Can a CFI give semi free flight training in an RV?

R

rookie1255

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
108
Display Name
Display name:
rookie1255
Hypothetical scenario (but maybe not TOO hypothetical). As a CFI with an RV, say I want to give my buddies, family members, whoever, an hour of free flight instruction in an RV I own. Can I have them chip in pro rata costs in terms of fuel/oil? Can I give out logbooks afterwards as souvenirs with their 1 hour of training signed off?

I wouldn't be charging for my services. Not renting out the experimental. No one is soloing, XC, or getting PPLs in it. It would be a way to pass out cool experiences to people and cheapen my own flying costs.
 
The way I see it is if the plane isn't for hire/rent then it doesn't require a hundred hour inspection, just the standard annual. So if it truly is just pro rata share then ya there's nothing stopping you, besides maybe your insurance coverage. You could even charge them for a profit, it's flight instructing so that whole holding out stuff is a lot different. If your charging for a profit I would think you would have to upkeep the 100 hour inspection. I could be wrong so hopefully someone else weighs in on this.
 
100 hr inspection if aircraft used for hire. Experimental aircraft can't be used for hire. Insurance shouldn't be an issue since the other people are really just acting as passengers. At least, that's my understanding.
 
OkieAviator said:
Call it transition training or an aircraft familiarization flight.. Covered under AC 90-109a

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-109A.pdf
Click to expand...

not exactly. an EAB is not allowed to be used for commercial operations per the operating limitations issued. to charge for the aircraft as transition training requires additional paperwork from the FAA.

the FAA takes the option that if you are providing the aircraft and taking payment then it is a commercial operation even if you say the aircraft is free and you are charging for the instruction.

if the pilot getting the transition training provides the aircraft you can charge for the instruction, but the instructor cannot provide the EAB aircraft and charge for transition training without being approved for transition training by the FAA.

now, prorated share..... that's another animal that has been beat to death here already.

bob
 
Last edited:
In the opinion of the Van Nuys FSDO as I understand it; if I act as a flight instructor (endorse a log book as a CFI) in an experimental aircraft I own I am in violation of the operating limitations even if no money changes hands.
The justification is that I receive marketing value for the lesson so it is compensation that is prohibited by the operating limitations of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
Not all FSDOs may feel the same way.
I now have a letter of deviation authority (LODA) for my experimental aircraft and must have 100 hour inspections in order to exercise the LODA.
I have found not all IAs are comfortable doing a 100 hour inspection on an EAB.
 
Vance Breese said:
In the opinion of the Van Nuys FSDO as I understand it; if I act as a flight instructor (endorse a log book as a CFI) in an experimental aircraft I own I am in violation of the operating limitations even if no money changes hands.
The justification is that I receive marketing value for the lesson so it is compensation that is prohibited by the operating limitations of the experimental amateur built aircraft.
Not all FSDOs may feel the same way.
I now have a letter of deviation authority (LODA) for my experimental aircraft and must have 100 hour inspections in order to exercise the LODA.
I have found not all IAs are comfortable doing a 100 hour inspection on an EAB.
Click to expand...

Tangent:
I find it interesting that "marketing value" came up. I've wondered about it in terms of using an EAB to market a business via paint or vinyl graphics - thinking it would not be kosher. Your FSDO would seem to support that interpretation.

Carry on ...
 
Couldn't you do it as a "flying club" then you could even charge for the plane i'd say. I'm pretty sure some eaa chapters give flying lessons in RV12s. IANAL though.
 
Second tangent -

Insurance issues aside, suppose you only intend to teach one student in your plane and training is completed before a 100 hour inspection would be required? Is the 100 hour needed? (This scenario would not be limited to experimentals.)

If legal, could you teach others as long as you don't exceed 100 hours since your last annual?
 
falconkidding said:
Couldn't you do it as a "flying club" then you could even charge for the plane i'd say. I'm pretty sure some eaa chapters give flying lessons in RV12s. IANAL though.
Click to expand...

