Rules...

Larry in TN said:
Yes, if it comes to their attention. They will investigate the circumstances of the flight to see if it was a legitimate training flight.
Click to expand...
And if both the pilot and CFI say it was, how will they establish it was not?
 
Ed Haywood said:
And if both the pilot and CFI say it was, how will they establish it was not?
Click to expand...
By looking at previous training flights between the Pilot and CFI. Also by looking at what the purpose of the training flight and what training was accomplished.
 
jayhawk74 said:
By looking at previous training flights between the Pilot and CFI. Also by looking at what the purpose of the training flight and what training was accomplished.
Click to expand...
What the heck does that mean? Not every training flight is the same. Or at least it sure as hell shouldn't be. It's disturbing that so many think this way. The FAA has done an excellent job of over-regulating through obfuscation of the rules. Emperor Palpatine could be proud of this situation.
 
I have noticed some people on POA really seem to enjoy arguing with each other. Like they get their rocks off on it.
 
Ed Haywood said:
And if both the pilot and CFI say it was, how will they establish it was not?
Click to expand...
I've never worked at the FAA so don't know their specific procedures. It shouldn't be too hard, though.

If this is legal, why does the OP think he needs to fake an illness to avoid going on the flight back to the origin? The way he described the flight shows that the purpose of the flight is transportation, not flight training. If the primary purpose of the flight is legitimately flight training then it is fine. There is nothing here to suggest that it is.

Lindberg said:
There's no reason why it has to be a training flight. You could replace the CFI with a commercial pilot. Still legal.
Click to expand...
Not if you're renting an airplane from a flight school. If you owned the airplane you can hire a pilot to fly it (and you) but you can't go to an FBO and hire and airplane and pilot to transport you. That's a charter.
 
Book the instructional flight.
Get out at the airport and tell the CFI that you don't want to fly anymore today. No reason needed, it's a free country.
He has no choice but to return the plane and himself.
You pay the bill.

And hope he doesn't take the long way home....it's a free country ya know ;)
 
Larry in TN said:
I've never worked at the FAA so don't know their specific procedures. It shouldn't be too hard, though.

If this is legal, why does the OP think he needs to fake an illness to avoid going on the flight back to the origin? The way he described the flight shows that the purpose of the flight is transportation, not flight training. If the primary purpose of the flight is legitimately flight training then it is fine. There is nothing here to suggest that it is.


Not if you're renting an airplane from a flight school. If you owned the airplane you can hire a pilot to fly it (and you) but you can't go to an FBO and hire and airplane and pilot to transport you. That's a charter.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong @Larry in TN , my intention was definitely transportation.

If I was a hiring a CFI to fly me in a flight school airplane somewhere, there'd be little doubt in my mind as to the legality of it. That'd be a charter.

But, in this case what made it different is that I would be the only one flying while I'm onboard. Can it be considered a charter if the "hired" pilot is never, at any time, flying me -- or acting as PIC? When the hired pilot flies, the plane is empty (just him), so he'd essentially be acting as a ferry pilot taking the plane back to home base.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Can it be considered a charter if the "hired" pilot is never, at any time, flying me --
Click to expand...
The FAA "can" consider it whatever they want.

Bottom line, though, is you "hired" a "pilot," and if something were to happen while you were flying the airplane, more than likely the FAA would consider him to be PIC due to his status as a "hired pilot" or instructor, in which case it could easily be considered 135. Personally, I wouldn't put an instructor in a position to find out if the FAA would consider it 135.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA "can" consider it whatever they want.

Bottom line, though, is you "hired" a "pilot," and if something were to happen while you were flying the airplane, more than likely the FAA would consider him to be PIC due to his status as an instructor, in which case it could easily be considered 135. Personally, I wouldn't put an instructor in a position to find out if the FAA would consider it 135.
Click to expand...
What if it was a non-CFI commercial pilot :D
 
MauleSkinner said:
The FAA "can" consider it whatever they want.

