Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Scheduled Operations Under Part 135  
User currently offlineputput28 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14575 times:

I am looking into the rules governing part 135 operations in the U.S.

Does anybody know if scheduled operations with planes > 10 pax are permitted under part 135? Any answer or direction on where I could find an answer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Putput28

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14535 times:

Quoting putput28 (Thread starter):
Does anybody know if scheduled operations with planes > 10 pax are permitted under part 135?

Yes.

FAR 135.2:
(a) Applicability. This section applies to the following:
(1) Each certificate holder that was issued an air carrier or operating certificate and operations specifications under the requirements of part 135 of this chapter or under SFAR No. 38–2 of 14 CFR part 121 before January 19, 1996, and that conducts scheduled passenger-carrying operations with:
(i) Nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seat configuration of 10–19 seats;
(ii) Transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that have a passenger seat configuration of 20–30 seats; or
(iii) Turbojet engine powered airplanes having a passenger seat configuration of 1–30 seats.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...0.1.1.8&idno=14#14:3.0.1.1.8.1.3.1

Tom.


User currently offlineputput28 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14504 times:

Tom,

Thanks so much for the help!


User currently offline26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14501 times:

Umm..actually, No.

FAR 135.2 then says:

"(b) Obtaining operations specifications. A certificate holder described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may not, after March 20, 1997, operate an airplane described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or (a)(1)(iii) of this section in scheduled passenger-carrying operations, unless it obtains operations specifications to conduct its scheduled operations under part 121 of this chapter on or before March 20, 1997."

Scheduled Part 135 operations used to be allowed until the late '90's when FAR 119 came along. We called them "commuter" air carriers.

FAR 119 was developed as a result of the ambiguity between 135 and 121 scheduled operations. FAR 119 is a "road map" for this exact question: "Am I a 135 or a 121 operator?" and essentially eliminated scheduled 135 operations from the CFRs.

Putput28, read FAR 119 for the details. That should help you.

Some operators have cleverly tried to run "scheduled" 135 flights by claiming the passengers decide when the plane departs so technically the operation is "on demand". Not sure this has had much success but creative nonetheless.


User currently offlineputput28 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14498 times:

That clarification helps a lot. I'll read over 119 to get a better understanding.

Thanks to both of you guys for the help. It's much appreciated.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6385 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 14488 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 3):

Some operators have cleverly tried to run "scheduled" 135 flights by claiming the passengers decide when the plane departs so technically the operation is "on demand". Not sure this has had much success but creative nonetheless.

You can fly scheduled service under Part 135 as long as the aircraft has 9 pax. seats or less  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14446 times:

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 3):
Umm..actually, No.

   Thou shalt read *all* of the FAR before posting...thou shalt read *all* of the FAR before posting...

Thanks for catching that.

Tom.


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 14393 times:

Cape Air's entire Cessna 402 operation is Part 135......

I believe that the rules were changed in 1997 when Great Lakes Airlines mechanics were not performing proper maintenance on some of its Brasilia's because at that time any aircraft seating 30 seats or less was covered under Part 135. That sent big red flags to the FAA and Great Lakes voluntarily shut down their ops.....

Strangely enough, The Britt/Continental Express Brasilia that crashed on Sept 11, 1991 on its way back from Laredo to Houston was then governed under part 135 rules. In The NTSB report, had the plane been operated under Part 121, the plane might not have crashed because Part 121 regs. would have required the Pilots to make an actual visual inspection of the work that had been done to the stabilizer leading edge as would have been noted in the maintenance log. Part 135 required neither.

As stated above, there are exception when Part 135 ops are allowed for NON-Scheduled carriers, like charters when carrying more than 10-30 or so passengers.

In all honesty, the more stringent 121 rules have made it more difficult for smaller commuter regional airlines to exist as these rules are very complicated. The result is the cessation of air service into some of the smaller communities in the US. Not only in the realm of more complicated maintenance but the requirement for FAA certified dispatchers, something not required under Part 135. These all equated to higher costs of operation.

It would be nice if they would roll back the Part 135 to include Scheduled operations by carriers that fly aircraft carrying up to 19 passengers....If this was the case you would probably see more smaller carriers restart service into smaller cities that have since been abandoned by even the 19 passenger airlines...

Also, a decent 9 passenger replacement for the Navajo Chieftain and the Cessna 402 is needed, as those aircraft are getting a bit old. Just like the big boys you can only bend metal so many times before it breaks.

A turbine powered version of either type might come in handy.

