Rules...

Come to think of it, I’ve actually done this. The opposite actually, but the same. I flew my plane to another airport for maintenance and paid a cfi to follow me in a rental and bring me back home with me paying the full rental.
 
WDD said:
But it’s not really a kosher instructional flight. The primary reason was to transport someone. The instructional was added on to attempt to make it fit in the regulations.
Click to expand...
Instruction isn’t even necessary if he’s a certificated pilot as he says he is.
 
the more I think about this the more obvious it is pure part 91 as god intended.
 
Salty said:
Instruction isn’t even necessary if he’s a certificated pilot as he says he is.
Click to expand...
Then how is the CFI getting paid? For doing what?
 
Salty said:
the more I think about this the more obvious it is pure part 91 as god intended.
Click to expand...
Check me out. Part 91 you can get paid for flying political candidates around, and a few other odd jobs. Ferry pilot isn’t on the list.

As a PPL, you can split the costs of the airplane prorated. As you’re not flying back, the CFI has to pay the entire cost of the rental on the way back? And pay 1/2 the cost on the first leg? (Assuming no instruction)
 
WDD said:
But it’s not really a kosher instructional flight. The primary reason was to transport someone. The instructional was added on to attempt to make it fit in the regulations.
Click to expand...
No reason that you can’t make it a kosher instructional flight. Throw a hood on and it’s legit.

Now here’s one that no one has mentioned. The CFI can instruct with just Basic Med or a Third Class, they need a Second Class to legally fly it home as a Commercial Pilot.
 
WDD said:
Check me out. Part 91 you can get paid for flying political candidates around, and a few other odd jobs. Ferry pilot isn’t on the list.

As a PPL, you can split the costs of the airplane prorated. As you’re not flying back, the CFI has to pay the entire cost of the rental on the way back? And pay 1/2 the cost on the first leg? (Assuming no instruction)
Click to expand...
Ferry pilot isn’t on the list? What?
 
I really don’t get any part of this that could be conceived as illegal (barring the 2nd class medical, but that’s the CFIs problem, not the OPs).

The OP doesn’t even have to be a pilot. It’s perfectly legal to hire a commercial pilot and rent a plane and have them fly you to another airport and leave you there. Nothing about that is part 135.
 
Dave Theisen said:
No reason that you can’t make it a kosher instructional flight. Throw a hood on and it’s legit.

Now here’s one that no one has mentioned. The CFI can instruct with just Basic Med or a Third Class, they need a Second Class to legally fly it home as a Commercial Pilot.
Click to expand...

No he gets double rate for the instructional flight. Reposition is free.
 
Salty said:
I really don’t get any part of this that could be conceived as illegal (barring the 2nd class medical, but that’s the CFIs problem, not the OPs).

The OP doesn’t even have to be a pilot. It’s perfectly legal to hire a commercial pilot and rent a plane and have them fly you to another airport and leave you there. Nothing about that is part 135.
Click to expand...
I hear you, and thinking it over. Seems like this would make a good question for a Commercial Oral Exam. So, how do you hire a commercial pilot and a plane, pay the guy for services, pay for the plane, and it not be part 135? And doesn't the plane have to meet 135 standards?
 
I'm pretty sure stuff like this happens every day and the FAA doesn't really care because it's not a problem. Like many things the true legality of it will come down to how they choose to interpret the rules. Please for the love of god nobody give them a reason to look at and comment on such a flight.
 
I have paid for one way trips multiple times; so far always related to picking up or dropping off a plane for maintenance. I even paid an FAA employee (she had a commercial license).
In each case, I was required to "hire" the commercial pilot separate from the plane, and it was strongly encouraged to get a pilot who was not based at or worked with the FBO that I rented the plane from.

This was done to avoid being considered a charter, or an under the table charter. The cheapest solution was to always find a CFI building hours at a neighboring airport from a different FBO, you could pay them peanuts, but you always had an extra hour or so for the commercial pilot to get checked out on the local plane.

Tim
 
WDD said:
But it’s not really a kosher instructional flight. The primary reason was to transport someone. The instructional was added on to attempt to make it fit in the regulations.
Click to expand...
Not really though! My intention of post flight activities (IMHO) shouldn't be intermixed with what we do inflight. Should it?
 
I was going to post something funny. Instead, I'm going to post something that's going to sound mean but isn't meant to be.

I really do mean this in the kindest possible way. If you were my younger brother I'd say the same thing: The more words you say the less good this sounds.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Salty said:
if he’s a certificated pilot as he says he is.
Click to expand...
Well... If im lying and I'm actually an uncertificated pilot flying 800h on a complex self-owned airplane, then enlisting a flight school to give me a 1-way lesson is probably the least of my worries :eek:
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Well... If im lying and I'm actually an uncertificated pilot flying 800h on a complex self-owned airplane, then enlisting a flight school to give me a 1-way lesson is probably the least of my worries :eek:
Click to expand...
As I already stated, you don’t even need to be a pilot to do it imo.
 
I’m late to the game but just as confused. If the only occupants of the aircraft are the owner and hired pilot, there is no way this is anything other than part 91.

On either leg - If you are PIC, then the hired guy is just sitting there (sign me up!). If the hired guy flies, it’s a p91 owner flight. If it’s IMC and you want CFII instruction, then it's dual. The leg back would be hired ferry (p91).