Bottom line, though, is you "hired" a "pilot," and if something were to happen while you were flying the airplane, more than likely the FAA would consider him to be PIC due to his status as a "hired pilot" or instructor, in which case it could easily be considered 135. Personally, I wouldn't put an instructor in a position to find out if the FAA would consider it 135.
Click to expand...
Have him sit in the back seat
 
Lindberg said:
The OP is the pilot.
Click to expand...
That's not the situation he presented in the question. He said it was flight instruction. If he's legal to fly, and is authorized by the flight school to fly, the flight to his destination then there's nothing wrong with him hiring a commercial pilot, who's also legal and authorized, to ride with him then fly the airplane home. If that's the case, why is he making up a scenario where he gets flight instruction then feigns illness to avoid completing the round trip?

Ed Haywood said:
Because of nonsense posts suggesting that his plan is somehow illegal.
Click to expand...
It is illegal to call a charter flight flight instruction in an attempt to avoid the requirements of part 135. If it is flight instruction then it really needs to be flight instruction. If it really is flight instruction then there's no reason to feign illness.

Here are some search results on the topic.

FAA Guidance and Enforcement
Definition of Illegal Charter: The FAA defines an illegal charter as any operation that provides air transportation for compensation or hire without proper certification, regardless of how it is labeled.

Flight Instruction Exception: Genuine flight instruction is permitted under Part 91, but only when the primary purpose of the flight is bona fide instruction and the student is actively working toward a rating or certificate.

Enforcement Examples: The FAA has investigated and penalized operators who claim flights are for demonstration or instruction when in reality they are providing air transportation for hire.
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
What the heck does that mean? Not every training flight is the same. Or at least it sure as hell shouldn't be. It's disturbing that so many think this way. The FAA has done an excellent job of over-regulating through obfuscation of the rules. Emperor Palpatine could be proud of this situation.
Click to expand...
What I meant was the following.
Did the pilot ever train at that flight school before. What training was loggedon that flight, i.e. was the training takeoff and landing with 2 plus hours between the takeoff and landing. Was the training IFR Cross country, and if so what is the level of the pilot. By that I meant was he a Private with an Instrument rating or did he not have an Instrument rating. If he didn't have Instrument rating what Instrument traing had he done previously. You wouldn't have an Instument student do a long IFR Cross Country without doing basic instrument flying, to include practice approaches, first.
 
jayhawk74 said:
What I meant was the following.
Did the pilot ever train at that flight school before. What training was loggedon that flight, i.e. was the training takeoff and landing with 2 plus hours between the takeoff and landing. Was the training IFR Cross country, and if so what is the level of the pilot. By that I meant was he a Private with an Instrument rating or did he not have an Instrument rating. If he didn't have Instrument rating what Instrument traing had he done previously. You wouldn't have an Instument student do a long IFR Cross Country without doing basic instrument flying, to include practice approaches, first.
Click to expand...


Let’s suppose nothing was logged or recorded anywhere about the flight. There’s no requirement to do so. Now what?
 
Half Fast said:
Let’s suppose nothing was logged or recorded anywhere about the flight. There’s no requirement to do so. Now what?
Click to expand...
Unless you are going around breaking the rules willy nilly, nobody and I mean nobody would ever notice this event in a logbook. Mostly because it isn't against the regs, but also because it's not going to stand out in any way - because it's not a big deal. Even if you were trying to persecute somebody you'd have a hard time coming up with this one.
 
Salty said:
Unless you are going around breaking the rules willy nilly, nobody and I mean nobody would ever notice this event in a logbook. Mostly because it isn't against the regs, but also because it's not going to stand out in any way - because it's not a big deal. Even if you were trying to persecute somebody you'd have a hard time coming up with this one.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

I was just responding to @jayhawk74 's inquisition about, "What training was logged on that flight, i.e. was the training takeoff and landing with 2 plus hours between the takeoff and landing. Was the training IFR Cross country,...."

A bunch of questions that do not have to have answers anyway.
 
You'd see a flight with an instructor in the OP's log. That's it. Not having a return flight logged would not even be noticeable. There's a dozen reasons that might be. This happens all the time. I can think of three legit reasons outside this situation without even trying.
 
Salty said:
Unless you are going around breaking the rules willy nilly, nobody and I mean nobody would ever notice this event in a logbook.
Click to expand...

If it were to be noticed, it would most likely be because of an incident, accident, or violation on the flight or because a legitimate 135 operator noticed the practice and reported it.
 
