“For Hire”

HF17

HF17

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 21, 2021
Messages
61
Display Name
Display name:
HF17
Is flight instruction considered “for hire” when a student is renting a plane from a flight school that the flight instructor works at?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The flight instruction is not considered for hire. The flight instructor is not being paid to fly. There is a recent court ruling concerning a flight school teaching in War Birds that says otherwise, but the FAA’s interpretation has not changed yet.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The flight instruction is not considered for hire. The flight instructor is not being paid to fly. There is a recent court ruling concerning a flight school teaching in War Birds that says otherwise, but the FAA’s interpretation has not changed yet.
Click to expand...
I believe that the "instruction" was in name only. A couple of paraglider touring outfits used this ruse, which was busted up when someone got killed.
 
Clip4 said:
The flight instruction is not considered for hire. The flight instructor is not being paid to fly. There is a recent court ruling concerning a flight school teaching in War Birds that says otherwise, but the FAA’s interpretation has not changed yet.
Click to expand...
it hasn't? so the FAA's new requirement for me to get a LOA to give a flight review or to get a flight review in an EAB is not due to their new interpretation caused by the court order?
 
unsafervguy said:
it hasn't? so the FAA's new requirement for me to get a LOA to give a flight review or to get a flight review in an EAB is not due to their new interpretation caused by the court order?
Click to expand...

Does the FAA require you to give or do pilots have to receive their flight review in a EAB? The FAA requiring an LOA doesn’t make a flight review in a EAB for hire.
 
Last edited:
no, it is because of the court order. the court ruled that giving flight instruction is "for compensation or hire" since FAR91.319 prohibits an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate from being used for compensation or hire they have started issuing LOA's to owners and CFI's to give relief from far 91.319 because the FAA has been forced to accept that definition from the court. legally it makes sense, why require a CFI to hold a commercial or ATP certificate if giving instruction is not "for compensation or hire".
 
HF17 said:
Is flight instruction considered “for hire” when a student is renting a plane from a flight school that the flight instructor works at?
Click to expand...
the flight school would not rent a plane to a student without an instructor.
 
unsafervguy said:
...legally it makes sense, why require a CFI to hold a commercial or ATP certificate if giving instruction is not "for compensation or hire".
Click to expand...

A Sport Pilot CFI isn't required to hold a commercial.
 
martym said:
so he sits in the back seat with the student and instructs while another pilot flies?
Click to expand...

I try to just to just sit there and tell the person flying what to do as much a possible.

All flight instruction isn’t with primary students and some flights I never touch the controls.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
A Sport Pilot CFI isn't required to hold a commercial.
Click to expand...
your right, and i think that is something that will also be looked at by the FAA and the courts when all this is re-worked because the court ruling does make that difference a legal question.
 
Clip4 said:
All flight instruction isn’t with primary students
Click to expand...
But sometimes it is. What happens when the student is not eligible to serve as pilot in command?
 
unsafervguy said:
your right, and i think that is something that will also be looked at by the FAA and the courts when all this is re-worked because the court ruling does make that difference a legal question.
Click to expand...

The court of appeals didn’t wake up one morning and decide to rule without being asked.

Warbird Adventures, Inc., et. al. v. FAA was a case where Warbird Adventures was a plaintiff.

The court didn’t rule all flight instruction was for hire. The court fully recognized the FAA’s exceptions in their rule making and noted Warbird Adventures could have requested an FAA exemption and failed to do so.
 
Last edited:
martym said:
But sometimes it is. What happens when the student is not eligible to serve as pilot in command?
Click to expand...
Well, since the CFI is considered PIC anyway, that is irrelevant. Just because he is acting as PIC does not mean he is getting paid to fly the airplane. He is getting paid for the instruction, the PIC thing is incidental.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Just because he is acting as PIC does not mean he is getting paid to fly the airplane. He is getting paid for the instruction, the PIC thing is incidental.
Click to expand...
I’m no attorney but that doesn’t smell right. I can see where that argument could conceivably be made if this was a Flight Review or, debatably, if the student has been signed off for solo (although the latter can’t take pax) but unless the instructor is instructing for free/serving as PIC for free, it sure smells like the PIC is being compensated. The plane can’t legally fly without a PIC. The PIC aspect may be “incidental” but it’s also essential - and only satisfied by the (paid) instructor.

