The Perils of Pushing Yourself to the Brink
Part 91, 121, and 135 compliance is more than a technical paperwork exercise for Nebraska operators. These regulatory frameworks shape how flights are structured, how aircraft are owned and managed, and how revenue is earned from passengers and cargo. Misunderstanding which part applies can turn a routine operation into a regulatory concern that affects certificates, contracts, and insurance arrangements. From Henderson and across Nebraska, Midwest Ag Law, LLC works with aviation operators to align business goals with federal aviation requirements in a deliberate and thoughtful way that supports long term operations.
This page focuses on helping aircraft owners, charter operators, agribusinesses, and corporate flight departments understand how Part 91, 121, and 135 rules interact with real world operations. Compliance questions frequently surface when operators consider dry leases, management agreements, aircraft sharing, or new marketing strategies directed at customers. By examining your structure before questions arise, you can reduce friction with regulators and counterparties and support safe, sustainable use of aircraft. The discussion that follows is intended as general information and does not replace tailored legal advice for your particular situation or flight profile.
Thoughtful guidance on Part 91, 121, and 135 compliance helps Nebraska operators align their business plans with the correct regulatory framework. The benefits often appear long before any formal FAA inquiry begins. Well structured leases, management agreements, and operating procedures can clarify operational control, reduce the appearance of common carriage where it is not intended, and support the narrative your documents present if questions are raised. This type of planning also helps counterparties, insurers, and lenders understand how risk is allocated. Over time, a consistent approach to compliance tends to preserve the value of aircraft, protect key relationships, and keep your focus on flying and serving customers rather than reacting under pressure.
Operational control in the aviation context refers to the authority to initiate, conduct, and terminate a flight. It involves decisions about crew selection, routing, fuel, maintenance status, and whether conditions are suitable to depart or continue. The FAA looks past labels in contracts to determine who truly holds this authority in practice. Clear allocation of operational control in management agreements, leases, and internal procedures is central to demonstrating that flights are conducted under the correct regulatory part and that responsibilities for safety and compliance are understood.
A dry lease is an agreement in which an aircraft is provided without crew, leaving the lessee responsible for supplying pilots and exercising operational control. Businesses or related entities often use dry leases when they want access to an aircraft without taking on full ownership. However, if a dry lease is paired with recommendations about crew or schedules in a way that effectively returns real control to the lessor, the FAA may view the arrangement as closer to charter. Careful drafting and consistent practices are important to preserve the intended structure and avoid unplanned treatment as commercial carriage.
Common carriage involves holding out to the public or a segment of the public a willingness to transport persons or property for compensation. It is not limited to scheduled airlines and can include charter arrangements if marketing, pricing, and access resemble services offered broadly rather than to a closed group. When common carriage is present, more stringent requirements under Parts 121 or 135 typically apply. Evaluating how your website, brochures, and conversations with potential passengers appear to regulators is important in avoiding unintended findings of common carriage for operations intended to remain private.
A management agreement in aviation typically outlines how a management company will provide services such as pilot staffing, maintenance coordination, scheduling, and recordkeeping for an aircraft owner. These agreements can support private use under Part 91 or charter operations under Part 135, depending on how responsibilities and control are allocated. Regulators examine whether the agreement and actual conduct show that operational control rests with the appropriate party. Well drafted management agreements seek to align business expectations, risk allocation, and the regulatory framework intended for the aircraft in daily use.
Written contracts only help your compliance position if they reflect what actually happens in the air and on the ground. When lease terms, management provisions, and invoicing structures match the real flow of control and money, the story you present to regulators is more coherent. Reviewing documents alongside day to day procedures is often the most productive way to identify and address aviation compliance risk.
Compliance issues frequently originate in how services are presented to the public rather than in a single flight. Websites, brochures, and social media posts can all contribute to a finding of common carriage if they suggest broad availability for hire. Evaluating marketing materials alongside leases and management agreements helps keep your chosen regulatory structure intact over time.
When questions arise, regulators and counterparties often look for records that show who made key decisions about a flight and why. Clear logs, emails, and internal procedures can demonstrate how operational control was exercised and what considerations shaped each choice. Building practical documentation habits now can make any future reviews more straightforward and less disruptive to your operation.