Larry in TN said:
If it were to be noticed, it would most likely be because of an incident, accident, or violation on the flight or because a legitimate 135 operator noticed the practice and reported it.
Click to expand...
None of that is related to noticing it in a logbook, which is what we were discussing.

And let's say there was an incident, accident, or violation. What about this flight on either leg would sound odd to an inspector. A pilot rented a plane and was flying to another airport. OMG, red flag! Seriously, I trust the FAA to screw me if at all possible, but this is pretty out there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It only matters in how visible the operation is or how many people you **** off enough to report you if you’re doing something illegal.
Click to expand...
And you'd be surprised how many Karens are out there to get ****ed off enough to report, or the other ways the FAA catches wind of things.

Ed Haywood said:
Will they though? And how?
Click to expand...
Yes, they will. And they'll have one inspector talk with the pilot "receiving instruction" and another talk with the CFI, in different locations at the same time. Your answers for the purpose of the instructional flight had better match.

Salty said:
I still don't see how it's a charter flight in any way if the OP is the PIC in one direction (totally legal even if no instruction) and the CFI is simply ferrying the aircraft back on the other direction flight and the OP is not even on the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Because an aircraft and a pilot were hired from the same source and air transportation was provided (a person moved from point A to point B).

Salty said:
What the heck does that mean? Not every training flight is the same. Or at least it sure as hell shouldn't be.
Click to expand...
No, but they'll be looking to see if that pilot and CFI have flown together before and whether they were trying to accomplish things that a reasonable person might actually want to receive instruction for. Not "I've taken a couple of lessons in a 152, but I decided to audition a new 'flight school' by having them 'instruct' me on how to fly a 414 a thousand miles away for a meeting."

MauleSkinner said:
I still wouldn’t trust the FAA to consider him strictly a passenger.
Click to expand...
Especially when they've laid the blame for something on a CFI who was literally sleeping in the back seat with two fully qualified pilots up front.

Half Fast said:
Let’s suppose nothing was logged or recorded anywhere about the flight. There’s no requirement to do so. Now what?
Click to expand...
If it's instruction, that's not true. Instruction must be recorded in both the instructor's logbook as dual given and the other pilot's logbook as dual received or it isn't legally considered instruction.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If it's instruction, that's not true. Instruction must be recorded in both the instructor's logbook as dual given and the other pilot's logbook as dual received or it isn't legally considered instruction.
Click to expand...

Right. Legally it's not instruction. If it's not logged, it's not instruction, but so what? Without logging, all that happened was that one pilot flew a rented plane to another location, and a different pilot flew it back. That's hardly illegal. Whether one of the two pilots on the plane is a CFI is completely irrelevant.
 
Don't use a CFI. Find another pilot who rents from that airport that wants to fly that day. You rent and fly to where you need to go, pay for that leg. Other pilot flies wherever he wants and pays for that. Now there's no hiring of anyone or anything.
 
Half Fast said:
Right. Legally it's not instruction. If it's not logged, it's not instruction, but so what? Without logging, all that happened was that one pilot flew a rented plane to another location, and a different pilot flew it back. That's hardly illegal. Whether one of the two pilots on the plane is a CFI is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Correct. What is relevant is that the CFI and the airplane were supplied by the same company, and not everyone returned to the point of origin.

EdFred said:
Don't use a CFI. Find another pilot who rents from that airport that wants to fly that day. You rent and fly to where you need to go, pay for that leg. Other pilot flies wherever he wants and pays for that. Now there's no hiring of anyone or anything.
Click to expand...
This is the way.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
This is all news to me... Kinda.
I thought 135 meant they supply the plane and the pilot.
I figured if I was the pilot there... then... Everything would just be fine :)

I guess some FARs don't stick as well as others >5 years after taking the written exam.
Click to expand...
If you met all the qualifications to be pilot in command (and were in that role), it wouldn't be a problem. An ersatz student is not the pilot in command.
 
Salty said:
None of that is related to noticing it in a logbook, which is what we were discussing.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've made any comments regarding logbooks up to this point. What I've said is that if it were discovered it would most likely be because of an incident, accident, or violation or a legitimate 135 operator reporting his illegal competition.

If it is an instructional flight, it must be logged as such by regulation.