Again, just SGOTI who’s not an attorney here.
 
Well, there are a few things in the regulations that might not “smell right” but are. The PIC/CFI is being compensated to instruct.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
I’m no attorney but that doesn’t smell right. I can see where that argument could conceivably be made if this was a Flight Review or, debatably, if the student has been signed off for solo (although the latter can’t take pax) but unless the instructor is instructing for free/serving as PIC for free, it sure smells like the PIC is being compensated. The plane can’t legally fly without a PIC. The PIC aspect may be “incidental” but it’s also essential - and only satisfied by the (paid) instructor.

Again, just SGOTI who’s not an attorney here.
Click to expand...

Your examples are narrowed to primary training. A CFI may instruct for a flight review, the commercial certificate, and flight instructor certificates while not meeting the requirements for PIC.
 
I may be wrong here (a common occurrence) but wasn’t the key issue with the ruling, as triggered by the Warbirds situation, that the PLANES couldn’t be used for compensation or hire? If it’s a certified plane (or an Experimental with a LODA for training), the issue doesn’t really matter?

If Warbirds did primary training in a primary trainer, they’d be able to get a LODA, I suspect (if needed). If they did advanced training in an experimental warbird for licensed pilots who “provably” wanted to get trained in a warbird before going to buy one, they’d be able to get a LODA,I’d bet: even the FAA would see that was clearly in the interest of safety and not bypassing the intent of the regs. If they’re just hiding joyrides under the guise of “instruction”, that’s what got them caught and forced the ruling to occur.

I’m not actually sure what the OP is asking exactly and how the answer would affect his/her situation: if it’s a certified plane, it would seem not to matter. If it’s an Experimental, getting a LODA would be simple (if it’s for legitimate training) and also make it not matter.

As I mentioned when this all came up a few months ago, I got a LODA for my experimental gyro after literally 5 minutes of online typing on a Saturday. The LODA was in my inbox when I woke up the next Monday.
 
HF17 said:
Is flight instruction considered “for hire” when a student is renting a plane from a flight school that the flight instructor works at?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Clip4 said:
The flight instruction is not considered for hire. The flight instructor is not being paid to fly. There is a recent court ruling concerning a flight school teaching in War Birds that says otherwise, but the FAA’s interpretation has not changed yet.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? He didn't say anything about not paying the instructor.
 
HF17 said:
Is flight instruction considered “for hire” when a student is renting a plane from a flight school that the flight instructor works at?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes but not in the same way as carrying passengers for hire.

Although many try to complicate it, it really isn’t all that difficult to understand. Typical passenger carrying for hire flying is best described as transporting people and getting paid for it. This normally takes the form of Part 121 or 135 operations or Air Tour operations.

When a CFI is acting as PIC during a flight lesson, his main purpose is still instruction regardless of whether he is PIC by virtue of being the only certificate holder or by manipulating the controls, etc. He is not transporting the student. It is not a 135. It is not an air tour. It is not any form of transportation for the sake of getting people or property from point A to point B. He is not operating the aircraft for any other purpose than flight instruction. Full stop.

In regards to what Warbird Adventures was doing, it is also very simple. First consider how a pilot trained in WW2 and what aircraft they had to fly before climbing into a fighter such as a P-40. First they typically flew in a Primary (think PT-19) or Basic Trainer (BT-13) and then in an Advanced Trainer (AT-6). Only after that would they fly in a fighter or pursuit aircraft. So the logic in Warbird Adventures describing what they were doing as flight instruction when many of their customers had zero flight time is ridiculous. They were giving joy rides that are more akin to air tours than flight instruction. Now, I have no issues with joy rides in warbirds as I would not mind doing so but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

On a similar note, I once knew a CFI (let’s call him Joe) who owned his own plane and provided instruction in it. He also had a couple of local businessmen who occasionally needed to take a flight across state on short notice. Joe would fly them to their destination and back for his normal aircraft rental rate plus his instruction rate. He maintained logbooks for both “students” but neither had an interest in learning to fly and neither would ever touch the controls. He was gaming the system. Until the FAA caught wind of it and investigated. Illegal charter was their determination. Warbirds was doing something similar but they weren’t even doing logbooks for their “students”.