Now... if it's you and a buddy AND a hired pilot, then things could get detailed. Remember appearances matter. for example: Are you charging your buddy? (p135)



Anyway... I am probably well within your insurance co's open pilot clause in your type. if you need me for ANYTHING ;) just holla
 
WDD said:
I hear you, and thinking it over. Seems like this would make a good question for a Commercial Oral Exam. So, how do you hire a commercial pilot and a plane, pay the guy for services, pay for the plane, and it not be part 135? And doesn't the plane have to meet 135 standards?
Click to expand...
Isn't that how every instructional school flight works? Pay the CFI - a commercial pilot - for his/her services, pay for the plane, and you get the instructional flight.
 
kaiser said:
I’m late to the game but just as confused. If the only occupants of the aircraft are the owner and hired pilot, there is no way this is anything other than part 91.

On either leg - If you are PIC, then the hired guy is just sitting there (sign me up!). If the hired guy flies, it’s a p91 owner flight. If it’s IMC and you want CFII instruction, then it's dual. The leg back would be hired ferry (p91).

Now... if it's you and a buddy AND a hired pilot, then things could get detailed. Remember appearances matter. for example: Are you charging your buddy? (p135)



Anyway... I am probably well within your insurance co's open pilot clause in your type. if you need me for ANYTHING ;) just holla
Click to expand...
Danke!

Yeah if it was my airplane it'd be simpler I think.

In the scenario we've been debating I use a Cessna (rented) and I do a flight with an instructor onboard (but me flying), then I get out at XYZ airport and the instructor flies the airplane back home. So when the cfi/commercial pilot is flying, no one is aboard but him.
 
So, say you go to the FBO/flight school/rental outfit, and rent a plane for a one way trip as a certified pilot. It is just you going the one way trip. The rental outfit adds a hefty "recovery fee" to your rental to cover the cost of sending someone to do the flight back. You then say you have the useful load to take a passenger on your trip and they send along the pilot they would have otherwise hired (with the money you paid as a recovery fee) to go retrieve the plane after you landed. He is solely a passenger on the flight there. You land, get out, and walk away. The other pilot fires up and flies back to homebase. What actual rules did that scenario break if any?
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Danke!

Yeah if it was my airplane it'd be simpler I think.

In the scenario we've been debating I use a Cessna (rented) and I do a flight with an instructor onboard (but me flying), then I get out at XYZ airport and the instructor flies the airplane back home. So when the cfi/commercial pilot is flying, no one is aboard but him.
Click to expand...
if you dry lease the plane, same concept applies. if you get the plane and pilot from the same place, then it gets confusing. there would have to be a dry lease agreement drafted. that should make everyone feel better. still easy 91 when you're PIC, but when they are PIC and you are pax, thats getting very close to 135. then its down to operational control and prove it's segregated appropriately.

All the more reason to give me a call and not bother with those flight school yahoos
 
ktup-flyer said:
Log it and move on. I don’t think you’d ever get asked about it.
Click to expand...

Even less likely if you don't log it.

Remember - there is no requirement at all to log any given flight or to keep any records of the flight, the airplane occupants, the purpose of the flight, the destination, who was PIC, who paid for the flight, what the actual costs were, etc., etc.

If you're doing something that a gov't official might misinterpret and use to cause you problems, why on earth would you write down what you're doing?

There's a lot to be said for maintaining a low profile.
 
Dana said:
I don't see anything in the FARs that requires instructional flights to return to the point of origin, or that prohibits one from compensating the CFI for a repositioning fight.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in the FARs that prevents a private pilot from taking coworkers to a business meeting either, speaking of things that were considered legal 20 years ago but aren't any more. It's in the FAA's legal interpretations.

WDD said:
Then how is the CFI getting paid? For doing what?
Click to expand...
Salty said:
Flying an airplane.
Click to expand...
And that right there is the problem, if it's a rental and the CFI is an employee of the same place.

kaiser said:
I’m late to the game but just as confused. If the only occupants of the aircraft are the owner and hired pilot, there is no way this is anything other than part 91.

On either leg - If you are PIC, then the hired guy is just sitting there (sign me up!). If the hired guy flies, it’s a p91 owner flight.
Click to expand...
If this were his plane, yes... But this was a rented plane in the OP, so it's no longer an owner flight.

SkyChaser said:
So, say you go to the FBO/flight school/rental outfit, and rent a plane for a one way trip as a certified pilot. It is just you going the one way trip. The rental outfit adds a hefty "recovery fee" to your rental to cover the cost of sending someone to do the flight back. You then say you have the useful load to take a passenger on your trip and they send along the pilot they would have otherwise hired (with the money you paid as a recovery fee) to go retrieve the plane after you landed. He is solely a passenger on the flight there. You land, get out, and walk away. The other pilot fires up and flies back to homebase. What actual rules did that scenario break if any?
Click to expand...
The duck test.
 
Tempest in a teacup. Pretty sure no one is coming after you, the CFI, or the rental activity. You got sick, you got out. The CFI returned to home base.

As a one-time thing it has no one's attention. If it was an ongoing effort to skirt the rules, then maybe.
 
Are we still talking about flying, or about how a couple of NY governors ago one got caught in DC with a girl in his hotel that he told people was part 91 but was really 135 and he resigned? I think he pulled that stunt more than once, though, so that might have been the problem. That, or that his security detail might have hated him...guessing.
 
If you have to fake an illness to make it "legal" then it isn't legal.

The FAA will look to see if this really was an instructional flight, with legitimate training goals, and not just a ruse to operate a charter under part 91.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top