Is it legal to accept payment for training if you don't sign a log book?

Salty

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
13,441
Location
FL
Display Name
Display name:
Salty
Like the title says. If somebody is an expert in avionics or something, is anything stopping them from charging to teach how to use the equipment in flight?
 
Is the person receiving the instruction a pilot or a student pilot?
 
Instruction that counts for something has to be done by an authorized instructor.
Instruction that counts for something has to be signed off by that instructor in the student's logbook.
 
You’re not PIC, you’re not giving loggable instruction… I see no problems.
 
k9medic said:
A medical device rep is not a doctor but they show doctors how to use devices during surgery...
Click to expand...
And if the doctor gives the rep a few bucks, who cares? If another pilot gives me instruction on how to use my avionics, I’m obliged to at least pay for their meal and maybe a little extra because it was worth it to me. I really don’t see an issue here
 
Timbeck2 said:
And if the doctor gives the rep a few bucks, who cares? If another pilot gives me instruction on how to use my avionics, I’m obliged to at least pay for their meal and maybe a little extra because it was worth it to me. I really don’t see an issue here
Click to expand...
They have to find you first. :rofl:
 
flyingron said:
There's no requirement that the instructor be PIC.
Click to expand...
If he was PIC, and making money while flying, kinda becomes a commercial operation… that’s all.
 
I would imagine I could give a seminar on how to use Garmin Pilot on the ground. Not signing a logbook, just showing how to use it. You pay me, no issue. Now we do the same in a plane - is it any different?
 
Hang 4 said:
I would imagine I could give a seminar on how to use Garmin Pilot on the ground. Not signing a logbook, just showing how to use it. You pay me, no issue. Now we do the same in a plane - is it any different?
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't see any difference. You're not being paid to fly, merely to explain how many menus and button clicks are necessary to do the simplest things because some idiot programmer didn't understand the necessity of a simple UI when the user is busy flying an airplane and therefore......

But I digress.

The avionics instructor isn't being paid to fly and the pilot is paying more than a pro rata share of the flight cost. LEGAL.
 
Half Fast said:
Nope. I don't see any difference. You're not being paid to fly, merely to explain how many menus and button clicks are necessary to do the simplest things because some idiot programmer didn't understand the necessity of a simple UI when the user is busy flying an airplane and therefore......

But I digress.

The avionics instructor isn't being paid to fly and the pilot is paying more than a pro rata share of the flight cost. LEGAL.
Click to expand...
B. What if the “instructor” provides the plane?
 
Sounds like a professional sight seer was paid to ride in a plane.
 
Salty said:
B. What if the “instructor” provides the plane?
Click to expand...

I can see arguments, but I think it would still be legal, though I recommend paying cash at midnight in a dark alley and not making any logbook entry of the flight, just in case.

1702863595184.gif
 
Half Fast said:
I can see arguments, but I think it would still be legal, though I recommend paying cash at midnight in a dark alley and not making any logbook entry of the flight, just in case.

View attachment 123359
Click to expand...

On that topic, I've come across many DPE's who will only accept cash. I wonder why. I don't know many people who walk around with $800 of cash in their wallet.
 
sarangan said:
On that topic, I've come across many DPE's who will only accept cash. I wonder why. I don't know many people who walk around with $800 of cash in their wallet.
Click to expand...


An applicant who is unhappy with a failed checkride might stop payment on a check or dispute a credit card charge. Cash is safer.
 
flyingron said:
Instruction that counts for something has to be done by an authorized instructor.
Instruction that counts for something has to be signed off by that instructor in the student's logbook.
Click to expand...
Does knowing how to use the equipment "count for something"?
 
Stop beating around the bush. Are you trying to offer a service and want to know if it’s legal, or do you think you got screwed by someone offering a service. Just say it!
 
Last edited:
Dave Theisen said:
Stopped beating around the bush. Are you trying to offer a service and want to know if it’s legal, or do you think you got screwed by someone offering a service. Just say it!
Click to expand...

Or is this just subliminal advertising? Inquiring minds... :stirpot:
 
flyingron said:
Instruction that counts for something has to be signed off by that instructor in the student's logbook.
Click to expand...

To be accurate, ANY flight training (or ground training) provided by a CFI has to be signed off in the pilot's logbook. 61.189a.

