Special treatment by Congress extends to Alaska aviation. Compared with other jurisdictions, Alaskans and those visiting the state rely upon general aviation much more than their peers in the Lower 48. The mission is different. The planes are different. Some might say the pilots are different, but that’s a topic for another day…
In 2000, Congress passed the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act, (the “Act”) which allows Alaska guide pilots who meet certain requirements to operate under Part 91, instead of Part 135 or 121. To qualify for the exception, guide pilots must (1) operate aircraft inspected no less often than after 125 hours of flight time; (2) participate in an annual flight review under 61.56; (3) have at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot; (4) have a commercial certificate; (5) hold at least a second-class medical; (6) hold a current letter of authorization issued by the Administrator; and (7) take such other actions as the Administrator determines necessary for safety.
The Act defines a “guide pilot” as a pilot who (a) conducts aircraft operations over or within the State of Alaska; (b) operates single engine, fixed-wing aircraft on floats, wheels, or skis, providing commercial hunting, fishing, or other guide services and related accommodations in the form of camps or lodges; and (c) transports clients by such aircraft incidental to hunting, fishing, or other guide services. While many federal agencies have jurisdiction over guides and licensing for hunts on federal land, no clear or consistent definition for “guide,” or “guide services” appears in federal law.
In April 2025, the FAA published a revised Information for Operators (the “InFO”) that expanded upon Congress’ unique treatment of Alaska hunting guide operations under Part 91. The InFO attempted to clarify Congress’s intent as to “incidental to hunting,” by stating that to qualify, the underlying guide must provide guide services in the field. As of this publication, no court has applied this guidance in a published decision.
The FAA’s use of the words “in the field” would benefit from further clarity. Some Alaska hunting guides are unclear as to the extent this Part 91 exception applies to their role as an outfitter. Specifically, does this mean they have to be physically present with their clients in the field during the hunt? Under Alaska law, “guide services” are broadly defined to include guiding and outfitting, the latter of which involves the provision of equipment in the field but does not necessarily require a guide to be present throughout the hunt. For example, for purposes of a big game hunt, “guide” is defined in Alaska law under AS § 08.54.790(9), which states that a guide accompanies or is present with a hunter in the field, but the definition also includes for the provision of “services,” which includes contracting to guide or outfit big game hunts. (AS 08.54.790(9)(A) (emphasis added)).
“Outfit” is defined as “[providing], for compensation or with the intent to receive compensation, services, supplies, or facilities, … to a big game hunter in the field, by a person who neither accompanies nor is present with the big game hunter in the field either personally or by an assistant;…” AS 08.54.790(11).
The role of guide and outfitter is often blended. Many Alaska hunting guides operate as a “guide-outfitter,” a registered profession in Alaska. Under Alaska law, a guide-outfitter is allowed to incorporate transportation into the services they provide. It states: “[a] registered guide-outfitter may contract to guide or outfit hunts for big game and may provide transportation services, personally or through an assistant, to big game hunters who are clients of the registered guide-outfitter.” AS 08.54.610(c)
Services related to guiding and outfitting, including transportation, are incorporated into the definition of “guide services” under Alaska law. Both require the presence of clients in the field for services to be provided but, depending on the service provided, do not necessarily require guides to be present at all times. State law aligns with the plain language of the Act to support a conclusion that “guide services” under the Act necessarily include guiding or outfitting. The InFO appears to inappropriately blend together outfitters and guides by suggesting that a lodge or guide must provide the aircraft and provide guide services “in the field.”
Alaska law applicable to hunting guides and outfitters is, however, incredibly nuanced. If Alaska guide service professionals have remaining questions about whether their operation qualifies for a Part 91 exception, they should consult with legal counsel.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author.