EAA Chapters are not allowed to own an airworthy airplane.
 
EppyGA said:
EAA Chapters are not allowed to own an airworthy airplane.
Click to expand...
I think they do it "independent" of the EAA chapter I thought they even launched a program for it (give flight or something IIRC). But yes EAA doesn't have airworthy planes.
 
rookie1255 said:
100 hr inspection if aircraft used for hire. Experimental aircraft can't be used for hire. Insurance shouldn't be an issue since the other people are really just acting as passengers.
Click to expand...

If they are just passengers, then why are you signing their logbook saying you gave them training?

You should check with your insurance and see if they agree that someone you're giving flight instruction to counts as only a passenger. There is a good chance they do not.
 
rookie1255 said:
100 hr inspection if aircraft used for hire.
Click to expand...

Not quite. 100 hour inspections are required when carrying passengers for hire or when the flight instructor provides the aircraft for flight instruction.

Experimental aircraft can't be used for hire.
Click to expand...
Experimentals can't carry persons or property for hire.

Now here's the rub. The FAA construes flight instruction in an experimental aircraft that the instructor provides as being prohibited. Note the regs don't say that (in fact, note the specific wording in the 100 hour which means either it has redundant stuff in it or the interpretation of the experimental limitation is wrong), but that's what the FAA believes and the EAA has never done anything to thwart that bizarre interpretation.

Insurance shouldn't be an issue since the other people are really just acting as passengers.
Click to expand...

They are not passengers, they are students. If you are providing instruction (even for free) you may find you are running afoul of your coverage. If you're charging for it you almost certainly are.

By the way, it hasn't been mentioned here, but I'll throw it out. AIRCRAFT RENTAL (without a pilot/instructor coming with the plane) is not a "FOR HIRE" operation.
 
falconkidding said:
I think they do it "independent" of the EAA chapter I thought they even launched a program for it (give flight or something IIRC). But yes EAA doesn't have airworthy planes.
Click to expand...

That would be correct, you can have a flying club independent from the chapter and fly all you want as long as it is tied to the chapter.

I do believe the EAA is trying to address this limitation. Not sure where it stand currently on their priority list. I could email them and ask.
 
flyingron said:
By the way, it hasn't been mentioned here, but I'll throw it out. AIRCRAFT RENTAL (without a pilot/instructor coming with the plane) is not a "FOR HIRE" operation.
Click to expand...

If aircraft rental is not "for hire" then does this mean you could rent out experimental aircraft and and also not require 100 hour inspections? The only other issue would be insurance but I'm sure lots of flying clubs have RVs.
 
It smells like youre trying to sidestep *something*. Why not just tell us what that is and youll probably get the answer (that youd rather not get in the first place...).

If youre just trying to get half the fuel bill covered, just have them pay their pro rata share as a passenger and call it good.
 
rookie1255 said:
If aircraft rental is not "for hire" then does this mean you could rent out experimental aircraft and and also not require 100 hour inspections? The only other issue would be insurance but I'm sure lots of flying clubs have RVs.
Click to expand...

You can rent out certificated aircraft and not require 100 hour inspections.

I have no idea how the FAA misconstrues the regulations on experimentals with regard to instructor-less rentals. The problem is that without flight instruction, it's hard for most clubs or rental outfits to operate. The EAA has a procedure for limited waiver of the inane no instruction policy but it's primarily targeted at training pilots who are building like-design experimentals.
 
flyingron said:
You can rent out certificated aircraft and not require 100 hour inspections.

I have no idea how the FAA misconstrues the regulations on experimentals with regard to instructor-less rentals. The problem is that without flight instruction, it's hard for most clubs or rental outfits to operate. The EAA has a procedure for limited waiver of the inane no instruction policy but it's primarily targeted at training pilots who are building like-design experimentals.
Click to expand...

