Student Pilots in IMC

Ted DuPuis said:
I think getting students in the actual stuff is worthwhile, provided they have the state of mind to deal with it without getting scared and turned off from flying entirely.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! You have to know the student and his/her mindset. Some only want to fly around on CAVU days -- that's fine!

But anyone who wants to fly XC more than an hour away from the home anywhere on the east coast needs to get the IR and keep current if they expect to get real utility from the airplane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
My second lesson was an XC in actual IMC, although that was because I had to pick up my fiancee at PIT where she was flying in.
Click to expand...
I don't want to come off too strong about this point but that looks a lot more like a 135 op to pick up a passenger than a 61/141 training flight to me.
I wouldn't do such a flight as part of private pilot training, even if you did sit in the left seat.

Maybe it's because of the difference in weather patterns here. Dan's flight is better because the student was ready for cross country training.

Joe
 
Areeda said:
I don't want to come off too strong about this point but that looks a lot more like a 135 op to pick up a passenger than a 61/141 training flight to me.
Click to expand...
That wasn't too strong. Actually, it looks about 100% more like a Part 135 op than a second lesson for a brand new student.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That wasn't too strong. Actually, it looks about 100% more like a Part 135 op than a second lesson for a brand new student.
Click to expand...
It's the very reason I ordered some cheapie log books for discovery flights. Some won't want to pay $9 for a new, regular log so it's cheaper and at least legal to log a .5 in a cheapie log that cost me a $1.65 rather than get accused of providing sight-seeing flights.
 
KennyFlys said:
It's the very reason I ordered some cheapie log books for discovery flights. Some won't want to pay $9 for a new, regular log so it's cheaper and at least legal to log a .5 in a cheapie log that cost me a $1.65 rather than get accused of providing sight-seeing flights.
Click to expand...
I do also (actually, it costs me the heavyweight paper I print it on).

But I don't think how it's logged is the issue with a 2.7 hour IFR flight in IMC with a 1-hour student pilot for the purpose of picking up a passenger and transporting her back home. I don't any doubt that if something happened on the flight to attract the FAA's attention, the CFI involved would be looking at a certificate action.
 
dmccormack said:
Weather looked IMC for half the distance, so I filed, and flew left seat ( I don't feel competent to fly extensive IMC from the right quite yet).
Click to expand...

Nice report, Dan, and a great "real-world" experience for your student. This gets right back to the scenario-based training that is encouraged.

As to you flying left seat in IMC, with the student in the right seat... I've always thought that Instrument training would be well suited for 5-10 of the first hours of that rating to be spent in actual, right seat, with an experienced IFR pilot PIC in the left. Airline pilots don't jump into the left seat--they spend some time in the right seat "absorbing" their new environment with a captain in the left.

I'm willing to bet he absorbed more by "observing" and "participating" from the right seat than he would have from the left seat. The opportunity to take in the sights, sounds, sensations without the pressure to actually do the flying and navigating ... priceless.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That wasn't too strong. Actually, it looks about 100% more like a Part 135 op than a second lesson for a brand new student.
Click to expand...

Are you concerned about the outbound leg flown by the student or the return flown by Dan?

IMO the first is clearly legal as a training flight and the second seems legal to me. AFaIK CFI's "rescue" their students who get stranded by weather all the time and I've never heard of any action taken against a CFI doing that. On this flight the CFI was already present and didn't even have to make his way to the stranded student. If enforcement was taken against CFI's who help their students make a return trip in IMC I'd expect that the effect would be more students involved in VFR to IMC accidents.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That wasn't too strong. Actually, it looks about 100% more like a Part 135 op than a second lesson for a brand new student.
Click to expand...

Mark,

My wording would have been different if the CFI had posted that. I don't expect a student pilot with 1 hr to have any idea how many regulations his instructor broke on their second flight.
lancefisher said:
Are you concerned about the outbound leg flown by the student or the return flown by Dan?

IMO the first is clearly legal as a training flight and the second seems legal to me. AFaIK CFI's "rescue" their students who get stranded by weather all the time and I've never heard of any action taken against a CFI doing that. On this flight the CFI was already present and didn't even have to make his way to the stranded student. If enforcement was taken against CFI's who help their students make a return trip in IMC I'd expect that the effect would be more students involved in VFR to IMC accidents.
Click to expand...
Lance,

I think this is a completely different situation. I don't see any problem with it. Going on a cross country with a private student and returning IFR with the CFI in the left seat for safety reasons is fine as far as I'm concerned.

