Rules...

Larry in TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Again, you have it backwards. If you take a lesson, there is no requirement for you to log the flight. It is not instruction unless you do, but there is no requirement to log the flight. You can fly with a cfi legally and not take instruction. Same thing.

Larry in TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve never disagreed with this. The OP is making it worse than it has to be, and then others piling into the thread have made it even more needlessly complicated.
 
Lindberg said:
And you added additional requirements other than the OP fly the plane. I'm asking why.
Click to expand...
What requirements? I'm starting from what the OP posted. He is the one who said it would be an instructional flight.

Salty said:
You can fly with a cfi legally and not take instruction.
Click to expand...
You can't hire a commercial pilot (the CFI) to fly you somewhere in a rented airplane. Either you are authorized to fly the flight without the CFI, and you're just paying him to come along, or it has to be a dual instructional flight which the CFI must endorse in your logbook.

The OP is the one who made this a dual instructional flight, not me. If it is, it must be logged IAW 61.189(a).
 
Salty said:
It’s not instruction if it’s not logged. That is not the same as must log instruction.
Click to expand...
“not instruction if not logged” isn’t the same as “only true if the hours are needed to prove compliance with a training requirement.”
 
Larry in TN said:
What requirements? I'm starting from what the OP posted. He is the one who said it would be an instructional flight.
Click to expand...
I've already said he made it more complicated than it needs to be.
Larry in TN said:
You can't hire a commercial pilot (the CFI) to fly you somewhere in a rented airplane. Either you are authorized to fly the flight without the CFI, and you're just paying him to come along, or it has to be a dual instructional flight which the CFI must endorse in your logbook.
Click to expand...
I can hire a commercial pilot to sit there and do nothing while I fly. If I take training and don't log it, that's essentially what I've done. Not against the regs.
 
Salty said:
I've already said he made it more complicated than it needs to be.

I can hire a commercial pilot to sit there and do nothing while I fly. If I take training and don't log it, that's essentially what I've done. Not against the regs.
Click to expand...
I have no idea on what points you think I am wrong. I have said everything you just said with different words.

If the OP was current, qualified, and "checked out", why did he present his scenario as flight instruction?

If the OP intends to receive legitimate flight instruction, there's no reason for it to not be logged as required by 61.189(a).

If the OP is not current, qualified, and "checked out", it is not legal unless he is receiving legitimate flight instruction.

My answers have covered all three scenarios.

(Legitimate as in not pretending to receive flight instruction in order to circumvent part 135 restrictions)
 
Lindberg said:
Why does the OP have to be "current, qualified, and checked out" in the airplane?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought I had answered that.

If the CFI/CPL is going to be a passenger, and not a paid charter pilot, then the OP has to be legally authorized to ACT as PIC and has to have the permission of the FBO/flight school to rent the airplane as PIC. If he is not, he can not pay a CPL or CFI to fly him there. That would be an illegal charter.

If the OP is not PIC qualified and/or doesn't have the permission of the airplane's operator to rent it as PIC, the flight will have to be a legitimate dual instructional flight. He can't pretend it is a dual flight lesson in order to circumvent the charter requirements of part 135.

What the FAA is trying to prevent is flight schools operating illegal charter operations by calling them "flight instruction" flights. If there attention was drawn to a suspect operation they would look for evidence that the flights were legitimate flight instruction and not one-off, of even recurring, charter flights. A properly logged dual training flight, with clearly articulatable training goals, would go a long way toward showing that the flight was legitimate.
 
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have plenty of the same... But they've all landed back at the point of origin, so it's pretty easy to show that "transportation" was not provided.

Salty said:
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...
If you're the legal PIC, why are you hiring a pilot? Because you need transportation. That's where the problem lies.

Salty said:
It’s not instruction if it’s not logged. That is not the same as must log instruction.
Click to expand...
If it's instruction, and you don't log it, it wasn't instruction. Thus, you must log instruction - Because if you don't log it, it wasn't instruction. :goofy:

Larry in TN said:
You can't hire a commercial pilot (the CFI) to fly you somewhere in a rented airplane.
Click to expand...
You can, but not from the same place. If you rent the airplane, and separately hire a pilot to fly you somewhere, it's still part 91. However, you'd best be sure there's a lease agreement in place and the place you're renting from is OK with you doing this or it could get ugly. In reality, I've never heard of this actually happening in the single-engine piston world because FBOs/flight schools rent planes to pilots, not passengers.

