FAA Reference Library
FAA Office of Chief Counsel interpretations of the regulations - how the FAA reads its own rules, issued in response to specific questions.
About Legal Interpretations
Legal interpretations are letters from the FAA Chief Counsel explaining how a regulation applies to a specific situation. They are non-binding but carry real weight in how the FARs are enforced and understood. Sourced from the FAA Dynamic Regulatory System; each links to the full letter.
View Mode
March 26, 1996
FlightPush Summary
Preston, Gates & Ellis asked whether a Boeing 727 could fly two Vancouver professional sports teams to away games under a time-sharing agreement. The FAA said the operation could be conducted under 14 CFR part 91, subpart F, with charges limited to those in 14 CFR 91.501(d), assuming an appropriate deviation from 14 CFR part 125 is granted.
December 22, 1995
FlightPush Summary
An attorney asked how the FAA decides who is pilot in command when an instructor flies with another pilot. The FAA said an instructor without a medical certificate who takes the controls to prevent an unsafe condition does not become PIC; the qualified pilot remains PIC. Agreement between the pilots usually controls, and otherwise qualifications and other factors decide case by case.
October 25, 1995
FlightPush Summary
Patricia J. Arthur, L.L.C. asked whether a flight instructor needs a medical certificate to give flight instruction for compensation. The FAA said no medical certificate is required if the instructor is not acting as pilot in command, but an instructor who is also acting as pilot in command must hold at least a third class medical certificate.
November 20, 1995
FlightPush Summary
An airman who upgraded to an ATP certificate while appealing a revocation order asked the FAA to reissue the ATP and ratings without requalifying. The FAA denied the request: under agency policy, a revocation order applies to a certificate upgraded during the appeal, and the commercial certificate was surrendered, not merely supplemented, when the ATP was issued.
September 19, 1995
FlightPush Summary
An individual asked whether high performance airplane endorsements under 14 CFR 61.31(e) should distinguish airplanes over 200 horsepower from complex airplanes. The FAA said no: under the rule as then written, one endorsement as recommended by AC 61-65C covers both. Separate endorsements would become appropriate if a pending 1995 proposal splitting the two categories took effect.
August 25, 1995
FlightPush Summary
Bogle & Gates asked whether changing a hypothetical so Flying Service owned the aircraft, dry-leased it to Owner, and supplied crews for Owner's shareholders altered the FAA's earlier conclusion. The FAA said it did: Flying Service would need a 14 CFR part 135 certificate, though a final determination requires review of all facts of the actual operation.
July 20, 1995
FlightPush Summary
Bogle & Gates asked whether a turbojet owned by a single-asset corporation could be flown by a manager for the corporation's two shareholders under 14 CFR part 91. The FAA said no: the shareholders' payments are compensation, so 14 CFR part 135 certification is needed by the owner or possibly the manager. Wet leases to a part 135 carrier that is truly the operator are proper.
February 1, 1995
FlightPush Summary
The Oregon Department of Forestry asked whether billing other state agencies for flights jeopardizes public aircraft status. The FAA said personnel transport must move to part 91 under a 1995 change, internal state billing is not commercial, but payment from any other government would make a flight commercial, except under narrow agreements or a statutory threat-response exception.
March 17, 1995
FlightPush Summary
An IA holder with Midcoast Little Rock, Inc. asked whether three major repairs and five major alterations qualified for IA renewal. The FAA said yes: 14 CFR 65.93(a)(2) is met by any combination of major repairs and major alterations totaling eight during the previous year, performed in any quarter or quarters.
May 11, 1995
FlightPush Summary
An airplane owner asked whether planned aerial photography and survey flights could be flown under 14 CFR part 91 instead of 14 CFR part 135. The FAA said they appear to qualify for the exception if that is their sole purpose, but not if the aircraft lands away from its origin; serving as an aerial platform for others for compensation or hire requires at least a commercial pilot certificate.
November 28, 1994
FlightPush Summary
In a non-radar IFR environment, a pilot must begin a standard instrument approach procedure at the published initial approach fix and fly the entire procedure, because TERPs descent gradients and obstruction clearance cannot otherwise be assured. A published feeder route is mandatory, a DME arc cannot substitute for the IAF, and a published procedure turn must be flown when cleared for the approach unless a 14 CFR 91.175(j) condition applies.
