Does this pass the sniff test

jaybee

jaybee

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
1,143
Location
sometimes Cocoa, FL
Display Name
Display name:
jaybee
I got a friend - no seriously ! - that wants to cater to high end clientele by offering instruction while commuting.

Basically... client is traveling from point A to point B. Client will receive flight instruction while traveling from point A to point B. Client may or may not make return flight.

Now while this has all the four ingredients of holding out it is being argued by my friend that Part 119 exempts common carriage because of the flight instruction taken place.

Now, I admitted that it was a fancy piece of jailhouse lawyering but in my humble opinion it doesn't pass the sniff test and I don't think it would pass the FAA's sniff test either. :dunno:

I searched the General Counsel's opinions for a few hours now and.... I got a head ache.

What say you ?

:goofy:
 
jaybee said:
I got a friend - no seriously ! - that wants to cater to high end clientele by offering instruction while commuting.

Basically... client is traveling from point A to point B. Client will receive flight instruction while traveling from point A to point B. Client may or may not make return flight.

Now while this has all the four ingredients of holding out it is being argued by my friend that Part 119 exempts common carriage because of the flight instruction taken place.

Now, I admitted that it was a fancy piece of jailhouse lawyering but in my humble opinion it doesn't pass the sniff test and I don't think it would pass the FAA's sniff test either. :dunno:

I searched the General Counsel's opinions for a few hours now and.... I got a head ache.

What say you ?

:goofy:
Click to expand...

No way.
 
It is a no go. He is not the first guy to come up with the bright idea...won't be the last one either...

I have to....<sigh>
 
Not a snowball's chance in .... of this flying.:nono:
 
jaybee said:
I got a friend - no seriously ! - that wants to cater to high end clientele by offering instruction while commuting.

Basically... client is traveling from point A to point B. Client will receive flight instruction while traveling from point A to point B. Client may or may not make return flight.

Now while this has all the four ingredients of holding out it is being argued by my friend that Part 119 exempts common carriage because of the flight instruction taken place.

Now, I admitted that it was a fancy piece of jailhouse lawyering but in my humble opinion it doesn't pass the sniff test and I don't think it would pass the FAA's sniff test either. :dunno:

I searched the General Counsel's opinions for a few hours now and.... I got a head ache.

What say you ?

:goofy:
Click to expand...

There is no 'sniff test' on this one, this one they investigate through logbooks. If instruction is actually given, it's legal. If the 'student' is along for the ride working on their presentation at the other end, not legal and a known bust that is looked for.

I started my flying lessons because I was living on Catalina and used my lesson as the way to commute back and forth OT (over town) on my days off rather than ride the boat. The instructor would fly over, pick me up and we do a lesson on the way OT, do some ground, fly another lesson and then go to my buddies for the night. Next day reverse the process with the instructor flying back to LGB solo.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert, but I definitely remember reading something about a similar operation already going on. Maybe from Cirrus? I don't remember. Basically, you buy the plane and they train you in it while you commute. At least I think this existed....
 
Henning said:
You say you work for the FAA? Smells fishier every day.
Click to expand...

I did work for the FAA, as an Aviation Safety Inspector. I decided to leave and go back into industry as an Airbus Captain in SE Asia, better money, better place to live, much better office. :thumbsup:
 
jaybee said:
I got a friend - no seriously ! - that wants to cater to high end clientele by offering instruction while commuting.

Basically... client is traveling from point A to point B. Client will receive flight instruction while traveling from point A to point B. Client may or may not make return flight.

Now while this has all the four ingredients of holding out it is being argued by my friend that Part 119 exempts common carriage because of the flight instruction taken place.

Now, I admitted that it was a fancy piece of jailhouse lawyering but in my humble opinion it doesn't pass the sniff test and I don't think it would pass the FAA's sniff test either. :dunno:

I searched the General Counsel's opinions for a few hours now and.... I got a head ache.

What say you ?
Click to expand...

Seems perfectly fine to me as long as it is legitimate instruction.

Is this really any different than hiring an instructor to fly right seat with you into Oshkosh or SnF?
 
My questions would be, is the "student" working towards his/her certificate or just riding along? :dunno:And are there other lessons besides these commutes? :confused:
If the intent is for a student to learn and be able to commute, I think it would be fine, if all the lessons were one way trips, I think the CFI might be driving a truck sooner rather than later.:dunno:
If the student has other flight time practicing stalls, take off and landings etc, it would be hard to say it wasn't a legitimate lesson, but otherwise it sounds like part 134 3/4.:mad2:
 
That has all the smells of 134.5. Such clients probably won't be doing much instruction, and if he's providing the plane, yep, there you have it.

