to the contracted agreement.

    Things have changed since Marshall but the Federal Flight Standards have not become less concerned with the "standards of compliance" and the flying publics interest. Those considerations will trump the "special consideration" given to Marshall. In every other regulated flight operations that involve the flying public this particular evolution and the broadening interpretation of Marshall has not become Federal Flight Standard regulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigermusky View Post
    Conversly a guide may contract a hunt and guide but not fly if they lease or own an aircraft and employe a commercial pilot to fly it.
    We are back to considering "hired" pilots whose primary business concern is to fly and the flight operations are in no way "incidental in nature" to the "flying pilot".

    Also, we are once again entirely overlooking the contracted agreement to provide services; lodging, and guiding is between A single client and a guide authorized to enter into the contractual agreement with the client; this is what makes flying "incidental in nature"; truly incidental and the "hiring" of pilots........a commercial flight operation.


  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    75

    Default

    WOW! You're way off course buddy. You are making up accusations and hypothetical situations that don't exist. As usual you took a thread and turned it into a soap box for you to vent your misleading ideas and half truths all in the name of trying to shut down the guide industry. This time you think you've found a loophole that allows the guides to do things that they aren't even doing!! Which is operating outside the law as far as flight operations are concerned!!! I am not going to explain to you again on how and why things are. Happy New Years.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Tiger have you considered

    Tiger, this has been debated many times in the past. One thing many people forget to think about is many guides/operators that own their own aircraft and fly under part 91 dont have to have insurance. The other thing guides do to avoid the rule is hire a pilot with more than 500 hours(like many of them never add hours to there log books) and make them assistant guides. Then as long as the guides book outfitted hunts the pilot can basically run a part 135 operation for hunters and it only cost the a couple hundred dollars. It is being done and anyone who denies it is fooling themselves. Most of the flight schools also operate part 91 and dont have aircraft insurance either.

    Problem with it is people just expect they are insured and the pilots are properly trained and many are not. At least you know that the part 135, the Feds monitor.

    I'm not a guide, transportor or CFI, but many of my friends our and this is the only way many of the businesses makes ends meat. For Everyones safety and peace of mind lets hope the Fed's change is sooner than later.

    Terry

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    1) I don't think insurance has anything to do with safety.

    2) The only difference I'm aware of between a part 91 commercial operation and a 135 operation is administrative. Maintenance and pilot training are equal.

    Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

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
  •