To get a fuller view of whether the FAA considers flight instruction to be a for hire operation, look at the 100 hour inspection requirements of 91.409.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter…

Why would the FAA add flight instruction for hire as a separate reason to require 100 hour inspections if flight instruction was already covered under carrying passengers for hire? It seems evident that they consider carrying passengers and flight instruction to be two different activities albeit both can be for hire.

There are other considerations as well but those are some of the highlights that hopefully help to answer your questions.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yes but not in the same way as carrying passengers for hire.

Although many try to complicate it, it really isn’t all that difficult to understand. Typical passenger carrying for hire flying is best described as transporting people and getting paid for it. This normally takes the form of Part 121 or 135 operations or Air Tour operations.

When a CFI is acting as PIC during a flight lesson, his main purpose is still instruction regardless of whether he is PIC by virtue of being the only certificate holder or by manipulating the controls, etc. He is not transporting the student. It is not a 135. It is not an air tour. It is not any form of transportation for the sake of getting people or property from point A to point B. He is not operating the aircraft for any other purpose than flight instruction. Full stop.

In regards to what Warbird Adventures was doing, it is also very simple. First consider how a pilot trained in WW2 and what aircraft they had to fly before climbing into a fighter such as a P-40. First they typically flew in a Primary (think PT-19) or Basic Trainer (BT-13) and then in an Advanced Trainer (AT-6). Only after that would they fly in a fighter or pursuit aircraft. So the logic in Warbird Adventures describing what they were doing as flight instruction when many of their customers had zero flight time is ridiculous. They were giving joy rides that are more akin to air tours than flight instruction. Now, I have no issues with joy rides in warbirds as I would not mind doing so but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

On a similar note, I once knew a CFI (let’s call him Joe) who owned his own plane and provided instruction in it. He also had a couple of local businessmen who occasionally needed to take a flight across state on short notice. Joe would fly them to their destination and back for his normal aircraft rental rate plus his instruction rate. He maintained logbooks for both “students” but neither had an interest in learning to fly and neither would ever touch the controls. He was gaming the system. Until the FAA caught wind of it and investigated. Illegal charter was their determination. Warbirds was doing something similar but they weren’t even doing logbooks for their “students”.

To get a fuller view of whether the FAA considers flight instruction to be a for hire operation, look at the 100 hour inspection requirements of 91.409.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter…

Why would the FAA add flight instruction for hire as a separate reason to require 100 hour inspections if flight instruction was already covered under carrying passengers for hire? It seems evident that they consider carrying passengers and flight instruction to be two different activities albeit both can be for hire.

There are other considerations as well but those are some of the highlights that hopefully help to answer your questions.
Click to expand...

That makes it a lot more clear. But would this mean that a working landing light would be a requirement for night flight during flight instruction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HF17 said:
That makes it a lot more clear. But would this mean that a working landing light would be a requirement for night flight during flight instruction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, if it is flight instruction for hire.

91.205(c) (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.

Note, it doesn’t differentiate between the two types of for hire operations (pax carrying and flight instruction) that are in 91.409, so one can logically conclude it covers both.

Yeah I know … FAA … logic ….

Plus it is just a good idea.

Just my opinion and my personal reading of the regulations. Sounds like a good question for FAA chief counsel.
 
Clip4 said:
The court of appeals didn’t wake up one morning and decide to rule without being asked.

Warbird Adventures, Inc., et. al. v. FAA was a case where Warbird Adventures was a plaintiff.

The court didn’t rule all flight instruction was for hire. The court fully recognized the FAA’s exceptions in their rule making and noted Warbird Adventures could have requested an FAA exemption and failed to do so.
Click to expand...

you might want to read this:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...olicy-for-flight-training-in-certain-aircraft

here is the key part:
The term “operate” is broadly defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as “use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in § 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).” As such, the determination of whether someone is operating an aircraft is not contingent on ownership, flightcrew status, or the receipt of payment for the use of the aircraft.

they are saying if your are getting paid to teach, you are operating for hire and the aircraft had better be legal to operated for hire or compensation or you had better have a LODA. thats what the court affirmed. with this, they now a problem with LSA because a LSA instructor does not need to have a commercial certificate, but they have now affirmed instruction for compensation is for hire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top