You certainly can have a one-off instructional flight with a CFI with whom you've never flown, but most are not. A series of properly logged dual flights would make it very easy to show that this was a legitimate training flight. Even if it was a one-off, the properly logged flight, and matching interviews from the student and CFI, should be enough to satisfy an investigation.

Reading the OP, however, this doesn't sound like a legitimate training flight. It seems like a plan to get around the restrictions on part 91 charter operations. Easiest solution, if that is the case, is, as long as the OP is current and qualified to fly the flight, hire the CFI to ride along then fly the airplane home. That only works if the OP is current and qualified.
 
Larry in TN said:
If it is an instructional flight, it must be logged as such by regulation.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely accurate. This is only true if the hours are needed to prove compliance with a training requirement.
Larry in TN said:
You certainly can have a one-off instructional flight with a CFI with whom you've never flown, but most are not. A series of properly logged dual flights would make it very easy to show that this was a legitimate training flight. Even if it was a one-off, the properly logged flight, and matching interviews from the student and CFI, should be enough to satisfy an investigation.
Click to expand...
You’re nuts. I have at least 4 flights I’ve flown with a single instructor only once and never flew with again that I can think of off the top of my head. I bet there’s more. It’s a really good idea to get different takes from different people with different experience. To insinuate that this is a sign of something bad is as I said, nuts.
Larry in TN said:
Reading the OP, however, this doesn't sound like a legitimate training flight. It seems like a plan to get around the restrictions on part 91 charter operations. Easiest solution, if that is the case, is, as long as the OP is current and qualified to fly the flight, hire the CFI to ride along then fly the airplane home. That only works if the OP is current and qualified.
Click to expand...
It’s legal even without the instruction. There is nothing against regs in hiring a plane and commercial pilot from the same fbo to fly with you while you are the legal PIC.
 
Salty said:
This is not entirely accurate. This is only true if the hours are needed to prove compliance with a training requirement.
Click to expand...
The reg reads to me like ANY instruction needs to be logged.

61.189 Flight instructor records.​

(a) A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training.
(b) A flight instructor must maintain a record in a logbook or a separate document that contains the following:

(1) The name of each person whose logbook that instructor has endorsed for solo flight privileges, and the date of the endorsement; and
(2) The name of each person that instructor has endorsed for a knowledge test or practical test, and the record shall also indicate the kind of test, the date, and the results.
(c) Each flight instructor must retain the records required by this section for at least 3 years.
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
This is not entirely accurate. This is only true if the hours are needed to prove compliance with a training requirement.
Click to expand...
61.189 Flight instructor records.

(a) A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training.

You’re nuts. I have at least 4 flights I’ve flown with a single instructor only once and never flew with again that I can think of off the top of my head. I bet there’s more. It’s a really good idea to get different takes from different people with different experience. To insinuate that this is a sign of something bad is as I said, nuts.
Click to expand...
I never said that. I specifically said, "Even if it was a one-off, the properly logged flight, and matching interviews from the student and CFI, should be enough to satisfy an investigation."

It’s legal even without the instruction. There is nothing against regs in hiring a plane and commercial pilot from the same fbo to fly with you while you are the legal PIC.
Click to expand...
Which I have pointed out several times. That requires that the OP is rated, current and qualified in the airplane, which the OP hasn't addressed.

"Easiest solution, if that is the case, is, as long as the OP is current and qualified to fly the flight, hire the CFI to ride along then fly the airplane home. That only works if the OP is current and qualified."
 
Salty said:
I have at least 4 flights I’ve flown with a single instructor only once and never flew with again that I can think of off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

At least two dozen for me. Rental check rides and BFRs are a common scenario.
 
Salty said:
It’s not instruction if it’s not logged. That is not the same as must log instruction.
Click to expand...
The OP says, "If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport". If it is a flight lesson it is instruction and must be logged.

As I've said multiple times, the "Easiest solution, if that is the case, is, as long as the OP is current and qualified to fly the flight, hire the CFI to ride along then fly the airplane home. That only works if the OP is current and qualified." but we don't know if, in the OP's scenario, he is current, qualified, and "checked out" to fly the airplane without the instructor being required.

He can't hire the CFI to fly him to the destination as that would be an illegal charter. He either has to be legal to fly it on his own, with the CFI as a passenger, or it needs to be instruction. If it is instruction, it must be logged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top