The regs actually explicitly prohibiting renting out experimental aircraft. My read of the reg is that it would even prevent a flying club organized as an LLC/Inc./other artificial entity from operating one, as the members are technically leasing the plane when they use it (other forms of co-ownership are probably OK wherein the co-owners directly own their piece of the plane, rather than owning an interest in an entity that owns the plane and leases it to the entity's owners).

91.319(f):

(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate under§ 21.191(i) of this chapter, except in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
 
Vance Breese said:
...
I now have a letter of deviation authority (LODA) for my experimental aircraft and must have 100 hour inspections in order to exercise the LODA.
I have found not all IAs are comfortable doing a 100 hour inspection on an EAB.
Click to expand...

Any A&P can do a 100 hour inspection, no IA required.
 
It's going to happen all the time. The same questions and answers coming up again and again. Just like flight training magazine and kitplanes magazine rehashing the same subjects over time. There are constantly new pilots and new CFIs who have the questions about the regs that old pilots are going to think are silly. Sometimes these are specific questions that would be hard to search for in the forum, or it's faster just to ask the question.

Option 2 is to just read every thread in existence to try to gain a general understanding of everything (I'll admit to doing this sometimes when I'm bored on the computer and need to read something aviation related to get my fix).

We were all newbies at one point. Remember that next time you laugh at a student pilot swerving all over the taxiway and turning the yoke wildly. I say let this thread be 3 pages, and take a chill pill.
 
rookie1255 said:
It's going to happen all the time. The same questions and answers coming up again and again. Just like flight training magazine and kitplanes magazine rehashing the same subjects over time. There are constantly new pilots and new CFIs who have the questions about the regs that old pilots are going to think are silly. Sometimes these are specific questions that would be hard to search for in the forum, or it's faster just to ask the question.

Option 2 is to just read every thread in existence to try to gain a general understanding of everything (I'll admit to doing this sometimes when I'm bored on the computer and need to read something aviation related to get my fix).

We were all newbies at one point. Remember that next time you laugh at a student pilot swerving all over the taxiway and turning the yoke wildly. I say let this thread be 3 pages, and take a chill pill.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. :rolleyes:
 
rookie1255 said:
It's going to happen all the time. The same questions and answers coming up again and again. Just like flight training magazine and kitplanes magazine rehashing the same subjects over time. There are constantly new pilots and new CFIs who have the questions about the regs that old pilots are going to think are silly. Sometimes these are specific questions that would be hard to search for in the forum, or it's faster just to ask the question.

Option 2 is to just read every thread in existence to try to gain a general understanding of everything (I'll admit to doing this sometimes when I'm bored on the computer and need to read something aviation related to get my fix).

We were all newbies at one point. Remember that next time you laugh at a student pilot swerving all over the taxiway and turning the yoke wildly. I say let this thread be 3 pages, and take a chill pill.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a good question.
I was surprised at the response from the FISDO that free did not make it ok for me to give instruction in my experimental amateur built aircraft. It had not occurred to me that marketing was value received.
As part of becoming a CFI I had practiced with many practice students for free.
After I pressed for a clear line on what made it not ok the answer came up endorsing their log book.
As soon as I sign anything with my CFI number it is flight instruction and I can’t even give it away in an EAB aircraft.
So as I understand what my local FSDO has said I can give free flight instruction in an experimental aircraft as long as I don’t endorse their log book.
They are quick to point out that they can’t issue a legal opinion and that is up to the legal department if I want a more concrete clarification.
 
My opinion.

What you do with your airplane on your own time is up to you. If you want to give rides, give rides. If, on those rides, you treat it as instruction, such as an intro to flying sort of ride, all the more better. If it ends up in a logbook, so what?

It isn't an issue until something happens or you make someone mad and they report you to the FAA.

Frankly, all this stuff with value received is dubious in my opinion. Seems like the FAA is trying to kill GA with this crap.

Again, the previous missive are the views of the person stating them and do not necessarily reflect the views of this station.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
My opinion.