July 22, 1994
FlightPush Summary
Aurora Aviation, a part 135 air taxi operator, asked about renting a privately owned, part 91-maintained aircraft to charter customers using pilots who also fly for Aurora. The FAA said that because Aurora would provide the aircraft and pilots and receive payment, the flights would be considered Aurora's and must comply with 14 CFR part 135.
July 18, 1994
FlightPush Summary
When a progressive inspection program is discontinued, the next 100-hour inspection under 14 CFR 91.409(d)(4) is due within 100 hours of the number four progressive inspection, the one that completes the yearly cycle. Only a full completed cycle is equivalent to the 100-hour and annual inspections the program replaces.
April 11, 1994
FlightPush Summary
An attorney asked whether a U.S. corporation wholly owned by a Canadian corporation may hold a rotorcraft external-load operator certificate. The FAA found nothing in 14 CFR part 133 or its regulatory history prohibiting it.
April 7, 1994
FlightPush Summary
A commercial pilot convicted of federal drug offenses not involving an aircraft asked about the certificate. The FAA said 14 CFR 61.15 makes such a conviction grounds for suspension or revocation and its practice is revocation; a new certificate may be sought one year later by retaking the written and flight tests.
October 14, 1994
FlightPush Summary
Corporate Air asked whether its owners could obtain a second Part 135 certificate for a new, separately managed company. The FAA said yes, but only if the new company has a legal identity separate from Corporate Air, normally as a separate corporation, because SFAR 38-2 allows each person only one certificate and a separate corporation is its own person under 14 CFR 1.1.
July 5, 1994
FlightPush Summary
An attorney asked about the FAA's role in issuing airman certificates and keeping their records. The FAA traced certification authority from the Commerce Department through the Civil Aeronautics Authority and Administration to the FAA, which issues pilot and medical certificates under the Federal Aviation Act. Offices in Oklahoma City keep pilot and medical certification records, with pilot records dating to the 1940s.
April 15, 1993
FlightPush Summary
A commercial pilot asked whether flying two medical companies' employees in aircraft the companies rented fell under 14 CFR part 135. The FAA said that on the facts given the pilot did not appear to be "carrying" passengers, which turns on operational control, so the flights were not subject to 14 CFR part 135, but warned the case was close and slight changes could alter the outcome.
April 12, 1993
FlightPush Summary
An individual planning to locate radio-collared wildlife and count herds with a biologist aboard asked whether this was aerial survey work excepted from 14 CFR part 135. The FAA said yes: "survey" carries its ordinary meaning, which has included counting animal populations from an aircraft, so no Part 135 operating certificate would be required.
March 26, 1993
FlightPush Summary
An attorney asked the FAA to revisit its earlier view that First Security Bank could not carry another bank's documents for compensation under Part 91. Given new facts showing the bank processes other banks' checks and transports them as part of that business, the FAA concluded the flights are incidental to that business and may use the company aircraft under 14 CFR 91.501, sharing costs under 14 CFR 91.501(d).
March 8, 1993
FlightPush Summary
A Senator asked how 14 CFR 61.118 applies to private pilots flying volunteer Angel Flight missions. The FAA said reimbursement of expenses or a tax deduction for carrying persons or property is compensation or hire and violates the rule. Angel Flight might qualify for an exemption allowing fuel, oil, and maintenance reimbursement for official search activities, but not for carrying persons or property.
October 26, 1993
FlightPush Summary
A commercial pilot asked whether flying a vehicle company's drivers to pickup sites in a rented aircraft fell under 14 CFR part 91 or 14 CFR part 135. As described, the company is the operator, receives no payment, and the carriage appears not to be for compensation or hire. If the pilot instead supplied aircraft and pilot services for payment, a commercial operator certificate would be required.
December 8, 1993
FlightPush Summary
The pilot under the hood may log PIC time as sole manipulator of the controls if rated for the aircraft, while the appropriately rated safety pilot logs SIC. If the pilots agree before the flight that the safety pilot is PIC, the safety pilot may log all the flight time as PIC and the pilot under the hood may still log PIC under 14 CFR 61.51(c)(2)(i).