Now, if he's flying an aircraft that belongs to the high-end client, that's legal as a commercial pilot, no flight instruction required.

And if there's instruction actually ocurring, then there shouldn't be any concern. But it'd look a bit fishy to have a bunch of one-way trips going on.

Were it me and the client was truly doing instruction, I'd be ok with it because it's a great way to get cross-country instruction in. Doubly so working towards the instrument rating. If the client was really just a low-end wanna-be high-end who was looking for a cheap way to get from A to B vs the King Air that Wayne told him would cost more to charter than he makes in a month, then it'd be a different matter.
 
While I was training for my IR I knew of an attorney doing this who was already at 250 hrs dual received. Never seemed to get the hang of it.........
 
I'm 100% part 91, so can someone tell me what the goal of this is? I realize they're trying to work semantics, but to what end?
 
rbridges said:
I'm 100% part 91, so can someone tell me what the goal of this is? I realize they're trying to work semantics, but to what end?
Click to expand...

If you're giving flight instruction, you don't need a 135 certificate or even a 3rd class medical. I.e. it's a heck of a lot easier to flight instruct than to fly people to a destination for hire.
 
Did he ever mention the difficulty of obtaining his rating while utilizing that method, especially the effort required to crawl into the back seat after take-off in order to get his work done and then climb back into the front seat for landing?


James_Dean said:
While I was training for my IR I knew of an attorney doing this who was already at 250 hrs dual received. Never seemed to get the hang of it.........
Click to expand...
 
when occasionally someone would call up wanting to do this at the FBO, I would ask them to show up a couple hours early to go over XC flight planning ground school, review weather, etc etc. apparently none of them ever wanted it to be that much of a flight lesson.
 
Henning said:
There is no 'sniff test' on this one, this one they investigate through logbooks. If instruction is actually given, it's legal. If the 'student' is along for the ride working on their presentation at the other end, not legal and a known bust that is looked for.
Click to expand...
If Henning were a CFI, he would have learned in his CFI training that the training and the aircraft must be appropriate to the trainee's stage of training. You can't take folks out on a long XC as Lesson 1, and the fact that the "client" is being dropped off at the destination is the duck quacking loudest. As the former FAA Inspector who answered first said, "No way." You can check that with the FAA (either your local FSDO or the Chief Counsel's office) any time and get the same answer.
 
Last edited:
jpower said:
I'm no expert, but I definitely remember reading something about a similar operation already going on. Maybe from Cirrus? I don't remember. Basically, you buy the plane and they train you in it while you commute. At least I think this existed....
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing the FITS situationally-based training concept used in the Cirrus Standardized Instruction Program with a faux 135 operation like that outfit in Florida which was offering "training" in a Cessna 421 while going to various destinations -- the FAA made short work of them. Part of situationally-based training involves the use of realistic profiles to achieve training, but I guarantee it does not involve dropping off and picking up the "trainee" at various destinations of the trainee's choice.
 
bflynn said:
Is this really any different than hiring an instructor to fly right seat with you into Oshkosh or SnF?
Click to expand...
Depends on your stage of training. If you're at the dual XC stage and doing it in the type in which you've been training, mighty fine. For your first lesson, and in something big and complex, not hardly.
 
bartmc said:
If you're giving flight instruction, you don't need a 135 certificate or even a 3rd class medical.
Click to expand...
Unless it's a LSA, glider, or balloon, you certainly do need a medical certificate to instruct someone who isn't legal to act as PIC, which is what the OP appears to be proposing. See 61.23(a)(3)(iv)/(v) and 61.23(b)(5).
 
Ron Levy said:
If Henning were a CFI, he would have learned in his CFI training that the training and the aircraft must be appropriate to the trainee's stage of training. You can't take folks out on a long XC as Lesson 1, and the fact that the "client" is being dropped off at the destination is the duck quacking loudest. As the former FAA Inspector who answered first said, "No way." You can check that with the FAA (either your local FSDO or the Chief Counsel's office) any time and get the same answer.
Click to expand...

Now, we're both in agreement in the fact that it sounds as if this guy is aiming for a 134.5 operation. That said...

I got a lot of training early that people on here boo-hooed because it didn't follow what was "normal." My first lesson may not have been a long XC, but my second lesson was. With IMC, no less. I hand flew all of it, and not once (other than landing) did my instructor touch the controls. With 1 hour total time, not bad.