@Salty this whole thing makes a lot more sense if you look at what caused it to become illegal in the eyes of the FAA. There used to be a place in Chicago where you could "receive dual cross country instruction" in a Cessna 421. FAA called BS and shut them down. That is a somewhat extreme example, but the term "Part 134 and a half" didn't come from nowhere. So now, anything that fails the "duck test" is gonna be considered 135.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You can, but not from the same place.
Click to expand...
That's different. Let's call it leasing an airplane. We can use the term "rent" to refer to the type of renting that pilots do at flight schools and FBOs. The way the OP was referring to when he proposed renting an airplane. That might make it easier to separate the two.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I have plenty of the same... But they've all landed back at the point of origin, so it's pretty easy to show that "transportation" was not provided.


If you're the legal PIC, why are you hiring a pilot? Because you need transportation. That's where the problem lies.


If it's instruction, and you don't log it, it wasn't instruction. Thus, you must log instruction - Because if you don't log it, it wasn't instruction. :goofy:


You can, but not from the same place. If you rent the airplane, and separately hire a pilot to fly you somewhere, it's still part 91. However, you'd best be sure there's a lease agreement in place and the place you're renting from is OK with you doing this or it could get ugly. In reality, I've never heard of this actually happening in the single-engine piston world because FBOs/flight schools rent planes to pilots, not passengers.

@Salty this whole thing makes a lot more sense if you look at what caused it to become illegal in the eyes of the FAA. There used to be a place in Chicago where you could "receive dual cross country instruction" in a Cessna 421. FAA called BS and shut them down. That is a somewhat extreme example, but the term "Part 134 and a half" didn't come from nowhere. So now, anything that fails the "duck test" is gonna be considered 135.
Click to expand...
Not the same. He’s transporting himself. At no time is he paying for transportation. In this scenario, at no time is someone else assume PIC duties while he was passenger. Not against the regs.
 
Salty said:
Not the same. He’s transporting himself. At no time is he paying for transportation. In this scenario, at no time is someone else assume PIC duties while he was passenger. Not against the regs.
Click to expand...
If it's his airplane, it's fine.
If it's his hired pilot on someone else's airplane, it's fine.
If he returns to the point of origin, it's fine.

Hiring a pilot and plane from one place, and going to another, is not.

Look at it from the perspective of the 134.5 operation. Many of those people were also "transporting themselves". When it's a 421, it's more clearly across the line. But, this is one of those things that has been abused enough that the FAA keeps interpreting it more conservatively.

If you'd like to do it yourself and risk your own ticket, go ahead. The OP came here asking a question and I'm attempting to give the correct answer. Just because you might be able to get away with something doesn't mean it was legal.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If it's his airplane, it's fine.
If it's his hired pilot on someone else's airplane, it's fine.
If he returns to the point of origin, it's fine.

Hiring a pilot and plane from one place, and going to another, is not.

Look at it from the perspective of the 134.5 operation. Many of those people were also "transporting themselves". When it's a 421, it's more clearly across the line. But, this is one of those things that has been abused enough that the FAA keeps interpreting it more conservatively.

If you'd like to do it yourself and risk your own ticket, go ahead. The OP came here asking a question and I'm attempting to give the correct answer. Just because you might be able to get away with something doesn't mean it was legal.
Click to expand...
No, they weren't transporting themselves. 1) They were not rated and legal PIC's for the aircraft taking full responsibility for the flight. and 2) it sure sounds like someone was holding out in that situation. 3) Renting a huge twin that's appropriate for commercial transportation and renting the FBO's training Cessna are not the same either. 4) he’s talking about a one time event, not a gaggle of different people doing it (see holding out) time and time again.

This is a very different situation IMO.
 
Last edited:
I can't count how many people missed that at the core, this is a pilot renting and flying an airplane with a CFI on board.

If it's for transportation, it's legal for the pilot to do. It's also legal for them to get out at a remote airport and let the CFI return the rental aircraft.

If it's a student, it is still legal to get XC instruction from a CFI, there is no requirement that instruction begin and end at the same place. The return trip is still just the CFI returning the aircraft.
 
Lindberg said:
Why is a round trip ok, but a one-way trip with the same facts is a charter?
Click to expand...
Flight instruction is okay, illegal charters are not.

A round trip cross-country training flight does not raise any suspicion of an illegal charter. A one-way lesson, where the "student" fakes an illness to avoid finishing the lesson, is suggestive of an illegal charter. Particularly so when he asks about it before the flight.
 
Larry in TN said:
Flight instruction is okay, illegal charters are not.