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6385 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 14366 times:

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 7):
Also, a decent 9 passenger replacement for the Navajo Chieftain and the Cessna 402 is needed, as those aircraft are getting a bit old. Just like the big boys you can only bend metal so many times before it breaks.

A turbine powered version of either type might come in handy.

Personally, I think it would be nice if two changes were to happen:

1) the asinine requirement in the FAR's that the maximum number of passenger seats in a single is 9 be dropped and 2) that the FAR's be rewritten to allow 14-15 passengers under part 135.

Then the PC-12 and the Grand Caravan could be profitably operated for their intended purpose in the USA with a reasonable ticket cost  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14319 times:

Im not so sure that I trust a single engine PC-12 or Cessna Caravan as an airliner for long distances....

I know that Air Choice One uses them into and out of OHare flying to/from Burlington, Iowa and Decatur, Il. as well as Decatur and Burlington to/from St. Louis but I just have a problem with the ONE engine.
Also, the travelling public seems to have an irrational fear of prop planes to begin with. I just dont see that ONE engine is what instills confidence in passengers. Maybe Its just me....

When I worked for Propheter Aviation, based in Rock Falls, Illinois we flew the Cessna 402s into and out of OHare and we were even required the use TWO pilots. We could have done what Cape Air is doing now with the single pilot Ops, but part of our EAS contract required two pilots.

I do however agree, that but to a different degree. As I stated above, I think that Part 135 should include aircraft seating up to 19 passengers, which in turn would re-open whole bunch of other opportunities for rural American towns to once again have air connections. How can rural America hope to grow and flourish if its isolated from industry and transportation?

Did you know that there is an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) out there to operate the 13-15 passenger Beech 99 as a 9 passenger aircraft so that it might fall under Part 135 rules?
The problem is that the majority of Beech 99s out there carrying cargo or are nearing 35-40 years old....Raytheon/Beechcraft foolishly dismantled the production jigs for the 99 so there will never be a revival of that very versatile aircraft.

Of course, Viking Aircraft that has begun reproduction of the Twin Otter, I think is a smart thing. Now if we could get the FAA to back up and revise Part 135 to include 19 or less passengers for Scheduled Ops wed be in a good shape....

Also, unfortunately, there are many Jetstream 31s that are now sitting and rotting away or being broken up because carrying 19 passengers isnt in that type of aircraft isnt worth the Part 121 requirement costs....I have flown many times on the J-31 and I find it to be a very nice aircraft. Its doesnt make you feel all cooped up. I think its the 1x2 seating.

The Metros and the C model Beech 1900s can be a bit tight but they get the job done....
We definately need to develop or re-launch some of these proven designs to fill the gap.
All I know is something needs to be done.

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Scheduled Operations Under Part 135
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Part 121 And Part 135 Aviation Employees Needed! posted Sat Jun 26 2010 22:11:46 by deebee74
Part 135 Cert. Cost? posted Wed Mar 3 2010 14:56:35 by Qantas777
Value Of A Part 135 Cert.. posted Tue Feb 7 2006 06:47:03 by USXguy
Part 135 Questions posted Tue Dec 21 2004 21:39:22 by Dw747400
Part 135 Jumpseats posted Mon Jun 30 2003 06:09:10 by Boomer
Part 121/135 And Regional Airlines posted Mon Nov 8 2010 16:28:30 by UltimateDelta
Single Pilot Operations For Biz Jets posted Mon Dec 13 2010 16:39:39 by egph
Air Transat Operations posted Sat Dec 4 2010 09:13:12 by BWIA330
Can Prop Airplanes Reverse Under Their Own Power? posted Sat Nov 27 2010 18:42:38 by c5load
Baggage Operations At PDX posted Thu Nov 4 2010 19:28:42 by AlnessW
A Good 9-pax Twin Turboprop...Part 135 posted Thu Dec 5 2013 14:27:18 by bjorn14
Part 135 IFR And VFR Visibility Minimums posted Wed Jun 6 2012 17:40:19 by raven74
Part 121 And Part 135 Aviation Employees Needed! posted Sat Jun 26 2010 22:11:46 by deebee74
Part 135 Cert. Cost? posted Wed Mar 3 2010 14:56:35 by Qantas777
Conversion Of Part 135 Certificate To Part 121 posted Wed Jul 1 2009 05:39:55 by JA
Value Of A Part 135 Cert.. posted Tue Feb 7 2006 06:47:03 by USXguy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format