2,000 hours later as a CFI, I look back on that and other lessons that were unconventional and think what incredible learning experiences they were. By the end of my second lesson I knew I needed my instrument rating for what I wanted to do, and that GA was truly useful, not just for buying hamburgers (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not for me). By 10 hours it was firmly put in my head I wanted a twin. I think it's safe to say that wasn't just a phase.

Were these lessons right for everybody? No, but it's been said on here before that I'm something of an exception to the norm. I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who understood and recognized that early on. Years later, after I'd bought the Aztec, he said he knew from my first lesson this is where I'd end up. I believe him.

Point is... Instructors should listen to the needs of their students and be able to provide them what they need. Within the letter of the law, of course, but what that entails is not one size fits all.
 
Ron Levy said:
Unless it's a LSA, glider, or balloon, you certainly do need a medical certificate to instruct someone who isn't legal to act as PIC, which is what the OP appears to be proposing. See 61.23(a)(3)(iv)/(v) and 61.23(b)(5).
Click to expand...

I meant 2nd class medical, no need to whip out the FAR/AIM over a typo :)
 
Thanks for all the input.

I think you mean 135.4 Ted ?

I get why some may be *sigh* as I shook my head no the entire time my friend was telling me his idea. You got to understand he is ambitious 22 year old young man trying to make his way in the world - not trying to get one over. As I said it was some pretty fancy jailhouse lawyering :)

I would still like to see a General Counsel opinion on it - if there is one - as he pointed out there is all intention of instruction being done, no free rides implied or given. The on demand nature of what he is proposing along with containing four elements of holding out is what concerns me.

I know he is not trying to get away with anything, he knows that he is not trying to get away with anything, the problem is making sure the FAA knows he is not trying to get away with anything. I guess a phone call to the FSDO is in order.

Thanks !
 
As with most such discussions, the burden of proof rests on the provider of the service. I can almost hear the duck quacking from here.

Ted DuPuis said:
Now, we're both in agreement in the fact that it sounds as if this guy is aiming for a 134.5 operation. That said...

I got a lot of training early that people on here boo-hooed because it didn't follow what was "normal." My first lesson may not have been a long XC, but my second lesson was. With IMC, no less. I hand flew all of it, and not once (other than landing) did my instructor touch the controls. With 1 hour total time, not bad.

2,000 hours later as a CFI, I look back on that and other lessons that were unconventional and think what incredible learning experiences they were. By the end of my second lesson I knew I needed my instrument rating for what I wanted to do, and that GA was truly useful, not just for buying hamburgers (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not for me). By 10 hours it was firmly put in my head I wanted a twin. I think it's safe to say that wasn't just a phase.

Were these lessons right for everybody? No, but it's been said on here before that I'm something of an exception to the norm. I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who understood and recognized that early on. Years later, after I'd bought the Aztec, he said he knew from my first lesson this is where I'd end up. I believe him.

Point is... Instructors should listen to the needs of their students and be able to provide them what they need. Within the letter of the law, of course, but what that entails is not one size fits all.
Click to expand...
 
jaybee said:
I think you mean 135.4 Ted ?
Click to expand...

Nope, I meant what I said. 134.5 refers to acting like 135 but not being it. Almost 135, just not quite! :)

I get why some may be *sigh* as I shook my head no the entire time my friend was telling me his idea. You got to understand he is ambitious 22 year old young man trying to make his way in the world - not trying to get one over. As I said it was some pretty fancy jailhouse lawyering :)

I would still like to see a General Counsel opinion on it - if there is one - as he pointed out there is all intention of instruction being done, no free rides implied or given. The on demand nature of what he is proposing along with containing four elements of holding out is what concerns me.

I know he is not trying to get away with anything, he knows that he is not trying to get away with anything, the problem is making sure the FAA knows he is not trying to get away with anything. I guess a phone call to the FSDO is in order.

Thanks !
Click to expand...

I think the catch is showing that he's doing real, meaningful instruction and not just 134.5ing it. If his clients own the plane, it's a no-brainer since then he can legally fly it for them as a commercial pilot. If he's providing the plane, it's harder. It sounds like he may do well tryig to be a Cirrus instructor.

He should just start spending time at the airport and pick up clients. His reputation as an instructor will get around. If he is eager and good, he should have no issues.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Nope, I meant what I said. 134.5 refers to acting like 135 but not being it. Almost 135, just not quite! :)



I think the catch is showing that he's doing real, meaningful instruction and not just 134.5ing it. If his clients own the plane, it's a no-brainer since then he can legally fly it for them as a commercial pilot. If he's providing the plane, it's harder. It sounds like he may do well tryig to be a Cirrus instructor.

