Aircraft is not certified for flight instruction?

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by TxJim, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:36 AM.

  1. TxJim

    TxJim Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2021
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    TxJim
    So reading this raises some questions on understanding the FARs.
    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...lds-faa-order-in-warbird-flight-training-case
    The court wrote, "We deny the petition because the aircraft is not certified for paid flight instruction and substantial evidence supports the order."

    So if you read §91.319 for experimental aircraft, the wording to 91.315 is the same restriction.
    Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
    (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate—
    (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or
    (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. <====

    How does a PIC or operator show explicitly "the aircraft is certified for flight instruction"?
    Is the FAA now making an implicit rule that an explicit statement of "certified for paid flight instruction" must be part of the airworthiness basis?
     
  2. EdFred

    EdFred Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    26,004
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Is your everyday home-built considered a restricted category?
     
  3. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Tombstone
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Doc Holliday
  4. EdFred

    EdFred Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    26,004
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Just read through 91.3xx
    And from what I can tell it looks like this:

    Person A owns a restricted/limited/experimental.

    Person A CAN RECEIVE instruction from person B and pay B for said instruction.
    Person A CANNOT GIVE instruction to person B and get paid by person B.
     
    Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe likes this.
  5. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,771
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    I always pictured you as older...you’ve aged well.
     
  6. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,771
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
  7. WDD

    WDD Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,555
    Location:
    Atlanta / KRYY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WDD
    FIFY
     
    Sierra_Hotel likes this.
  8. EdFred

    EdFred Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    26,004
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Why would person B (the CFI) pay person A (the student) ?
    And a CFI cannot self instruct.

    Are you drunk?
     
  9. WDD

    WDD Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,555
    Location:
    Atlanta / KRYY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WDD
    It was an attempt at absurd humor to illustrate how flustered people can get and how much these rules can be twisted up. Thought it might have been obvious.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021 at 7:34 AM
  10. EdFred

    EdFred Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    26,004
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    I've seen serious posts with more confusion in them, so I didn't know whether you were being serious or funny!
     
  11. WDD

    WDD Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2019
    Messages:
    1,555
    Location:
    Atlanta / KRYY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    WDD
    NP - all good. BTW - Kind of frightening if there are "serious" threads with that level of mess!
     
  12. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,771
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    FIFY. :D
     
    idahoflier and WDD like this.
  13. EdFred

    EdFred Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    26,004
    Location:
    Michigan
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ed Frederick
    Why I oughta.....
     
    MauleSkinner, idahoflier and WDD like this.
  14. Mike G

    Mike G Filing Flight Plan

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2021
    Messages:
    2
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    P-51 Driver
    I flew with Thom in his P-40 and got the P-40 added to my license about a year ago. I can't say enough good things about Thom. Not only did he get everything required done in one 1.3 hour flight but he really seemed to care to not to run up the bill.
    However this turns out, if he is not allowed to continue there will be more accidents.
    Before Crazy Horse, the accident rate in the P-51 was atrocious. I counted 14 accidents out of 64 flying Mustangs in 1990 or 91, many were fatal, some were just nose overs.
    The trend has been for the FAA to ease up on instruction (for pay) in experimental aircraft and I know it has greatly helped the safety record of these aircraft. I am not technically versed on the rules on his operation verses Crazy Horse (both limited category) but I think he was lacking a special authorization to charge for his instruction that Crazy horse does have.

    There was a very famous report in the 60's on P-51 accidents. I have it somewhere on my computer. The one I remember the most is a very low time pilot putting a bench seat where the fuel tank was. if I remember correctly he had 5 family members on the seat. He kept climbing to get above a thunderstorm, over 40,000 feet with either no oxygen or at least none for the family. The biggest piece they found was a small swatch of his shorts when it broke up on the way down.