Many Nebraska operators use multiple entities to own aircraft, manage operations, and receive revenue from flights, often involving family members or investors. As these structures develop, the lines between private use and commercial carriage can become difficult to trace, particularly when marketing or cost sharing is involved. In these situations, a comprehensive review of ownership, contracts, tax considerations, and operational procedures is often warranted to maintain consistency and support your chosen regulatory framework.
As an operator grows or considers offering charter services, the regulatory landscape usually becomes more demanding and detailed. Expanding into new routes, customer segments, or joint ventures can change which part applies to particular flights and how oversight will occur. Full scope legal guidance can help align new business strategies with appropriate certifications, operations specifications, and risk management approaches before significant commitments or investments are made.
Sometimes the immediate concern is a single lease, management contract, or proposed shared use arrangement, rather than the entire structure. In these circumstances, a focused review of that agreement and how it relates to the intended operations may be appropriate. Limited engagements can address discrete issues, suggest revisions, and flag broader concerns that might justify more extensive review at a later stage.
Operators often need guidance on how a recurring set of flights should be characterized for regulatory purposes. A limited consultation can examine who is on board, how costs are shared, and how the flights are described to others, including marketing materials and internal policies. That discussion can provide practical guardrails to keep a defined set of operations aligned with the intended regulatory part without restructuring your entire enterprise.
Nebraska aviation operators turn to Midwest Ag Law, LLC because the firm approaches compliance questions with both regulatory and business perspectives in mind. The practice focuses on how Part 91, 121, and 135 obligations fit within broader concerns such as tax planning, real estate arrangements, and corporate governance. By taking time to understand how your operation earns revenue, manages risk, and interacts with customers and vendors, the firm can tailor agreements and procedures to support your particular goals. The objective is not simply to avoid violations but to create a structure that functions in daily practice and can withstand scrutiny when questions are raised.
Part 91, Part 121, and Part 135 represent different regulatory frameworks that the FAA applies depending on the nature of the flight. Part 91 generally governs private, noncommercial operations where transportation is not being offered to the public or a segment of the public. Parts 121 and 135 apply when passengers or cargo are carried for compensation or hire, with Part 121 typically addressing larger and scheduled operations and Part 135 focused more on on demand and commuter activities. For Nebraska operators, the distinction affects required certifications, maintenance programs, crew training, and oversight. The challenge arises when an operation has characteristics of both private and commercial use, such as shared aircraft, complex ownership, or occasional cost sharing. Evaluating how flights are structured, marketed, and documented is essential to determining which part applies and how to manage associated obligations over time.
A Part 91 operation can drift toward treatment as common carriage when the operator appears to hold out a willingness to transport persons or property for compensation beyond a closed group. Offering seats or flights widely, using public advertising, or engaging in pricing practices that mirror charter or airline services may signal to the FAA that the activity belongs under Part 121 or 135. Even if documents label the arrangement as private, regulators will look closely at how the service actually functions in the marketplace. Dry leases, cost sharing agreements, and informal arrangements between related businesses can all present risk if they mask what is, in substance, transportation offered to the public or a definable segment of the public. Nebraska operators benefit from reviewing marketing, billing, and scheduling practices against the regulatory definitions of common carriage. Addressing these questions in advance can help maintain the intended status of flights and avoid unanticipated certificate and compliance obligations.
Operational control is central to FAA analysis of whether a given flight complies with the applicable part. It refers to who has the authority to initiate, conduct, and terminate a flight, including decisions about crew, routing, fuel, and whether conditions permit departure or continuation. Contracts may state that a particular party has operational control, but regulators will also consider who truly makes and implements those decisions in practice. In Nebraska, operators using management companies, shared aircraft, or complex ownership structures should examine where operational control rests for each type of flight. Aligning leases, management agreements, manuals, and day to day conduct can strengthen your position that flights are conducted under the intended regulatory framework. Clear assignment of roles and documentation of key decisions help demonstrate that responsibility is placed appropriately and that safety and compliance are taken seriously.
When drafting or reviewing a dry lease, it is important to remember that the lessee is expected to supply crew and exercise operational control over flights. Provisions that effectively place crew selection, scheduling, or decision making back into the hands of the lessor can undermine the intended structure. Nebraska operators should consider how the lease interacts with related management agreements, insurance policies, and internal procedures to present a consistent allocation of control and financial arrangements. Regulators will look beyond the label “dry lease” to understand how the arrangement functions in daily operations. If the lessor is recommending crews, controlling schedules, or marketing availability to third parties, the FAA may conclude that the arrangement resembles charter activity. Careful drafting, practical implementation, and regular review can help maintain the integrity of a dry lease and avoid greater regulatory burdens than anticipated at the outset.