Practically, that's not always possible. I've had numerous pilots come to me for some kind of refresher or new avionics "training" and not bring their logbooks. Hard to sign something that isn't there. And it doesn't really matter, because that instruction doesn't really "count for anything". Maybe they put it in their logbooks later, maybe they don't, doesn't much matter. So in that sense, yes, only instruction that matters truly needs to be signed off by a CFI.

Now, the other issue in 61.189 is, is it "flight training" as opposed to "avionics training", etc.? Kind of a fine line that I'd prefer not to get into.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Stopped beating around the bush. Are you trying to offer a service and want to know if it’s legal, or do you think you got screwed by someone offering a service. Just say it!
Click to expand...
None of the above. Just BS'ing around the hangar and someone raised the question.
 
So was the question about a non-CFI that happens to be a SME on a particular set of avionics that goes flying with a friend, that may or may not offer cash, food, or booze as compensation?
 
midwestpa24 said:
So was the question about a non-CFI that happens to be a SME on a particular set of avionics that goes flying with a friend, that may or may not offer cash, food, or booze as compensation?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. The specific scenario was the buyer of a plane wanting training on the equipment and the seller not wanting to do it for free.
 
Salty said:
Pretty much. The specific scenario was the buyer of a plane wanting training on the equipment and the seller not wanting to do it for free.
Click to expand...

In that case (reading between the lines that the seller is not a CFI), then of course there's no problem with it. The seller could charge whatever he wants for his time to provide the buyer with "aircraft familiarization", and since he's not a CFI, no logbook record is required for it.
 
Salty said:
Pretty much. The specific scenario was the buyer of a plane wanting training on the equipment and the seller not wanting to do it for free.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the seller needs to recommend a CFI…for reasons totally unrelated to the topic of the thread.
 
Salty said:
Pretty much. The specific scenario was the buyer of a plane wanting training on the equipment and the seller not wanting to do it for free.
Click to expand...
Up the sale price by $200
 
I'll muddy the water even more for this discussion...


Several years ago we took delivery of a new aircraft. Shortly after delivery, we found out that when the autopilot was tracking the RNAV inbound it would suddenly turn a hard 90 degree turn and then rejoin the approach when inside the FAF. We fought with it for a long time. Airbus sent a technician. Nothing.

Finally a tech rep from Garmin came and flew and manipulated the GPS in several settings (showing us what he was doing) and got the GPS to respond correctly. (like a non instructor getting paid to show us what to do with the GPS while we were flying.)

Ultimately, it was found that the GPS was having an integration issue and we had to take the aircraft into an experimental category for Garmin to install some sensors to figure out what was going on. Come to find out there was an issue in the coding and the GPS kept reverting to Olathe, KS anytime it was "outside" a certain geo fence.
 
k9medic said:
Ultimately, it was found that the GPS was having an integration issue and we had to take the aircraft into an experimental category for Garmin to install some sensors to figure out what was going on. Come to find out there was an issue in the coding and the GPS kept reverting to Olathe, KS anytime it was "outside" a certain geo fence.
Click to expand...
So it was hearing the caterpillar drive on the Red October and calling it whale sounds? ;)
 
k9medic said:
Ultimately, it was found that the GPS was having an integration issue and we had to take the aircraft into an experimental category for Garmin to install some sensors to figure out what was going on. Come to find out there was an issue in the coding and the GPS kept reverting to Olathe, KS anytime it was "outside" a certain geo fence.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Garmin's verification testing left a lot to be desired. I presume they fired the SW person, who then went to work for Boeing?
 
Half Fast said:
Sounds like Garmin's verification testing left a lot to be desired. I presume they fired the SW person, who then went to work for Boeing?
Click to expand...
I'm sympathetic to the monumental integration issues that might arise, but reverting to Olathe KS is clearly a kludge that should have never been written.

Kind of like Foreflight defaulting to Oshkosh.
 
jsstevens said:
I'm sympathetic to the monumental integration issues that might arise, but reverting to Olathe KS is clearly a kludge that should have never been written.

Kind of like Foreflight defaulting to Oshkosh.
Click to expand...

Imagine if LockMart had a cruise missile that reverted to Washington, DC....

(Come to think of it, not such a bad idea!)
 
Half Fast said:
Imagine if LockMart had a cruise missile that reverted to Washington, DC....

(Come to think of it, not such a bad idea!)
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, knowing software engineers as I do, it'd probably be the local LockMart plant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top