A round trip cross-country training flight does not raise any suspicion of an illegal charter. A one-way lesson, where the "student" fakes an illness to avoid finishing the lesson, is suggestive of an illegal charter. Particularly so when he asks about it before the flight.
Click to expand...
Round-trip illegal charters are ok, but one-way illegal charters aren't? Nah, I don't think that's a thing. Whether he's hiring someone to fly him somewhere doesn't friend on whether it's a round trip. It also doesn't depend of whether he's checked out in the airplane.
 
Don't say what you want to do. Just say you want to rent a plane with a CFI with a second class. Fly to wherever you want to go. Don't tell them intentions before hand. Shut down. Get out. Write a check, hand em cash and get a receipt, or tell them to charge your card for the time the rental and CFI for the time they were gone. Leave. Now the place isn't offering anything. The CFI can ferry the plane back without being dinged for not having a second class to ferry. There is no way the FAA can come down on anyone for anything. What are they going to get you for? Entrapment? The rental outfit didn't offer or hold out or anything. So they can't get them for an illegal charter either.

"Dude just rented a plane, and left it without warning. CFI had to fly it back."
 
I'm just here to ask, shouldn't this topic be in "Flight Following?" I was 3 pages deep before I realized that this is not as entertaining as juxtaposed threads, scrabble practice, or who bought what new car that now needs to be vindicated.
 
So here's a hypothetical. Let's say I'm a busy business person who also wants to be a private pilot. I have to travel some for work and I'm pressed for time. I hire a CFI and a plane from a flight school so I can get some instruction and combine it with getting where I need to be. CFI flys the plane home and then comes and picks me up and we do more instruction on the way home.

I'm doing this due to lack of free time for instruction, not just to get to the workplace. CFI conducts actual training, logs it as training.

Legal? (p.s. I'm retired, this is truly hypothetical, but close to the OP situation)
 
Hang 4 said:
So here's a hypothetical. Let's say I'm a busy business person who also wants to be a private pilot. I have to travel some for work and I'm pressed for time. I hire a CFI and a plane from a flight school so I can get some instruction and combine it with getting where I need to be. CFI flys the plane home and then comes and picks me up and we do more instruction on the way home.

I'm doing this due to lack of free time for instruction, not just to get to the workplace. CFI conducts actual training, logs it as training.

Legal? (p.s. I'm retired, this is truly hypothetical, but close to the OP situation)
Click to expand...
I doubt the FAA would give it a second thought if it was your regular CFI and your logbooks show instruction in more than cross country flight.
 
Lindberg said:
Then why did you jump in to defend this statement?

"If he returns to the point of origin, it's fine."
Click to expand...
I didn't. The legality of the operation is not dependent on whether or not it is a round trip. A round trip dual flight is less likely to look like an illegal charter but that doesn't mean that a one-way dual flight can't be legitimate training.
 
Until someone points at a specific reg that would be in violation I still, yet again, see no issues with a commercial pilot going with you for this flight and flying the plane home. Just because it "feels" like some other case doesn't make it illegal. That other case had actual violations of the regulations occurring, not just "it looks like 134.5". Those passengers went to rent a plane AND a pilot for a flight that they were not legally PIC for. The OP would be legal PIC. The OP has rented that plane and flown it by himself. Those passengers never did that. Big difference.
 
Salty said:
Until someone points at a specific reg that would be in violation
Click to expand...
If the FAA determined it to be a violation, it would be something in here, and they could pretty much pick anything they wanted to.

Edit…more likely probably a 119 violation for operating without an ATCO certificate.

1747675397683.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I still, yet again, see no issues with a commercial pilot going with you for this flight and flying the plane home
Click to expand...
Who said that there was an issue with your scenario?

Your scenario relies on the OP being current and qualified and able to rent and fly the airplane based on his own qualifications. If he can't do that on his own, i.e. not properly rated, etc., hiring the CFI/CPL to make the flight legal makes it an illegal charter.

The problem with the OP's scenario is that he's planning to fake an illness in order to not make the return flight. He hasn't expanded on why, but it suggests that he can't make the flight himself without the CFI being with him. That would be an illegal charter unless the flight is legitimate flight instruction with an articulable training objective.
 
Larry in TN said:
Who said that there was an issue with your scenario?

Your scenario relies on the OP being current and qualified and able to rent and fly the airplane based on his own qualifications. If he can't do that on his own, i.e. not properly rated, etc., hiring the CFI/CPL to make the flight legal makes it an illegal charter.

The problem with the OP's scenario is that he's planning to fake an illness in order to not make the return flight. He hasn't expanded on why, but it suggests that he can't make the flight himself without the CFI being with him. That would be an illegal charter unless the flight is legitimate flight instruction with an articulable training objective.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the objective is:
Owner's airplane (123AB) is based at XXX.
Annual is being done on 123AB at YYY.
Owner flies 123AB to YYY
Owner needs to get back to XXX
Owner wants to "get flight instruction" in 456CD and fly back to XXX and "get sick"
CFI flies 456CD back to YYY
 
Larry in TN said:
Who said that there was an issue with your scenario?

