CFI signing off questionable flight

[brcase]

My opinion is the OP is right to be concerned. With a 2nd Class medical nothing wrong with doing the flight.
But under the right circumstances the the FAA might view it as logging instruction when no instruction was really provided.

I do recall reading about the FAA going after two CFI's for giving each other instruction in a twin. I think they may have been partners in the airplane, but I am not sure if that was a factor or not.
Essentially they were padding each others log books by both logging time one instructing and one receiving instructing. At some point the FAA contended it was no longer instruction. Of course they were trying to build time to either meet ATP or at that time maybe Airline minimum experience requirements.

This trick to make sure that flights like this don't become is a problem is simply good record keeping, document that you are providing instruction. Did you provide ground instruction at least, a review and critique of the flight? Document it. What was the instructional purpose of the flight? It might be just for you to evaluate or refresh the students skills.


It should be pretty easy for you to pull up your file and show that you have been providing instruction to him and how well he is doing.
Have other training flights been occurring in between the cross country flights.
Doing a cross country instructional flights with student, or even pilots, beyond the requirements is certainly recommend and encouraged, Just be careful to make sure it doesn't start looking like you are not providing instruction, when you are logging it as an instructional flight.
A read through yours and his logbooks and your records should easily show if you are providing meaningful instruction or not.

Brian
CFIG/ASEL

 

[flybill]

Great way to build real world experience. It’s ok to fly to other places besides the traffic pattern and practice area.

 

[NotarPilot]

I don’t think you’re violating anything. But let me ask you this, what is her goal? She’s got 150 hours and she’s still a student pilot? Does she even want to take her checkride?

 

[DaleB]

I don’t think you’re violating anything. But let me ask you this, what is her goal? She’s got 150 hours and she’s still a student pilot? Does she even want to take her checkride?

Is there a prohibition against being a lifelong student?

 

[Ed Haywood]

Is there a prohibition against being a lifelong student?

No, but it is a fair and legitimate question.

 

[mandm]

You mentioned the IFR flight in the soup was beyond the ability of the student pilot, therefore how was it not instruction? Beyond ability + practice + instructor in my opinion is instruction. Part of IR is a long xc right on an IFR flight plan, a safety pilot or instructor is required in this case right? Just because a passenger tagged along or you had a mission at a selected airport doesn’t take away from the instructional purposes of the flight.

 

[Ricky Bob]

None of the student pilot stuff matters. She is the owner of the airplane. She hired a CFI (and therefore commercial pilot) to fly her in HER airplane. This is 100% legal under part 91 for a commercial pilot to operate and receive compensation. /thread.

 

[EdFred]

None of the student pilot stuff matters. She is the owner of the airplane. She hired a CFI (and therefore commercial pilot) to fly her in HER airplane. This is 100% legal under part 91 for a commercial pilot to operate and receive compensation. /thread.

As long as the CFI had a current 2nd class medical or higher.

 

[MauleSkinner]

None of the student pilot stuff matters. She is the owner of the airplane. She hired a CFI (and therefore commercial pilot) to fly her in HER airplane. This is 100% legal under part 91 for a commercial pilot to operate and receive compensation. /thread.

The “CFI stuff” does matter…

I gave her some instruction along the way

 

[EdFred]

The “CFI stuff” does matter…

The Warbirds guys were "giving instruction" too, though.

 

[Justin Brady]

Just from an instructing standpoint some of my most useful instruction has been in actual IMC both during and before my IR.
Just because you're not making her do a bunch of standard rate circles doesn't mean she isn't actively learning how to fly instruments, and it can be easily argued that a good knowledge of instrument flight is a major plus for a student pilot who may or may not find themselves in it at some point inadvertently.

IMO whether you did it on a whiteboard first or not; on this flight she learned about flight planning, getting a clearance, maintaining straight and level in IMC, ATC communication, instrument approach procedures and transition to visual landing. In my book that's instruction.

That's all beside the point obviously as there's also nothing wrong with flying her plane for her. I say log it however you're more comfortable.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The Warbirds guys were "giving instruction" too, though.

Yes, they were…and had they not logged it because “it didn’t matter,” it would’ve negated any argument they had in court and made them subject to additional violations.

I say log it however you're more comfortable.

I say log what you did…which includes instruction, so that’s required to be logged.

 

[Justin Brady]

I'm not a cfi so serious question:
Can you log it as both? Say part 91 with some instruction?

 

[Lindberg]

The Warbirds guys were "giving instruction" too, though.

Non sequitur. Whether Warbirds were or weren't giving instruction is irrelevant to the regulation they violated (that was the whole thrust of the FAA's winning argument). A regulation that has no bearing on the topic of this thread. Every time FAA enforcement comes up, someone wants to say, "But Warbirds!"