Joe
 
Areeda said:
I think this is a completely different situation. I don't see any problem with it. Going on a cross country with a private student and returning IFR with the CFI in the left seat for safety reasons is fine as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
And, I should think, with the FAA -- as long as the CFI is paying for the flight.
 
Areeda said:
Mark,

My wording would have been different if the CFI had posted that. I don't expect a student pilot with 1 hr to have any idea how many regulations his instructor broke on their second flight.
Click to expand...
What student pilot with 1 hour?
-Ted
PP-ASEL, High Performance Endorsement, Complex Endorsement - working on IR
Williamsport, PA - KIPT
Piper Archer II 180 HP - Club Plane
Cessna 172N 180 HP - Club Plane
Click to expand...
 
At the time of the flight Ted was discussing, it appears that he was a student pilot, on his second lesson.
 
I like to get my private students out in some actual if its possible. I normally get a block altitude and a couple radials to stay between off a local VOR. then we have some room to play. Normally we work on just basic attitude instrument flying and I try to take the opportunity to impress why they need more training to be safe flying in the clouds.
 
What post? I don't see a post.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I am glad that those of you who commented on my post (and made similar comments on other posts I've made) were not my initial flight instructor. I doubt I would have finished my ticket were it the case.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Are you saying that if your initial CFI said, "I'm sorry, no can do. We'd be breaking the rules if we took that trip," you wouldn't have learned to fly?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't understand. Are you saying that if your initial CFI said, "I'm sorry, no can do. We'd be breaking the rules if we took that trip," you wouldn't have learned to fly?
Click to expand...

No, that is not the issue. The issue is the attitude with which your statements are made. That applies especially to you. It is not encouraging. Areeda did a good job of it. You did not, nor did others.

For someone whose website is dedicated to the joy of flight, you should consider thinking about that more before you hit "post".
 
Last edited:
I'll also add, I do not see this at all as looking like a Part 135 bit. You all don't have enough information to make that determination. You have two lines of a post from which you make a pretty slanderous conclusion from. Dan is also vulnerable to that conclusion. I will make the bet that not a single one of you has gone your flying careers without doing something that could be misintepreted given the conclusions that some of you jump to.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'll also add, I do not see this at all as looking like a Part 135 bit. You all don't have enough information to make that determination. You have two lines of a post from which you make a pretty slanderous conclusion from. Dan is also vulnerable to that conclusion. I will make the bet that not a single one of you has gone your flying careers without doing something that could be misintepreted given the conclusions that some of you jump to.
Click to expand...

Ted,

While we all need to be careful, I think there's some merit to the claim that some flights can be considered 135.

When we pay someone to fly us somewhere, it's a "commercial flight."

When the person going somewhere is logging the time, then it's instructional, and not common carriage.

So if you and your CFI fly XC to the beach, spend the day on the boardwalk, then log XC for the flight back, and you log it as dual and he/she signs your logbook -- that's instructional. There's no prohibition implied or described in the CFRs against stopping somewhere and enjoying the location in between flights.

When you and the CFI and a passenger go somewhere, it gets into the grey area -- and possibly even 135 zone.

I added the clarification to my post that my return flight through IMC was instructional only in the sense that it exposed a student pilot to IMC, but I did not log the time as dual given, did not charge for the flight, and in fact cannot instruct in IMC as I am not a CFI-I.

I am Instrument rated, however, and there is no prohibition against me flying a properly equipped airplane into IMC with someone along, as long as the expenses are shared and I do not charge for the service.
 
It seems to be a pretty tetchy weekend - I've seen lots of attitude all over the forums today. If any of it came from me, I apologize. I'm gonna call it a night and hopefully everyone will be smiling in the morning.
 
TMetzinger said:
It seems to be a pretty tetchy weekend - I've seen lots of attitude all over the forums today. If any of it came from me, I apologize. I'm gonna call it a night and hopefully everyone will be smiling in the morning.
Click to expand...

Certainly not, Tim.