A management agreement can significantly influence whether flights are viewed as private Part 91 operations or commercial activities falling under Part 121 or 135. The agreement typically addresses pilot staffing, maintenance coordination, scheduling, and recordkeeping, as well as who holds authority over key decisions affecting each flight. If a management company effectively controls when and how aircraft are used while marketing services broadly, regulators may see the operation as commercial in nature. Nebraska aircraft owners should pay close attention to how management agreements allocate responsibilities and how those allocations match real world practices. The agreement should align with lease terms, insurance provisions, and any charter or other commercial activities already in place. Periodic review can help ensure that the structure continues to reflect your intentions, supports safety, and remains consistent with the regulatory part under which flights are conducted.
Agribusinesses in Nebraska may use aircraft for crop spraying, field inspections, transport between locations, or travel to vendors and customers. These flights can range from purely internal business use under Part 91 to revenue generating services that resemble charter or agricultural operations subject to additional regulatory requirements. Understanding where particular activities fall on this spectrum helps avoid assumptions that could lead to compliance concerns later. Entity structures, cost allocations, and marketing practices within an agribusiness can all influence how regulators view aviation activities. When aircraft are shared with related entities, offered to third parties, or used in connection with broader commercial programs, operators should carefully evaluate applicable rules. Taking time to align contracts, insurance, and procedures with the intended regulatory framework can support both agricultural goals and long term aviation planning.
Marketing materials often play a larger role in compliance assessments than operators anticipate. Websites, brochures, social media posts, and even informal email campaigns may suggest to regulators that an operator is holding out to the public or a segment of the public. If these messages describe on demand availability, public pricing, or open invitations to book flights, the FAA may question whether operations should be conducted under Part 121 or 135 rather than Part 91. Nebraska operators benefit from reviewing marketing content side by side with their certificates, leases, and management agreements. Consistency between how services are described and the regulatory status of flights helps maintain the intended structure. Adjusting language to reflect actual limitations on access, membership, or internal use can reduce the risk that materials will be interpreted as an offer of common carriage to the broader market.
A limited aviation compliance consultation may be appropriate when a Nebraska operator faces a narrow, clearly defined question. Examples include review of a single proposed lease, clarification of how a specific shuttle route should be characterized, or evaluation of one marketing campaign before launch. In these situations, focused advice can provide practical guidance without the time and cost associated with a full review of the operation. However, if the question touches on multiple entities, revenue streams, or a pattern of flights serving different customer groups, the underlying structure may warrant broader analysis. A targeted engagement can still serve as a starting point, but it may reveal deeper issues that are better addressed through comprehensive planning. Discussing scope at the outset helps align expectations and ensure that the level of review matches the complexity of your aviation activities.
Entity formation and tax planning intersect with aviation regulatory compliance because they shape who owns aircraft, who operates them, and how revenue and expenses are allocated. Many Nebraska operators use separate entities for ownership, management, and revenue collection in an effort to address liability and tax considerations. While these structures can be beneficial, they may also create confusion about operational control and the nature of services provided to various parties. From a regulatory perspective, the FAA will look at the entire arrangement rather than isolated entities. If an ownership company, management company, and operating company share personnel and resources, regulators may analyze how the structure functions in practice. Integrating aviation compliance considerations into entity and tax planning can help avoid arrangements that look efficient on paper but raise questions about whether operations align with Part 91, 121, or 135 requirements.
Nebraska operators should consider contacting an aviation attorney when they are planning new structures, expanding services, or responding to regulatory inquiries. Early conversations can be particularly helpful when entering into dry leases or management agreements, launching marketing campaigns, or exploring charter opportunities. Addressing compliance questions during the planning stage can prevent misunderstandings and reduce the need for hurried revisions after commitments are made. It is also sensible to seek guidance if the FAA or another regulator raises questions about particular flights, contractual arrangements, or marketing practices. While not every inquiry leads to enforcement, having a clear understanding of your rights, obligations, and documentation helps in crafting appropriate responses. Even in the absence of active concerns, periodic review can ensure that your operation continues to reflect current goals and regulatory expectations.