He should just start spending time at the airport and pick up clients. His reputation as an instructor will get around. If he is eager and good, he should have no issues.
Click to expand...

I could find no current reference in the CFR for 134. 133 is there, 135 is there, no 134. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfrv3_02.tpl

EDIT - it just dawned on me what you were meaning by 134.5.... though I feel silly.. I am looking for facts :wink2:
 
Last edited:
This idea is not new. I can remember instructors (?) giving dual to their students(?) in Beech 18's.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Now, we're both in agreement in the fact that it sounds as if this guy is aiming for a 134.5 operation. That said...

I got a lot of training early that people on here boo-hooed because it didn't follow what was "normal." My first lesson may not have been a long XC, but my second lesson was. With IMC, no less. I hand flew all of it, and not once (other than landing) did my instructor touch the controls. With 1 hour total time, not bad.

2,000 hours later as a CFI, I look back on that and other lessons that were unconventional and think what incredible learning experiences they were. By the end of my second lesson I knew I needed my instrument rating for what I wanted to do, and that GA was truly useful, not just for buying hamburgers (not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not for me). By 10 hours it was firmly put in my head I wanted a twin. I think it's safe to say that wasn't just a phase.

Were these lessons right for everybody? No, but it's been said on here before that I'm something of an exception to the norm. I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who understood and recognized that early on. Years later, after I'd bought the Aztec, he said he knew from my first lesson this is where I'd end up. I believe him.

Point is... Instructors should listen to the needs of their students and be able to provide them what they need. Within the letter of the law, of course, but what that entails is not one size fits all.
Click to expand...
I agree. I realize I am not an CFI, but I am a life long student. This issome of what is wrong with learning to fly these days. The FAA has tried to standardize training in such a way that everyone is expected to go through training the same way. Unfortuantely, everyone learns differently, and responds to different ways of teaching in different ways. To be honest the whole scenario based training effort seems pretty corny for me, and actually was counterproductive. For others it may work. Training should be tailored in such a fashion that it provides a challenging, and fun environment that fits within the students needs and desires. Sometimes that requires thinking outside the box which I think is being stifled by the FAA. The goal is to make the student a safe thinking pilot, not a automaton.
 
douglas393 said:
I agree. I realize I am not an CFI, but I am a life long student. This issome of what is wrong with learning to fly these days. The FAA has tried to standardize training in such a way that everyone is expected to go through training the same way.
Click to expand...

I gotta call Bravo Sierra on this one. Where has the FAA mandated any particular form of training for Part 61 students? Part 141, sure... But there's a difference in saying the student wants to fly business trips at the same time as training (worries the FAA that no training is really going on) and jumping all the way to saying the FAA is forcing instructors to teach a certain way. Instructors can tailor training very easily to meet the needs of their students. And some do. (Note, I didn't say "many do". Only some.)

Instructors like to do things the same way every time, but that's not really FAA's fault. That's cultural in Aviation. As Ted said, many pooh-poohed his early flights.

I'm old enough to remember waaaaay back when condensed training, like say Ron does for PIC for IR students, was a big new "controversy".

And then they pointed out it was exactly what the U.S. military does. Now it's relatively commonplace.

Now all of that said, your friend's idea is kinda silly, for that very reason. Anyone who owns a high performance aircraft and is traveling that much needs to just take a break from work, hammer out the rating in a tough but thorough condensed session where their full focus and attention is on it, and then they can and should hire your friend to go along for a while -- to get *experience*, but the rating can already be in their pocket.

No point in mixing the "official" training. It'll stick better if they dedicate the time. IMHO.
 
I was not comment on the OP comment, but on Ted's. The FAA is pushing scenario based training. Does that mean every CFI is doing scenario based training? I do not know. Mine did sort of, but it was pretty meaningless to me to talk about flying to a business trip and what would you do if such and such happened. It did not work and seemed almost condescending. Teach me about what to do if my engined stops, the weather is bad, whatever, and it works. You think it is BS thats your right and I see where you are coming from, but it stll seems to me that the FAA is trying to standardize training curriculum, and methods, and I see that as a mistake.

Just my opinion, but I am willing to listen and change if I am wrong or interpreting the situation incorrectly.