What you do with your airplane on your own time is up to you. If you want to give rides, give rides. If, on those rides, you treat it as instruction, such as an intro to flying sort of ride, all the more better. If it ends up in a logbook, so what?

It isn't an issue until something happens or you make someone mad and they report you to the FAA.

Frankly, all this stuff with value received is dubious in my opinion. Seems like the FAA is trying to kill GA with this crap.

Again, the previous missive are the views of the person stating them and do not necessarily reflect the views of this station.
Click to expand...
I have thought that ever since I heard about it, and I had not heard about it until... the internet.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
My opinion.

What you do with your airplane on your own time is up to you. If you want to give rides, give rides. If, on those rides, you treat it as instruction, such as an intro to flying sort of ride, all the more better. If it ends up in a logbook, so what?

It isn't an issue until something happens or you make someone mad and they report you to the FAA.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that. And even if you make someone mad and they report it, honestly it at most will result in a phone call, a short discussion and that's it.


Greg Bockelman said:
Frankly, all this stuff with value received is dubious in my opinion. Seems like the FAA is trying to kill GA with this crap.
.
Click to expand...

It's not the FAA. People ask an opinion, the FAA (CC) gives it. It's too many people on the internet entertaining themselves that gives the impression that this is a mission of the FAA, when it is clearly not.

Just my opinion.
 
As I interpret the Van Nuys FSDO’s opinion I cannot give a flight review in an EAB aircraft that is registered to me. I can give a flight review in an EAB that is registered to anyone but me and charge for it.
 
If it is a Private Pilot flying with you and you are letting them handle the controls, they don't need an endorsement from a CFI to put the hours in their logbook.

If it was me and I was flying any plane, and my rating/ endorsements allows me, on my own for any length of time I would log those hours after the flight.
What does the pilot need the CFI endorsement for? Dual? what does that do?
 
Vance Breese said:
As I interpret the Van Nuys FSDO’s opinion I cannot give a flight review in an EAB aircraft that is registered to me. I can give a flight review in an EAB that is registered to anyone but me and charge for it.
Click to expand...

I think you probably could if you don't charge for it. Otherwise, the way the rules are written, that is a true statement.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I think you probably could if you don't charge for it. Otherwise, the way the rules are written, that is a true statement.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the Van Nuys FSDO was specific that charging money was not the point and I could not sign a log book based on training given in an EAB aircraft that I own.

I am not suggesting that it makes sense, is the universal opinion of the FAA or that I have interpreted their opinion accurately.

I have had conversations at length with two representatives of the Van Nuys FSDO and in my opinion they are doing their best to be helpful. They have gone so far to solicit a higher opinion from someone in Washington. I am grateful for their help and getting a LODA was fairly straight forward and took about a month during the holidays.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It's not the FAA. People ask an opinion, the FAA (CC) gives it. It's too many people on the internet entertaining themselves that gives the impression that this is a mission of the FAA, when it is clearly not.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

So maybe the Cajun contingent of the FAA is more lenient? :goofy:
 
RotorAndWing said:
..

It's not the FAA. People ask an opinion, the FAA (CC) gives it. It's too many people on the internet entertaining themselves that gives the impression that this is a mission of the FAA, when it is clearly not.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Along that vein, if you think about the term "experimental" coupled with the term "aircraft", it's a wonder that you're allowed to take passengers along at all.
 
Not addressing the experimental issue, I don't see why they would need to pay a pro rata share at all. They're not pilots. They're not even student pilots if they don't have a medical and a student pilot certificate.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
So maybe the Cajun contingent of the FAA is more lenient? :goofy:
Click to expand...

david-brooks-village-idiot_zpscsjfbh70.jpg
 
JoeSelch said:
Tangent:
I find it interesting that "marketing value" came up. I've wondered about it in terms of using an EAB to market a business via paint or vinyl graphics - thinking it would not be kosher. Your FSDO would seem to support that interpretation.

Carry on ...
Click to expand...

Go to the Reno Air Races sometime... you would be hard pressed to find a plane that doesn't have these all over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top