Dan, your explanation is good and makes sense. While I'll agree it's a gray area, there are a lot of gray areas when it comes to having people in a plane with you as PIC and going anywhere. If there's one thing I have found so far about the various FAA regs it's that each person has his or her own interpretation of them. Some things are pretty clear, but it seems most of them are pretty ambiguous. This is definitely one of them.
 
dmccormack said:
I added the clarification to my post that my return flight through IMC was instructional only in the sense that it exposed a student pilot to IMC, but I did not log the time as dual given, did not charge for the flight, and in fact cannot instruct in IMC as I am not a CFI-I.
Click to expand...
While I agree that it may not be a good idea for a non-IA CFI to instruct in IMC, it's not prohibited. However, without the -IA rating, the instruction cannot be counted toward the 15 hours of instrument instruction time required for the IR under Part 61.
I am Instrument rated, however, and there is no prohibition against me flying a properly equipped airplane into IMC with someone along, as long as the expenses are shared and I do not charge for the service.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that expense sharing is only authorized when you and the passenger have a "common purpose" for the flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
While I agree that it may not be a good idea for a non-IA CFI to instruct in IMC, it's not prohibited. However, without the -IA rating, the instruction cannot be counted toward the 15 hours of instrument instruction time required for the IR under Part 61.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Keep in mind that expense sharing is only authorized when you and the passenger have a "common purpose" for the flight.
Click to expand...
Absolutely -- and I think the "common purpose" is clear in this case.
 
Dan I liked your story, thanks for sharing.

It really is too bad we can't focus on peoples' stories without getting into a legal furball over the minutae of each one.

In fact, I vote that on the blue board, if you notice something "illegal", PM the guy about it but leave the post alone. Maybe a legal nit-picking forum that some of us can unsubscribe from?

All with the best of intentions;
 
Ted, I understand your frustration with some of the responses. But, you have to remember that just as much as you want to obtain your certificate, it's the desire of instructors to retain ours. The "checklist" often heard is, "Skin, Tin and Ticket." If I don't protect my license and operate within the rules, what good am I to my current and future students?

I gave up some six hours of billable time over a two-week period because one student did not have a fuel shut-off valve lever on his little nifty-one-fifty. That's on top of the nose strut barely showing. At least for that flight, I may have saved both our butts by refusing to fly his aircraft. Another way to put it... if I don't exercise ADM, what kind of an example am I to students and other pilots who may seek me for a flight review?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
It really is too bad we can't focus on peoples' stories without getting into a legal furball over the minutae of each one.
Click to expand...
You know Dave, I feel somehow responsible, but I really I don't think either fur ball or minutiae are very appropriate descriptors.

The thread has changed since I started this avalanche with a hiccup.

Since the post I responded to had been deleted how about a hypothetical?

I get a new student and we go up for our first lesson after that lesson he tells me his girlfriend is flying commercial into a Class C airport some 3 hour drive from here on Saturday and wonders if we could work our our lesson so that we land there and bring her back with us. Weather looks pretty bad and there's little chance of doing anything for a new private pilot.

I don't have my II yet and I haven't flown much IMC from the right seat so I say well how about you pay for my time which will be about 3 hours flying plus wait time at the airport plus the airplane if so we can have a lesson that can teach you what it's like in real IMC, not quite lesson two in my syllabus but heck I haven't looked at that thing since my CFI checkride. Since we're going to that airport anyway sure your girlfriend can come back with us. I'm sure that will be OK with the FSDO.

Then the student, now a good pilot tells you about this, and how well it worked out for him and his girlfriend.

Now I have some questions for this hypothetical teaching scenario:
  1. Can you find anything wrong with what the student did or what he wanted?
  2. What about the CFI?
  3. Is this good for our profession?
  4. Would you just smile and say nothing about it?
  5. If you did comment, how would you do it so it didn't sound like you were coughing up a fur ball over the minutiae of the regulations?
Maybe I could learn to just smile and keep my mouth shut. Who knows maybe one day I'll be able to sit in the right seat with some one who's paying me and keep my hands off the controls and my mouth shut while they land flat drifting to the left, God knows I've tried.

Joe
 
Last edited:
Areeda said:
how about a hypothetical?

I get a new student and we go up for our first lesson after that lesson he tells me his girlfriend is flying commercial into a Class C airport some 3 hour drive from here on Saturday and wonders if we could work our our lesson so that we land there and bring her back with us. Weather looks pretty bad and there's little chance of doing anything for a new private pilot.