 

[Jackk]

You mentioned the IFR flight in the soup was beyond the ability of the student pilot, therefore how was it not instruction? Beyond ability + practice + instructor in my opinion is instruction. Part of IR is a long xc right on an IFR flight plan, a safety pilot or instructor is required in this case right? Just because a passenger tagged along or you had a mission at a selected airport doesn’t take away from the instructional purposes of the flight.

So are all the first flights, now did she learn anything? I’d wager she did.

 

[Jackk]

The Warbirds guys were "giving instruction" too, though.

They were, by definition in the rule book, which is why the FAA had to get a judge to look around the rules.

 

[dmspilot]

The Warbirds guys were "giving instruction" too, though.

The students didn't own the warbirds. Does not resemble the scenario discussed at all.

 

[Brad Smith]

As a student, my instructor suggested that we do an IFR flight so I would be familiar with inadvertently ending up in the clouds. It was VERY instructional and probably the biggest reason I didn’t freak out when a situation occurred on a VFR flight after getting my license. Probably be helpful to include an hour of actual IFR conditions in the curriculum.
The student of the OP did learn on the flight as actual experience is the best teacher. It might come in very handy and possibly save her life one day if she ever gets her license.

 

[Clip4]

None of the student pilot stuff matters. She is the owner of the airplane. She hired a CFI (and therefore commercial pilot) to fly her in HER airplane. This is 100% legal under part 91 for a commercial pilot to operate and receive compensation. /thread.

If the CFI has a Class II and if the aircraft has a 100 hour inspection.

 

[dmspilot]

If the CFI has a Class II and if the aircraft has a 100 hour inspection.

The student is not hiring the airplane. She owns it.

 

[danhagan]

Not a CFI and have not completed IR yet ... if this was a "one off" flight, am guessing you confirmed that the plane was IFR as far as Pitot-static is concerned and recent VOR?

 

[Clip4]

The student is not hiring the airplane. She owns it.

If he is a part 91 pilot for hire.

 

[dmspilot]

If he is a part 91 pilot for hire.

Complete sentence?

 

[Clip4]

Complete sentence?

If the CFI is operating as a commercial part 91 pilot he needs the class2 and the plane needs a 100 hour. If he has both items checked, there is not an issue even if the FAA were to disapprove the flight as instruction.

 

[dmspilot]

If the CFI is operating as a commercial part 91 pilot he needs the class2 and the plane needs a 100 hour. If he has both items checked, there is not an issue if if the FAA were to disapprove the flight as instruction.

The plane does not need a 100 hour. It is not being operated for hire.

 

[dmspilot]

The reg refers to the pilot, no person shall…

91.409 refers to the operator of the aircraft.

 

[Palmpilot]

[14 CFR 91.409(b):

Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.​

 

[Palmpilot]

Under the above paragraph, it's clear that a 100-hour inspection would not be required if the purpose of the flight is instruction, because the student owns the aircraft, so it is not "an aircraft which that person [i.e., the CFI] provides."

If the purpose of the flight is transportation, the question becomes whether it is a flight for hire when someone who owns an aircraft hires a commercial pilot to fly him or her somewhere in it. How is this handled in the case of business owners who hire pilots to fly company-owned aircraft?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Under the above paragraph, it's clear that a 100-hour inspection would not be required if the purpose of the flight is instruction, because the student owns the aircraft, so it is not "an aircraft which that person [i.e., the CFI] provides."

If the purpose of the flight is transportation, the question becomes whether it is a flight for hire when someone who owns an aircraft hires a commercial pilot to fly him or her somewhere in it. How is this handled in the case of business owners who hire pilots to fly company-owned aircraft?

You hire the pilot, he/she gets in the left seat of your airplane, and you go. I've done that, and also actually received instruction, and went on a biz trip, all in one.

 

[Palmpilot]

You hire the pilot, he/she gets in the left seat of your airplane, and you go. I've done that, and also actually received instruction, and went on a biz trip, all in one.

With or without a 100-hour inspection?

 

[Pinecone]

I'm not a cfi so serious question:
Can you log it as both? Say part 91 with some instruction?

If you mean log both dual and PIC yes.

People get confused about PIC as there are two sets of rules. One set on BEING PIC. The other on LOGGING PIC. And their are differences.

Such as, you have to have a current medical and FR to be PIC. You do not need them to log PIC, if you are the sole manipulator of the controls in an aircraft you are rating to fly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

With or without a 100-hour inspection?

100-hour inspection not required.

 

[Palmpilot]

100-hour inspection not required.

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming.

 

[MauleSkinner]

From Part 1:

Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in § 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

Kinda wordy, but the gist is if you’re not providing the pilot along with the airplane, you’re not “operating”.