January 14, 1993
FlightPush Summary
A private pilot asked whether passengers from another company could share expenses on business trips the pilot was making anyway. The FAA said this should be consistent with 14 CFR 61.118 if carrying them is truly incidental, their services are independent of the pilot's business, and reimbursement covers only direct flight expenses paid by the passengers or their employer.
June 30, 1993
FlightPush Summary
An aircraft owner asked which costs of a trip with an acquaintance could be shared under 14 CFR 61.118(b). The FAA said only costs that would not exist without the flight, such as fuel, oil, and destination ramp or tie-down fees, may be shared, and equally; insurance, maintenance, hangar rent, and engine replacement costs may not.
May 20, 1993
FlightPush Summary
Aspen Base Operation asked whether a limited partnership could fly turbojets for its partners and guests under part 91 while recovering operating costs. The FAA said no: a company formed primarily to provide air transportation does not qualify under 14 CFR 91.501, so the flights need 14 CFR part 135. An airplane operated under part 135 may fly under part 91 only to carry its owner and guests.
March 15, 1993
FlightPush Summary
A requester asked what counts as cross-country time for the airline transport pilot certificate. The FAA said there is no legal definition. Flight Standards counts commercial pilots' required-crewmember time with a landing elsewhere under air carrier rules, or under 14 CFR part 91, 14 CFR part 127, or 14 CFR part 137 when dead reckoning or navigation aids are needed, plus qualifying military flights beyond 50 nautical miles.
July 31, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A compensated, daytime VFR flight carrying only the pilot and no cargo, made solely to dispose of cremated human remains aloft, appears to be an aerial work operation excepted by 14 CFR 135.1(b)(4), so no Part 135 certificate would be required. A commercial pilot certificate satisfies the 14 CFR part 61 requirement for acting as pilot in command for compensation or hire.
April 16, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A captain asked how the domestic flight time and rest rules of 14 CFR 121.471 apply when flights run long. The FAA said a pilot legal to start may exceed the 14 CFR 121.471(a)(3) limit on a last flight, the section sets no duty limit, and its scheduling rules are prospective, but delays cannot infringe on the next required rest period.
August 5, 1992
FlightPush Summary
Northwest Aviation Enterprises asked whether several balloon operations were for hire. The FAA said private pilots may fly balloons advertising their own company or employer when flying is incidental to their job, but a student pilot advertising another's business, or a private pilot flying another company's banner for pay, violates 14 CFR part 61. Rally items are generally compensation unless bought with the entrance fee or given to all.
March 26, 1992
FlightPush Summary
AMR Combs asked whether standby or reserve status counts as duty for flight crewmembers. Lacking a specific schedule, the FAA offered general observations: a standby or reserve pilot has a present responsibility to work if called and is therefore on duty, which tolls the rest period. The FAA also declined to review the company's operations manual policies.
October 29, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A bank that flies its own documents to Salt Lake City cannot fill the return leg with another financial institution's cargo in exchange for shared expenses under 14 CFR part 91. The private pilot cost-sharing rule does not let a company carry others' property for payment, and the 14 CFR part 91, subpart F exceptions do not cover cargo outside the bank's own business.
October 9, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A requester asked whether simulator time could meet the Part 141 chief instructor PIC requirement and whether Air Force experience could meet the Part 135 chief pilot requirement. The FAA said no to both: 14 CFR 141.35(d)(2) requires actual flight time, and 14 CFR 135.39(b)(1)(ii) counts only specified PIC experience in commercial operations.
June 12, 1992
FlightPush Summary
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association asked whether a CFI with a third-class medical may be paid and act as pilot in command while instructing. The FAA said that a careful reading of Part 61 Certification Bulletin 81-2 suggests yes, though the bulletin does not specifically address the question.
July 14, 1992
FlightPush Summary
The Air Line Pilots Association asked whether carrier-provided ground transportation between co-domicile airports, such as from Baltimore-Washington International back to Washington Dulles, counts as rest. The FAA said yes: travel between co-domicile airports is local in character, so it is not deadhead transportation and could be considered rest.