I don't have my II yet and I haven't flown much IMC from the right seat so I say well how about you pay for my time which will be about 3 hours flying plus wait time at the airport plus the airplane if so we can have a lesson that can teach you what it's like in real IMC, not quite lesson two in my syllabus but heck I haven't looked at that thing since my CFI checkride. Since we're going to that airport anyway sure your girlfriend can come back with us. I'm sure that will be OK with the FSDO.
Click to expand...

Wow, Joe... Looks like you managed to perfectly merge the two scenarios that were already confusing people. ;)

FWIW, I think the scenario you have above is awfully close to Part 135 - Though, if you're just taking a 172 the argument could be made that the student rented the 172 and is simply hiring you to fly it (part 91 commercial).

However, I think Ted's scenario is NOT 135 - Mark, Ron, et al I'd love to hear why you think it is. He is a student who asked for a specific type of instruction - Cross country to PIT - and the instructor obliged. Girlfriend is irrelevant. Show me a FAR that says that students must fly only simple airplanes, must learn things only in the prescribed order, must not go anywhere but the practice area, etc. - There isn't one. This is flight instruction, plain and simple.

Other examples I can think of:

* I went into IMC with less than 10 hours.

* Another student - Pre-solo, no less - Wanted to fly herself GA to Connecticut, a good 700-nm plus trip. She didn't want to take a 172 because it'd take too long, so she got a CFII-MEI to clear his schedule for the length of her trip and give her instruction in an Aztec for the flight out and back.

* A guy bought a Twin Comanche and only then showed up at the field asking to learn to fly in it. (I think he did end up renting and getting ASEL first simply due to insurance.)

In Ted's case, "who paid?" is the key. As far as I know, Ted paid for the entire cost of the airplane and instructor. That's part 91 flight instruction. What would change it to part 135 is if Ted's girlfriend had said "Hey, I'll pay you to come and pick me up in the airplane" and she had footed the bill.

I'd welcome anyone to tell me I'm wrong, and WHY.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
However, I think Ted's scenario is NOT 135 - Mark, Ron, et al I'd love to hear why you think it is. He is a student who asked for a specific type of instruction - Cross country to PIT - and the instructor obliged. Girlfriend is irrelevant. Show me a FAR that says that students must fly only simple airplanes, must learn things only in the prescribed order, must not go anywhere but the practice area, etc. - There isn't one. This is flight instruction, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Kent, this is what I was trying to get at.

In Ted's case, "who paid?" is the key. As far as I know, Ted paid for the entire cost of the airplane and instructor. That's part 91 flight instruction.
Click to expand...

Correct.

What would change it to part 135 is if Ted's girlfriend had said "Hey, I'll pay you to come and pick me up in the airplane" and she had footed the bill.
Click to expand...

Seeing as I can't remember her ever paying for anything in the 3.5 years we were together... :rofl:
 
KennyFlys said:
I gave up some six hours of billable time over a two-week period because one student did not have a fuel shut-off valve lever on his little nifty-one-fifty. That's on top of the nose strut barely showing. At least for that flight, I may have saved both our butts by refusing to fly his aircraft. Another way to put it... if I don't exercise ADM, what kind of an example am I to students and other pilots who may seek me for a flight review?
Click to expand...

This is a far more obvious case of a time when not to fly! Not having a fuel shut-off valve lever? I wouldn't fly in a plane that was equipped like that! There is no comparison between the two examples.
 
dmccormack said:
I added the clarification to my post that my return flight through IMC was instructional only in the sense that it exposed a student pilot to IMC, but I did not log the time as dual given, did not charge for the flight, and in fact cannot instruct in IMC as I am not a CFI-I.

I am Instrument rated, however, and there is no prohibition against me flying a properly equipped airplane into IMC with someone along, as long as the expenses are shared and I do not charge for the service.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly what I was thinking.
 
Ron Levy said:
While I agree that it may not be a good idea for a non-IA CFI to instruct in IMC, it's not prohibited. However, without the -IA rating, the instruction cannot be counted toward the 15 hours of instrument instruction time required for the IR under Part 61.
Keep in mind that expense sharing is only authorized when you and the passenger have a "common purpose" for the flight.
Click to expand...

