A quiz for the group

drgwentzel

drgwentzel

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
287
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Kobra
Ok we have four independent flight instructors. Each provide flight instruction in an aircraft that they provide and each aircraft has accumulated just over 100 hours in 8 months since the last annual.

Instructor 1 charges for his time providing instruction, but does not charge for the use of the airplane.

Instructor 2 charges for the plane and the instruction.

Instructor 3 charges for nothing but asks for 1/2 of the fuel costs.

Instructor 4 refuses all money and won't even let the student treat him or her to a hamburger in the airport cafe after a lesson.

Which one(s) is/are held to 14CFR 91.409b? The 100 hour inspection.
 
drgwentzel said:
Ok we have four independent flight instructors. Each provide flight instruction in an aircraft that they provide and each aircraft has accumulated just over 100 hours in 8 months since the last annual.

Instructor 1 charges for his time providing instruction, but does not charge for the use of the airplane.

Instructor 2 charges for the plane and the instruction.

Instructor 3 charges for nothing but asks for 1/2 of the fuel costs.

Instructor 4 refuses all money and won't even let the student treat him or her to a hamburger in the airport cafe after a lesson.

Which one(s) is/are held to 14CFR 91.409b? The 100 hour inspection.
Click to expand...
I'm a little on the sleepy side right now, but I'd venture to say that all 4 cases need a 100 hour since the instructor is providing the airplane for the purpose of flight instruction.
 
Well, the pertinent part is "no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides."

1 and 2 both meet that description and require 100 hour inspections.

4 clearly doesn't meet it and therefore doesn't require 100 hour inspections.

That leaves 3. I think that, like 4, it doesn't meet the description and wouldn't require a 100 hour. There is enough ambiguity in the definition of "for hire" that someone at the FAA may determine to pursue that one, though, claiming that the remuneration was really for the instruction, not the airplane. Don't know if they really would do that and, if they were to do so, whether they would be successful.
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
Well, the pertinent part is "no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides."

1 and 2 both meet that description and require 100 hour inspections.

4 clearly doesn't meet it and therefore doesn't require 100 hour inspections.

That leaves 3. I think that, like 4, it doesn't meet the description and wouldn't require a 100 hour. There is enough ambiguity in the definition of "for hire" that someone at the FAA may determine to pursue that one, though, claiming that the remuneration was really for the instruction, not the airplane. Don't know if they really would do that and, if they were to do so, whether they would be successful.
Click to expand...
There are some interpretations out there that consider flight time to be compensation. Money is not the only factor involved when talking about flying for hire.
 
GCA319 said:
There are some interpretations out there that consider flight time to be compensation. Money is not the only factor involved when talking about flying for hire.
Click to expand...
Yes, but those interpretations have to do with accepting compensation as a private pilot. In this case, the CFI clearly has a commercial certificate, so the question isn't about accepting compensation, but about being for hire. Note that 61.113 specifically says "for compensation or hire" in the limitations.
 
As with other entries in the FARs, there is enough ambiguity there that would allow the FAA to create trouble for them if someone had it in for them. For instance, 1 and 2 comply, feel they spend enough to maintain their craft that they feel 3 and 4 are cutting into their profit. They both petition the local FAA inspector (their drinking buddy). 3 and 4 get orders to cease and desist.
3 and 4 should probably have the 100 hour (spirit of the law) but I can see where neither feel it is required.
 
I would say 1 & 2 require 100h, and 3 & 4 do not.

The regulation speaks to instruction for hire, not aircraft for hire.

#4 might however have issues with his medical...I mean refusing a burger is certainly a sign of mental disease! :D
 
If this is an actual operational question, contact your nearest FSDO and get an answer in writing. Then, contact your insurance company and make sure they agree.

John
 
The rule is about who provides the aircraft, not about compensation.
 
#3 still counts because the trainee is still paying. The FAA Chief Counsel has on several occasions said that whether or not a profit is made doesn't matter -- any compensation, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. Only one I see being OK without the 100-hour is #4, since in that case, the instructor is getting absolutely nothing in return from the trainee -- no quid pro quo. The fact that s/he is logging the time doesn't matter since s/he's paying for it all him/herself.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Is free flight instruction very common?(!)
Click to expand...
If you mean a situation where the CFI signs an entry in the other pilot's logbook indicating that instruction was given, I'd say not very common at all. But if you mean a CFI providing advice/coaching to a pilot he's riding along with but no log entries or endorsements I'd guess that this happens more often and AFaIK that isn't considered "flight instruction" by the FAA.

