September 2015: Jake Lenz, CP-ASEL IA . PP-ASES

Jake Lenz CP ASEL IACongratulations! @Jake Lenz, CP ASEL IA . PP ASES .   

Stevens Point Municipal Airport (KSTE): Jake Lenz, an instrument rated, certificated pilot of Single-Engine Land and  Single-Engine Sea airplanes, completed commercial flight training with Wanda Zuege, 2010 Flight Instructor Of The Year/Wisconsin.

As a Private Pilot with an instrument rating, Jake is certified to fly passengers for pleasure or personal business under

Jake Lenz, PP-ASEL, ASES, Instrument AirplaneVisual Flight Rules in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC); to fly in weather where the visibility would be 3 miles or greater in controlled airspace and/or


Jake LenzInstrument Flight Rules (IFR) in instrument meteorological conditions; to fly in weather conditions with less than 3 statute miles of visibility in controlled airspace. 






On Thursday, September 3rd, 2015, Lenz demonstrated mastery of the aircraft with each commercial TASK performed during the Commercial Practical Test Flight with Designated Pilot Examiner, Harold “Duffy” Gaier of the Marshfield Municipal Airport.

Under the authority of CFR Subpart F 61.133 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Jake Lenz is now eligible to fly “nonstop sightseeing flights, ferry or training flights, crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing, banner towing, aerial photography or survey, fire fighting and powerline or pipeline patrol, to name a few. A commercial pilot can receive compensation for these flight operations …” Reigel Law Firm, LTD.

Legal Interpretation # 92-68

Your third question asks, “Can a commercially certificated pilot
fly a friend for full compensation or hire under Part 91?” The
answer is that there are some limited circumstances when it is
permissible. From the standpoint of Part 61, the holder of a
commercial pilot certificate is permitted to accept compensation
for piloting (See FAR 61.139). There is a question, however,
whether the operation can be conducted under Part 91 as opposed
to Part 135.

A pilot flying under Part 91 may not carry persons or property in
air commerce for compensation or hire. This means that the
aircraft owner may only transport passengers and property that
pertain to the owner or the owner’s business, as long as that
business is not air transportation (See FAR 91.501). One example
of this Part 91 operation is the corporate pilot flying a company
airplane carrying company property and passengers. The corporate
pilot is paid for his work, and therefore must have a commercial
pilot certificate. Another example is pilot service, where a
commercial pilot is paid by an airplane owner to fly the airplane
for the owner. As long as there is no “carriage in air commerce
of persons or property for compensation or hire”, the commercial
pilot can operate under Part 91 and be paid for his services.

We stress that FAR 135.1(3), FAR 135.5, and FAR 135.7 make it
clear that the “carriage in air commerce of persons or property
for compensation or hire” requires an air taxi/commercial
operator operating certificate. Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division

Pilot privileges and limitations: Sharing Expenses, John S. Yodice (aopa pilot).  If a private pilot may share expenses, what about the holder of a commercial pilot or an airline transport pilot certificate? The question comes up because the regulation that we quoted earlier talks in terms of a “private pilot.” Without going through a detailed legal analysis of the regulation, let’s go right to the bottom line. A commercial pilot or ATP may exercise the privileges of a private pilot, including the shared-expense privilege.

Another important problem in the shared-expense flight is insurance coverage.
Policies on many light aircraft designate that the aircraft is to be used only for
“business and pleasure” and not for a “commercial purpose.” Under the business
and pleasure category, many modern insurance policies specifically cover a
shared-expense flight to the extent that it is allowed by the FARs. But under
some older forms of policies that are still in use, there could be a problem. Under
the definition of “business and pleasure,” or elsewhere in these policies, flights
for which a “charge” is made are excluded from insurance coverage. After an
accident or incident, an insurance company could argue that any payment,
including a shared-expense payment or arrangement, is a charge that voids the
insurance coverage. This has happened in the past. Most of the cases
interpreting these kinds of provisions have been decided in favor of the pilot-
owner. That may not prevent an insurance company from declining coverage for
a particular accident or incident that occurred on an expense-sharing flight.
Because you would like to have this problem resolved in advance of any sharedexpense
flight, you should carefully read your policy. If a shared-expense flight is
not clearly covered, you should clarify the matter with your insurance company.

January, 2013: Jake Lenz attended Am I High Aviation, LLC’s Weekend Ground School and passed the FAA Instrument Knowledge Test in just 2 days.
This entry was posted in Graduates. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.