Given that the flight in question (return leg) involved two people traveling back to their home base, the common purpose seems rather clear to me. Now if the outbound flight were flown by the CFI and the CFI hung around the airport or simply returned to the home base by himself, a common purpose would be hard for me to see.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
However, I think Ted's scenario is NOT 135 - Mark, Ron, et al I'd love to hear why you think it is. He is a student who asked for a specific type of instruction - Cross country to PIT - and the instructor obliged. Girlfriend is irrelevant. Show me a FAR that says that students must fly only simple airplanes, must learn things only in the prescribed order, must not go anywhere but the practice area, etc. - There isn't one. This is flight instruction, plain and simple.

***

In Ted's case, "who paid?" is the key. As far as I know, Ted paid for the entire cost of the airplane and instructor. That's part 91 flight instruction. What would change it to part 135 is if Ted's girlfriend had said "Hey, I'll pay you to come and pick me up in the airplane" and she had footed the bill.

I'd welcome anyone to tell me I'm wrong, and WHY.
Click to expand...
I don't think "who paid" is an issue, unless, of course, it was the CFI who paid for the flight. Someone paid to pick up a passenger at a remote location and take her home. Take Ted out of the airplane and would you agree that we have a clear 135?

So let's talk about instruction...

The area between Part 91 and Part 135 is indeed gray. IMO, it's because clever people are always trying to find ways around it. My impression from reading Legal opinions and cases is that when the FAA looks at such things as "common purpose" and "it was an instructional flight" it is looking not on the surface (it was paid for by the student and logged as instruction) but whether the common purpose or instructional nature of the flight was merely a pretext.

I don't have a problem with a very early cross country. Heck, they might be a great idea for a intro lesson to show the utility of the airplane and get folks excited.

And I don't have a problem with taking a passenger along on a cross country.

And I don't have a problem with taking a student pilot into IMC (I once had to make a decision whether or not to take a student who tended to do very cursory weather checking on a night cross country where I thought we were likely to encounter IMC - it wasn't easy)

But start adding things to it from Ted's scenario - a 1 hour student, IMC, a cross country that most likely would not have been flown if it wasn't to pick up a passenger, and I think the CFI in question would have a heck of a time convincing the FAA that is was a bona fide instructional flight.

Maybe you would feel comfortable with the strength of an explanation that taking a 1-hr student on an IMC cross country in a not-simple airplane to pick up a passenger was =really= about instruction, but I wouldn't.

BTW, Ted, If you detected an "attitude" in the post, I apologize. None was intended. This gray area between 91 and 135 is dangerous ground for pilots to tread and most of the rules surrounding it are misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Wow, Joe... Looks like you managed to perfectly merge the two scenarios that were already confusing people. ;)
Click to expand...
Kent - I was trying to take the personal nature out the picture and try to discuss my issue, which is, as Mark put it, using the pretext of instruction to get paid for what's really something else.
flyingcheesehead said:
FWIW, I think the scenario you have above is awfully close to Part 135 - Though, if you're just taking a 172 the argument could be made that the student rented the 172 and is simply hiring you to fly it (part 91 commercial).
Click to expand...
Hard to argue if I sign his logbook and/or the plane and CFI come from the same FBO.

flyingcheesehead said:
However, I think Ted's scenario is NOT 135 - Mark, Ron, et al I'd love to hear why you think it is. He is a student who asked for a specific type of instruction - Cross country to PIT - and the instructor obliged. Girlfriend is irrelevant. Show me a FAR that says that students must fly only simple airplanes, must learn things only in the prescribed order, must not go anywhere but the practice area, etc. - There isn't one. This is flight instruction, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
I'd like to leave Ted out of this fork in the thread. It's not personal for me.

I don't have a problem taking friends/relatives of students on instructional flights. I don't have a problem with lessons out of order within reason.

In the scenario above though, the second private pilot flight is more appropriate (in my syllabi) for a mid way instrument student with the added benefit of transporting girlfriend from point-A to point-B. In my world it's hard to believe the instructional benefit was the purpose of the trip

I'm going to hack up Mark's post to pick things he said that I was trying to, I hope I don't change the meaning of any of it.

midlifeflyer said:
I don't think "who paid" is an issue, unless, of course, it was the CFI who paid for the flight. ...

The area between Part 91 and Part 135 is indeed gray.

...the FAA looks at ...whether the common purpose or instructional nature of the flight was merely a pretext.

BTW, Ted, If you detected an "attitude" in the post, I apologize. None was intended.
Click to expand...

I also apologize if I offended you Ted.