Your scenario relies on the OP being current and qualified and able to rent and fly the airplane based on his own qualifications. If he can't do that on his own, i.e. not properly rated, etc., hiring the CFI/CPL to make the flight legal makes it an illegal charter.

The problem with the OP's scenario is that he's planning to fake an illness in order to not make the return flight. He hasn't expanded on why, but it suggests that he can't make the flight himself without the CFI being with him. That would be an illegal charter unless the flight is legitimate flight instruction with an articulable training objective.
Click to expand...
If one-way vs. round-trip doesn't matter, why are you fixated on him making up an excuse to not take the return? That's not even in the OP. Just assume one-way is the plan.
 
EdFred said:
I'm pretty sure the objective is:
Owner's airplane (123AB) is based at XXX.
Annual is being done on 123AB at YYY.
Owner flies 123AB to YYY
Owner needs to get back to XXX
Owner wants to "get flight instruction" in 456CD and fly back to XXX and "get sick"
CFI flies 456CD back to YYY
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. Why would he have to fake illness in that scenario? That's the part that makes the OP's scenario suspicious. If it's as you described, as I've said several times, it's fine.

Also, it doesn't sound like it's his own airplane when he says, "If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport" and " I'd still pay 100% of their rental + cfi fee". That suggests that the airplane belongs to the flight school.

If it was his own airplane, he can clearly hire a commercial pilot, doesn't have to be a CFI, to fly him to the destination while he sleeps in the back seat then fly the airplane back home without him.

Lindberg said:
If one-way vs. round-trip doesn't matter, why are you fixated on him making up an excuse to not take the return? That's not even in the OP. Just assume one-way is the plan.
Click to expand...
Him making up an excuse, that's obviously false if he can predict the illness ahead of time, suggests that there is some reason why the excuse is needed. Why is that included if it isn't needed?
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
Him making up an excuse, that's obviously false if he can predict the illness ahead of time, suggests that there is some reason why the excuse is needed. Why is that included if it isn't needed?
Click to expand...
It wasn't included until someone suggested this might be illegal.
ArrowFlyer86 said:
If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport, then I get out at that airport and don't fly back with them (but I originally intended to)... Is there anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...
 
Larry in TN said:
Nothing wrong with that. Why would he have to fake illness in that scenario? That's the part that makes the OP's scenario suspicious. If it's as you described, as I've said several times, it's fine.

Also, it doesn't sound like it's his own airplane when he says, "If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport" and " I'd still pay 100% of their rental + cfi fee". That suggests that the airplane belongs to the flight school.

If it was his own airplane, he can clearly hire a commercial pilot, doesn't have to be a CFI, to fly him to the destination while he sleeps in the back seat then fly the airplane back home without him.


Him making up an excuse, that's obviously false if he can predict the illness ahead of time, suggests that there is some reason why the excuse is needed. Why is that included if it isn't needed?
Click to expand...
123AB is the owners plane
456CD is the rental plane. 456CD is the plane that is the argued to be "chartered" plane.

Owner (OP) of 123AB XXX ==> YYY
OP/Rental 456CD/CFI YYY ==> XXX
456CD/CFI XXX ==> YYY
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
123AB is the owners plane
456CD is the rental plane. 456CD is the plane that is the argued to be "chartered" plane.

Owner (OP) of 123AB XXX ==> YYY
OP/Rental 456CD/CFI YYY ==> XXX
456CD/CFI XXX ==> YYY
Click to expand...
^precisely this.

Larry in TN said:
Nothing wrong with that. Why would he have to fake illness in that scenario? That's the part that makes the OP's scenario suspicious. If it's as you described, as I've said several times, it's fine.

Also, it doesn't sound like it's his own airplane when he says, "If I hire a local flight school to do a flight lesson to a specific airport" and " I'd still pay 100% of their rental + cfi fee". That suggests that the airplane belongs to the flight school.

If it was his own airplane, he can clearly hire a commercial pilot, doesn't have to be a CFI, to fly him to the destination while he sleeps in the back seat then fly the airplane back home without him.


Him making up an excuse, that's obviously false if he can predict the illness ahead of time, suggests that there is some reason why the excuse is needed. Why is that included if it isn't needed?
Click to expand...
Larry -- For total clarity:
I own an aircraft and am a certified, day+night current pilot with full SEL PIC privileges, and have gotten a checkout in the rental. My desire to use the flight school plane is because mine will be in annual. It's either a 2h flight or a 6h+ drive (potentially).