As to the OP I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA would say that all four scenarios would require 100 hr inspections as long as the CFI signed an entry in the pilot's logbook stating that instruction was given and a charge was made for that effort. IMO the literal interpretation of the rule only requires that the plane be supplied by the instructor (whether or not anything is charged for the use of that plane) and that the instruction itself be "for hire".

I'm also fairly certain that any insurance underwriter would consider such use of the CFI provided airplane to require specific coverage beyond the typical "pleasure and business use" and would charge a higher premium for that coverage. I'm only mentioning this because it seems likely that the CFI would want to charge something for the airplane use just to cover the extra premiums.
 
Ron Levy said:
#3 still counts because the trainee is still paying. The FAA Chief Counsel has on several occasions said that whether or not a profit is made doesn't matter -- any compensation, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. Only one I see being OK without the 100-hour is #4, since in that case, the instructor is getting absolutely nothing in return from the trainee -- no quid pro quo. The fact that s/he is logging the time doesn't matter since s/he's paying for it all him/herself.
Click to expand...
Where does it say he's paying?

just because he refused the hamburger doesn't mean he doesn't gain flight time.

Your post seems to contradict it's self.
 
Tom-D said:
The rule is about who provides the aircraft, not about compensation.
Click to expand...

No, it's about if one provides an aircraft for flight instruction AND is "hired". Which by definition is to employ, rent or lease.

Gene
 
Hey Gene, are you at KVAY? An alternative you could do is go to N14 (flying W) and train there, I used to fly out of there myself and Danos on this board can attest to their quality of training.

EDIT: Oh wait, its a quiz not real, disregard.
 
Tom-D said:
Where does it say he's paying?

just because he refused the hamburger doesn't mean he doesn't gain flight time.

Your post seems to contradict it's self.
Click to expand...

Under your definition, since we all get compensated wth flight time on every flight then that would make every flight a commercial flight. Why? Because we are compensated with flight time EVEN THOUGH we are paying for the flight ourselves.

Well now, under that situation we all need 100 hour inspections, I say we start by turning in every Angel Flight and Pilot ‘n Paws pilot for receiving “compensation” or being "hired" who doesn't have a 100 hour inspection. Besides, 91.409b NEVER mentions the word “compensation” it only uses the phrase, “for hire”.

Why oh why would the FAA put the phrase “for hire” in relation to providing an aircraft for flight instruction if it had no meaning? Please, get your FAR/AIM out and read 91.409b, BUT leave out the phrase “for hire” in the line related to providing an aircraft for flight instruction. I bet you will learn that the sentence reads JUST FINE without those words. So, then why have them there to start with if it doesn’t define anything?

Gene
 
drgwentzel said:
Under your definition, since we all get compensated wth flight time on every flight then that would make every flight a commercial flight. Why? Because we are compensated with flight time EVEN THOUGH we are paying for the flight ourselves.

Well now, under that situation we all need 100 hour inspections, I say we start by turning in every Angel Flight and Pilot ‘n Paws pilot for receiving “compensation” or being "hired" who doesn't have a 100 hour inspection. Besides, 91.409b NEVER mentions the word “compensation” it only uses the phrase, “for hire”.

Why oh why would the FAA put the phrase “for hire” in relation to providing an aircraft for flight instruction if it had no meaning? Please, get your FAR/AIM out and read 91.409b, BUT leave out the phrase “for hire” in the line related to providing an aircraft for flight instruction. I bet you will learn that the sentence reads JUST FINE without those words. So, then why have them there to start with if it doesn’t define anything?

Gene
Click to expand...

FAA has determined that you can be compensated by flight time alone, it does not make every flight a commercial flight.

If the CFI provides the aircraft, a 100 hour is required, his compensation can be any thing.
 
Tom-D said:
Where does it say he's paying?
Click to expand...
In the original post -- #3 instructor was getting money to cover half the gas from the trainee.

just because he refused the hamburger doesn't mean he doesn't gain flight time.
Click to expand...
In the #4 case, the instructor is getting flight time, but s/he's paying the full cost for it, and receiving nothing of value from the trainee. Hence, not for hire, so no 100-hour required.