Joe
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't think "who paid" is an issue, unless, of course, it was the CFI who paid for the flight. Someone paid to pick up a passenger at a remote location and take her home. Take Ted out of the airplane and would you agree that we have a clear 135?
Click to expand...

Ahh, but I was in the picture, thus making it unclear, and that was the whole point.

You can decide to do whatever you want, that is your decision, and I will certainly never fault you for not doing something because you think it may cause you legal issues. That doesn't mean that it's your place to bash others for not agreeing with your view of the grey area.

BTW, Ted, If you detected an "attitude" in the post, I apologize. None was intended. This gray area between 91 and 135 is dangerous ground for pilots to tread and most of the rules surrounding it are misunderstood.
Click to expand...

Apology or not, were you my instructor at that point in time, you would have turned me away from flying, probably permanently because of how you said what you said earlier in this thread. That is food for thought for you. It's attitudes like yours that keep on making me think I shouldn't bother participating in these forums, and part of the reason why I was disinterested in flying entirely for a while.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Apology or not, were you my instructor at that point in time, you would have turned me away from flying, probably permanently because of how you said what you said earlier in this thread. That is food for thought for you. It's attitudes like yours that keep on making me think I shouldn't bother participating in these forums.
Click to expand...

Ted,

Don't drop out of PoA over this.

I think if this site was called "Taxpayers of America" and instead of XC flights I mentioned that I used my truck to help move some friend's piano, to show him the utility of an F-150 Pickup, some over-eager legal type would ask if the "friend" declared the Value of the moving as income (which, by strict interpretation of the tax law, would be correct).

(By the way -- anyone who refuses to help someone else in this sort of case "because of the potential tax implications" is an Ass)

The bald facts are these -- there is letter of the law (which is often buried deep in arcane transcripts) and there is good operating procedure.

I think in both our cases the latter applies. As far as the former, I suppose "Don't ask, don't tell" has to be SOP these days, especially on public forums.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
In fact, I vote that on the blue board, if you notice something "illegal", PM the guy about it but leave the post alone. Maybe a legal nit-picking forum that some of us can unsubscribe from?
Click to expand...
I disagree. While warning the OP privately is fine and a decision you can make for yourself, I think it's valuable to have open discussions about controversial subjects especially when there are grey areas. That way people can read and decide for themselves what they think is right. I've learned a lot in these forums from reading other people's interchanges. The one problem I see, though, is that it could discourage people from posting anything but the most sanitized versions of their experiences.

I was once on a mailing list where dissenting opinions were not tolerated. If you didn't post something supportive you were chastised. Maybe there is a place for forums like that but it wasn't for me.
 
Kent, I'll comment on your examples. Only my opinion given because I'd like to find holes in my logic.

* I went into IMC with less than 10 hours.

I don't see a problem. IFR to VFR on top and an approach through the marine layer so we can do airwork appropriate to stage of training, or Tony's example of getting block altitudes and vectors to do private training on flight with reference to instruments (I wish we could do that here) seems fine to me.

* Another student - Pre-solo, no less - Wanted to fly herself GA to Connecticut, a good 700-nm plus trip. She didn't want to take a 172 because it'd take too long, so she got a CFII-MEI to clear his schedule for the length of her trip and give her instruction in an Aztec for the flight out and back.

This one bothers me. I don't see a 700 nm cross country as an appropriate first lesson in a twin. I'd say this is a charter disguised as a lesson.

* A guy bought a Twin Comanche and only then showed up at the field asking to learn to fly in it. (I think he did end up renting and getting ASEL first simply due to insurance.)

In prehistoric times back before insurance companies ruled the world of aviation people used to do their private training in twins. I don't see any problem learning to fly in your own plane, other than insurance.

Joe
 
dmccormack said:
(By the way -- anyone who refuses to help someone else in this sort of case "because of the potential tax implications" is an Ass)
Click to expand...

Agreed, hence my use of my truck and whatever else I have available to try to help people when I can. :)

I'm not going anywhere yet, no worries. However people who make posts in the "I am [whoever], hear my superiority" manner have turned away a number of people from this forum who are valuable resources (other forums as well... it seems to be a universal phenomenon). How do I know? I talk to some of them regularly. I would be wise to omit more from my posts and choose my words more carefully (and I am learning to leave more things out), but others would be wise to think about choosing their words more carefully and not assume that they won't turn people away just because we're on a forum where presumably if you have come, you already love aviation.

Talk about thread creep...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top