 

[MauleSkinner]

"My neighbor needs to visit his uncle" is not cool with you as a CFI or later on with the plane owner alone either, remember all that common purpose and so on

Absolutely no issues either way if the owner isn’t charging the neighbor.

 

[flyingron]

Even if no instruction took place, she hired you to fly her own airplane...seems like it's still part 91 to me. If not comfortable with it, don't do it again.

Hopefully, the CFI in question meets the requirement for part 91 commercial if you choose to use that interpretation (notably, a valid second-class medical) and otherwise the flight was qualified for IFR (CFI current, plane current on inspections, etc...).

 

[Tarheelpilot]

As a CFI I loved "real world" operations. I thought these kinds of "this is how you use an airplane" trips were excellent learning experiences. The only grey area is the passenger, depending on who it is and why they are there, you might be looked at as doing 135 by proxy.
"My husband wants to see me fly" is cool.
"My neighbor needs to visit his uncle" is not cool with you as a CFI or later on with the plane owner alone either, remember all that common purpose and so on

If she owns the plane she can pay a commercial pilot to fly her airplane. It’s not 135. It’s part 91. Been around a long time. Lots of aircraft owners are not pilots.

 

[O2 Birddog]

I'm posting this under lessons learned because I would like to be anonymous...

I am a CFI, and I have recently acquired a new student. She is a student pilot and she owns a high performance airplane. She has about 150 hours as a student pilot that she has logged in the last two years since purchasing the plane. Yesterday she asked me to fly her to a business meeting in another state. The weather was IFR, and the only way to make the flight was to file and fly IFR. I gave her some instruction along the way (for the most part she was sole manipulator of the controls, I worked radio.)

Clearly this flight was far beyond her skill level and would not at all have been something that I would have worked into the private pilot curriculum. We had to shoot approaches at both ends of the trip, and we were on autopilot in the soup most of the time. She brought her husband (non-pilot passenger) along. In looking through her logbook, she logged several flights like this as dual received with previous instructors.

I am wondering about the appropriateness of signing her logbook and logging this flight as dual received. I tried to keep the flight instructional, but I feel that it could be looked on as a commercial pilot for hire, and not really an instructional flight. How would the FAA or a DPE look upon these flights? Legit instruction, or something else?

I could well be wrong but as long as she was receiving instruction along the way I don't see an issue. Had anything at all gone haywire you were there to takeover. The closer a student pilot gets to soloing the less time the CFI is or should be putting in at the controls.

 

[EdFred]

That is not the issue. If you hire me to fly your airplane, that is Part 91.
If you fly your own airplane, that is Part 91.
If you decide you and your friends want to go to the beach and split the costs, that is Part 91 with or without a CFI.
The FAA test for this is "splitting the cost, (i.e the pilot pays his share), prior relationship, and common purpose". You knew these people and you all wanted to go to the beach.
If neighbor Bill wants to visit his uncle, YOU do not have any reason to go to the uncle's location, so it fails common purpose. It gets even worse if you don't know Bill prior to him asking and then again gets vastly worse if you put a note up or spread word around you are looking to fly people somewhere for gas money. This rule gets violated all the time and we all know it. You'll get caught when either something goes wrong, the real 135 operators find out and drop a dime on you, or your passengers had no idea how much it costs to fly somewhere and complain to the FAA you are overcharging them. And yes this has happened at least once that I know of

"I can't charge you for any part of the flight, but if the next time I go out to the plane and I find some cash under the seat to the tune of [amount] that may have fell out of your wallet or purse, well, I can't help that."

 

[Tarheelpilot]

That is not the issue. If you hire me to fly your airplane, that is Part 91.
If you fly your own airplane, that is Part 91.
If you decide you and your friends want to go to the beach and split the costs, that is Part 91 with or without a CFI.
The FAA test for this is "splitting the cost, (i.e the pilot pays his share), prior relationship, and common purpose". You knew these people and you all wanted to go to the beach.
If neighbor Bill wants to visit his uncle, YOU do not have any reason to go to the uncle's location, so it fails common purpose. It gets even worse if you don't know Bill prior to him asking and then again gets vastly worse if you put a note up or spread word around you are looking to fly people somewhere for gas money. This rule gets violated all the time and we all know it. You'll get caught when either something goes wrong, the real 135 operators find out and drop a dime on you, or your passengers had no idea how much it costs to fly somewhere and complain to the FAA you are overcharging them. And yes this has happened at least once that I know of

But none of that happened in this discussion. It’s always possible to come up with some way to run afoul of regs if given a free license to make up scenarios.

If I’m a commercial pilot and the owner of an airplane hires me to fly them in their aircraft it’s legal. Period. Whether or not that owner sits in the seat and logs dual is not relevant to the legality. That’s what we are talking about here, not your long list of possible realities.