Doug
 
jaybee said:
I would still like to see a General Counsel opinion on it - if there is one - as he pointed out there is all intention of instruction being done, no free rides implied or given. The on demand nature of what he is proposing along with containing four elements of holding out is what concerns me.
Click to expand...
I doubt you'll find a Chief Counsel letter on point -- I don't think anyone considering such an enterprise would call such attention to it. But if you go looking through the NTSB Opinions & Orders file, or the ALJ proceedings if you have Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw access, you can probably find examples of people busted for such activities.
 
douglas393 said:
I was not comment on the OP comment, but on Ted's. The FAA is pushing scenario based training. Does that mean every CFI is doing scenario based training? I do not know.
Click to expand...
I do know, and the answer is no. In any event, SBT is only recommended as one way of conducted training, not the "be-all/end-all" solution. The fact is that SBT really is harder to do well, as it requires a lot more preparation and organization. Furthermore, the PTS's remain maneuver-based. For those reasons, most of us instructors are still conducting maneuver-based rather than scenario-based training.
 
I've actually thought of asking my CFI to do something like this. In my case though I'm legitimately pursuing a PPL and such a trip would be specifically one flight I plan on making on my own once I've got my certificate. So seems like good training to me + getting somewhere I need to go.

But I doubt he'd want to hang around the little town I'm going to overnight or make a round trip home and back to get me.
 
denverpilot said:
Now all of that said, your friend's idea is kinda silly, for that very reason. Anyone who owns a high performance aircraft and is traveling that much needs to just take a break from work, hammer out the rating in a tough but thorough condensed session where their full focus and attention is on it, and then they can and should hire your friend to go along for a while -- to get *experience*, but the rating can already be in their pocket.
Click to expand...

I'd say it depends. For me personally the bottom up approach was looong painful and boring. IF I had done a long cross country at the very beginning of my training and did a top down maneuver I would have been able to correlate what I was reading in a book to something real and tangible in stead of what I could day dream of happening. In fact after going through two instructors and meeting the third we did exactly that. I made a long cross country trip. saw all my mistakes play out first hand, went back to the books, had several AHA moments and it reinvigorated me to push through to the end. To each and all their own I guess.... :dunno:
 
You really couldn't do much legitimate training on commuter flights. Some, for sure, but much, much more would not be practical. Most of mine was in the pattern and at the practice areas doing maneuvers such as stalls and slow flight and steep turns, turns around a pt, etc. Things not conducive to a commuter flight.
 
cowman said:
I've actually thought of asking my CFI to do something like this. In my case though I'm legitimately pursuing a PPL and such a trip would be specifically one flight I plan on making on my own once I've got my certificate. So seems like good training to me + getting somewhere I need to go.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I'm sure the FAA would be happy with that.

But I doubt he'd want to hang around the little town I'm going to overnight
Click to expand...
Everything's negotiable (but it might cost extra, including the instructor's overnight expenses)...
or make a round trip home and back to get me.
Click to expand...
...but that last part is pushing the limits unless you own the plane.
 
Ron Levy said:
I do know, and the answer is no. In any event, SBT is only recommended as one way of conducted training, not the "be-all/end-all" solution. The fact is that SBT really is harder to do well, as it requires a lot more preparation and organization. Furthermore, the PTS's remain maneuver-based. For those reasons, most of us instructors are still conducting maneuver-based rather than scenario-based training.
Click to expand...

It's true in all training, not just aviation, that well-done scenario-based training leads to people thinking more like they'll think in "the real thing".

But... And it's a big but... After having suffered through some...

I'd rather have a teacher who imparts flawless fundamentals than to sit through a poorly designed and executed scenario.

Some instructors just aren't good enough, organized enough, confident enough, whatever... to pull off great scenarios in SBT.

DPEs are mandated to test with scenarios but anyone with solid fundamentals from an instructor good at that, will be able to put the puzzle pieces together in a logical way, hopefully.

I'm guessing from reading posts that Ron has enough experience to create effective scenarios. A significant part of prepping a scenario for training purposes is just taking stuff that has happened in real life experiences and removing some of the complexity to target the goals of the training

I've done it for folks learning emergency communications. It's a crap-ton of work. Pull it off, folks learn a lot. But in my experience if they're missing fundamentals, they spend too much time on that and can't allocate any clock cycles in their brain to the scenario.

Once you hit the DPE's tabletop and flying portions of a *checkride*, scenarios make sense.

Example: I can't throw a newbie into a scenario if they don't even know how the buttons on the radio work. The scenario has to be "paused" to fill in their holes in the fundamentals.

So... All the worry about SBT seems a bit overdone when I apply what I know about teaching to what I know CFIs have to teach. Every CFI out there is teaching fundamentals first and sprinkling scenarios in as they go or introducing them later on.

And FAA isn't making them do anything but prepare the student to make scenario-based decisions once the hit the DPE.

It's way over the top to say FAA is "mandating" instructors to use scenarios. Good instructors were already using them along with countless other techniques to stick info into Zombie brains. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top