March 27, 1992
FlightPush Summary
The Air Line Pilots Association asked whether crewmembers' commutes between home and two co-domiciled airports count as duty time. The FAA said no: home-to-airport travel is local transportation, not provided by the carrier, and counts as part of a rest period. 14 CFR 121.471(f) covers non-local transportation the carrier requires and provides, such as deadheading.
February 4, 1992
FlightPush Summary
An individual asked how private pilots may share flight expenses under 14 CFR 61.118. The FAA said only direct costs of the flight may be shared, and a private pilot may not hold out to the public, so using a service that procures passengers from the general public for private pilots is prohibited.
April 8, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A part 121 pilot asked whether on-call reserve duty at home counts toward the required 24 consecutive hours of rest in any seven days. The FAA said no: reserve status requiring availability for an immediate assignment is duty, so the pilot may not be assigned the Monday flight until first given a prospective 24-hour period free of all duty. Only the carrier can be charged under 14 CFR 121.471(d).
June 25, 1992
FlightPush Summary
The fueling fire-safety training rules in 14 CFR 139.321 apply to airport certificate holders and the employees of fueling agents, such as fixed base operators and tenant fuel companies, not to private pilots refueling their own aircraft. Airport authorities may still voluntarily impose additional fire-safety requirements.
October 14, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A requester asked whether a part 121 crew that flew 3 hours of domestic flights and then 8 hours of flag flights between rest periods was legal. The FAA said yes: domestic limits in 14 CFR 121.471 govern the domestic legs and flag limits in 14 CFR 121.483 govern the flag legs, and the schedule met both.
November 24, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A requester asked when domestic air carrier crews may complete schedules after weather delays add flight time. The FAA said a crew may finish the day's scheduled flights if delays are beyond the carrier's control, and for the 30-hours-in-7-days limit, actual prior flight time plus the day's scheduled time must not exceed 30 hours under 14 CFR 121.471(a).
May 27, 1992
FlightPush Summary
Paint the Sky Kites asked what counts as the boundary of an airport for the rule barring moored balloons and kites within five miles of one. The FAA said the boundary includes the outermost edges of all property used or designated for airport purposes, even land not fenced as airport property or an airport business park, as shown on airport layout plans for federally eligible airports.
July 13, 1992
FlightPush Summary
An attorney asked whether Public Service Company of Colorado's helicopter flights carrying Tri-State maintenance crews fall under Part 135. The FAA said uncompensated flights to jointly owned work sites are Part 91 operations, but carrying Tri-State crews for compensation or to Tri-State-only sites is Part 135, and combining such transportation with pipeline patrol defeats the patrol exception.
November 12, 1992
FlightPush Summary
Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger asked whether a carrier may complete the remaining legs of a multi-leg flight when adverse weather will push flight time beyond limits. The FAA said yes in both scenarios: under 14 CFR 121.471(g), unforeseen weather or delays disrupting a properly scheduled flight are excused, though carriers must schedule realistically and adjust schedules that consistently run over.
January 13, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A law firm asked the FAA for its prior policies and interpretations on what "schedule" means in 14 CFR 121.481(a) and 14 CFR 121.483(a). The FAA did not answer the question itself; it supplied 21 documents it found within the scope of the request and billed the processing costs under FOIA regulations.
April 20, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A Jetstream International Airlines pilot asked whether delays that push actual flight time past 34 hours in 7 days bar finishing the day's schedule under 14 CFR 135.265(a)(3). The FAA said no: if prior actual flight time plus the day's scheduled time is 34 hours or less, the pilot may complete the day, though a carrier should relieve a dangerously fatigued pilot.
March 27, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A requester asked whether a pilot may fly scheduled operations on seven consecutive days without 24 consecutive hours off duty. The FAA said no: under 14 CFR 135.265(d) a day is a calendar day, so relief must come on the seventh day, and counting 168 consecutive hours instead would require an exemption.
June 16, 1992
FlightPush Summary
A company may accept reimbursement for carrying a government official on its corporate airplane only when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, the company's business, and only up to the cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the airplane. Otherwise, accepting payment requires an appropriate FAA operating certificate.