Your post seems to contradict it's self.
Click to expand...
Not if you read it fully.
 
Tom-D said:
FAA has determined that you can be compensated by flight time alone
Click to expand...
Not if you're paying for that flight time entirely yourself. In that case, there's no compensation since you're not providing something to someone else in return for that someone else paying for that flight time, either all or in part.

If the CFI provides the aircraft, a 100 hour is required, his compensation can be any thing.
Click to expand...
Agreed - it can be anything of value provided by the trainee in return for the training. But in case #4, the trainee is giving the instructor nothing of value, hence, no compensation for the training provided. "Quid pro quo, Agent Starling, quid pro quo." There is no quo in case #4 -- the flight instructor is paying him/herself for the time going in his/her logbook.
 
Tom-D said:
FAA has determined that you can be compensated by flight time alone, it does not make every flight a commercial flight.

If the CFI provides the aircraft, a 100 hour is required, his compensation can be any thing.
Click to expand...

Tom,

You keep using the word, "compensation". That word is of no relevance in this discussion directly. That word is not used in the regulation we are discussing. All that 91.409b cares about is if one provides flight instruction “for hire” in an aircraft that they provide. What does “for hire” mean?

As best I can determine it means:

“To employ, to rent or to lease”
“to offer or exchange one's services for payment”
“to engage the services of for wages or other payment.”


“Other payment” is NOT flight time because no one is providing flight time to the instructor, except the instructor. The instructor is PAYING for his AND the student’s flight time.

If you buy yourself and a friend a sandwich and you both eat them, I think it ridiculous that someone would say that your friend “hired” you to buy him a sandwich and in turn “compensated” you by letting you eat your own sandwich which you paid for.
Gene
 
Last edited:
Ok, how about a number 5? FBO provides the airplane. CFI is an independent contractor. Does the airplane need a 100 hour?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, how about a number 5? FBO provides the airplane. CFI is an independent contractor. Does the airplane need a 100 hour?
Click to expand...

I'd say yes because the FBO is the operator of an aircraft in a commercial enterprise. It needs a 100 hour even if it's not used for flight instruction.

Gene
 
drgwentzel said:
Tom,

You keep using the word, "compensation". That word is of no relevance in this discussion directly. That word is not used in the regulation we are discussing. All that 91.409b cares about is if one provides flight instruction “for hire” in an aircraft that they provide. What does “for hire” mean?
Click to expand...

Ask your self, why do CFI's need a CPL?

because teaching is a commercial activity, and is always a "For hire" situation, in some manner. and thus compensation is always a FAA concern.
 
drgwentzel said:
I'd say yes because the FBO is the operator of an aircraft in a commercial enterprise. It needs a 100 hour even if it's not used for flight instruction.

Gene
Click to expand...

I say no,, simply because if the CFI isn't involved in supplying the aircraft it can come from anywhere.

You could rent my aircraft, and hire Greg to teach you in it. no 100 hour is needed.

The FBO may need 100 hours on their aircraft but in the situation Greg stated the aircraft is not rented to the CFI, it was rented to the student.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not if you're paying for that flight time entirely yourself. In that case, there's no compensation since you're not providing something to someone else in return for that someone else paying for that flight time, either all or in part.
Click to expand...

the only way that works for the FAA is when the CFI doesn't log the time. other wise he got flight time, and that is compensation for hired services.

Instructor 4 refuses all money and won't even let the student treat him or her to a hamburger in the airport cafe after a lesson.

That does not say the CFI paid his own way. If he logs that flight that is compensation for hired services.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Ask your self, why do CFI's need a CPL?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this. Why do Sport Pilot CFI's not need a Commercial Certificate? They can instruct with a Private Pilot Cert.

because teaching is a commercial activity,
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily. If that is true, why can CFI's instruct with only a third class medical? And why does a CFI checkride not substitute automatically for a Flight Review?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, how about a number 5? FBO provides the airplane. CFI is an independent contractor. Does the airplane need a 100 hour?
Click to expand...
If the FBO provides the instructor, whether contractor or employee, the FAA will consider it aircraft+instruction for hire in this context. If the FBO just provides the aircraft and the trainee procures the instructor entirely independently of the FBO (i.e., not off a list the FBO provides), then it would not.
 
drgwentzel said:
I'd say yes because the FBO is the operator of an aircraft in a commercial enterprise. It needs a 100 hour even if it's not used for flight instruction.
Click to expand...
Nope -- only for carriage of passengers for hire or for instruction where the FBO provides the instructor. Just plain rental does not require a 100-hour. See 91.409 for details.
 