The "faking an illness" was just a clever way to give the rental shop plausible deniability about my intentions, since there's obviously no way they can know I was using them for transport ahead of time. The reason to give them plausible deniability is not that I think something wrong/suspect occurred, but they might have reservations about it and don't want them to get accused of doing something wrong (which I think is already a distant tail scenario).

Why might they think that? For the same reason a lot of people on this thread do. Cuz they're being overly conservative in interpreting the rules (in my assessment). Even though they know it's not a charter flight, they want to go so far as to avoid what could ever under any circumstance be interpreted by an overzealous FAA as a charter flight. But it's not... Because I'm PIC + sole control manipulator when I'm onboard. They can ride in the backseat for all I care.

In short, "getting sick" and abandoning the flight at my destination gives them a get out of jail free card in case they had any misgivings or worries about providing what turned out to be a 1-way flight. They can't be blamed for situation.

But in the end it's a victimless situation. There should be no guilt about a guy flying a rented Cessna there himself and handing the keys to the commercial pilot or CFI and saying "your bird, fly it back". There's no safety of flight issue, no ethics or morals at play. They are, at no point, giving me a ride. I'm giving them a ride.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
No, they weren't transporting themselves. 1) They were not rated and legal PIC's for the aircraft taking full responsibility for the flight. and 2) it sure sounds like someone was holding out in that situation. 3) Renting a huge twin that's appropriate for commercial transportation and renting the FBO's training Cessna are not the same either. 4) he’s talking about a one time event, not a gaggle of different people doing it (see holding out) time and time again.
Click to expand...
Like I said, that was the extreme example. But there have been a LOT of FBOs doing "134.5" in less extreme/obvious ways and the FAA has been cracking down on that.

Lindberg said:
Why is a round trip ok, but a one-way trip with the same facts is a charter?
Click to expand...
If you land back at the point of origin, it no longer fits the definition of a charter. If you did that without any flight instruction being provided, it would be at most a part 91 sightseeing operation, provided it remained within 25nm of the origin while in flight. Much different (and lesser) requirements for that.

Hang 4 said:
So here's a hypothetical. Let's say I'm a busy business person who also wants to be a private pilot. I have to travel some for work and I'm pressed for time. I hire a CFI and a plane from a flight school so I can get some instruction and combine it with getting where I need to be. CFI flys the plane home and then comes and picks me up and we do more instruction on the way home.

I'm doing this due to lack of free time for instruction, not just to get to the workplace. CFI conducts actual training, logs it as training.

Legal? (p.s. I'm retired, this is truly hypothetical, but close to the OP situation)
Click to expand...
If you're pursuing a rating, probably. I don't know that this particular scenario has really been tested, but it's at least easier to show that you needed the CFI there. If there was evidence that real instruction was being provided (such as prior flights on maneuvers, or maneuvers being conducted en route) as opposed to just a single cross country flight straight to the destination, all the better.

The old Cirrus Access program was very similar to this, but it used the pilot's owned airplane and the CFI was not being provided by an FBO, so it was more clearly legal.

Salty said:
Until someone points at a specific reg that would be in violation I still, yet again, see no issues with a commercial pilot going with you for this flight and flying the plane home. Just because it "feels" like some other case doesn't make it illegal. That other case had actual violations of the regulations occurring, not just "it looks like 134.5".
Click to expand...
What were the actual regs that case violated? Technically you can receive instruction in any plane you want. Famously, Thurman Munson started training in a Duke just six weeks after his first flight lesson, and prior to his PP-ASEL checkride.

When you get into more complex scenarios like this, there is not "a specific reg" that is violated, it is a combination of regs as well as the FAA's current interpretations thereof.

Jim K said:
In other news, @ArrowFlyer86, if you need a ride somewhere....There's at least four people I know who'd be happy to do it. For that matter, I owe you a couple favors.
Click to expand...
This is another good solution, and seems to be what most people do in this scenario.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
I own an aircraft and am a certified, day+night current pilot with full SEL PIC privileges, and have gotten a checkout in the rental. My desire to use the flight school plane is because mine will be in annual. It's either a 2h flight or a 6h+ drive (potentially).
Click to expand...

Why the subterfuge?

Rent the plane and fly to your destination. Legal.​
​
Pay the CFI/commercial pilot to ride along as a passenger, with you (not him) acting as PIC. Legal.​
​
Pay the CFI/commercial pilot to ferry the plane back home. Legal.​

Done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top