Tom-D said:
Ask your self, why do CFI's need a CPL?

because teaching is a commercial activity, and is always a "For hire" situation, in some manner. and thus compensation is always a FAA concern.
Click to expand...
No, it's not a commercial pilot activity. The only reason CFI's need a CPL is because the FAA's regulations requires it (and they didn't used to). The FAA Chief Counsel has made clear in several interpretations that when hired to provide training, the instructor is not exercising Commercial Pilot privileges, even when acting as PIC. That's why the instructor does not need more than a Third Class medical.
 
Tom-D said:
the only way that works for the FAA is when the CFI doesn't log the time. other wise he got flight time, and that is compensation for hired services.

Instructor 4 refuses all money and won't even let the student treat him or her to a hamburger in the airport cafe after a lesson.

That does not say the CFI paid his own way. If he logs that flight that is compensation for hired services.
Click to expand...
Tom, you are confusing several different regulations and interpretations. In #4, the trainee is not paying anything at all for the training. Thus, it is not flight training for hire. End of story.

If anyone other than Tom is still confused about this, please post your question. Otherwise, I'm done.
 
Tom-D said:
Ask your self, why do CFI's need a CPL?

because teaching is a commercial activity, and is always a "For hire" situation, in some manner. and thus compensation is always a FAA concern.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why they don't need a second class medical, or ANY medical, when instructing unless they are also acting as PIC.

It's not as simple as you make it.
 
Getting back to what needs a 100 hour, When a CFI provides the aircraft, it needs the inspection, When the student provides the aircraft it does not.

So #4 is dependent upon who brought the aircraft.
 
The planes in my flight club all get 100-hr inspections. The instructors are also members but are paid by the student, the club has no knowledge of the amount paid (if any) and is not involved in those transactions. When I asked about the 100-hr I was told "because the planes are used for flight instruction". Was that incorrect?
 
Tom-D said:
Ask your self, why do CFI's need a CPL?

because teaching is a commercial activity, and is always a "For hire" situation, in some manner. and thus compensation is always a FAA concern.
Click to expand...

Nope. Teaching can be free.
 
MadseasoN said:
The planes in my flight club all get 100-hr inspections. The instructors are also members but are paid by the student, the club has no knowledge of the amount paid (if any) and is not involved in those transactions. When I asked about the 100-hr I was told "because the planes are used for flight instruction". Was that incorrect?
Click to expand...
I think it depends. Are the students members of the club and, as members of the club, part owners of the planes? If so then I don't believe 100 hour inspections are required since the "owner" is supplying his/her own plane.
 
MadseasoN said:
The planes in my flight club all get 100-hr inspections. The instructors are also members but are paid by the student, the club has no knowledge of the amount paid (if any) and is not involved in those transactions. When I asked about the 100-hr I was told "because the planes are used for flight instruction". Was that incorrect?
Click to expand...
No, just incomplete. The missing part is that the club provides the instructors even if the trainee pays them directly. Therefore, the planes are being used for flight instruction for hire where the club provides both aircraft and instructor. I suspect the FAA's test for this would be what would happen if you showed up with your own outside instructor. I'll bet the club would nix that, and if the club can control who instructs as well as providing the plane, the 100-hour will be necessary.
 
dbman5 said:
I think it depends. Are the students members of the club and, as members of the club, part owners of the planes? If so then I don't believe 100 hour inspections are required since the "owner" is supplying his/her own plane.
Click to expand...
If the club is a partnership, not a corporation, that might be true, but given the legal implications of that, there aren't many clubs which are partnerships rather than corporations (or at least LLC's). IOW, you may be part-owner of the club, but you are not the club, so when you rent, you rent from the club, not yourself, i.e., you don't take the rental money out of one of your pants pockets and put it in the other. If you were to do that, it would "pierce the corporate veil," and that would be bad -- very bad. What you really do is write a check to the club, not yourself, to pay for your use of the plane.
 
So if I instruct my daughter in my aircraft I have to start doing 100 hr inspections?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top