Commercial v. Instrument Training

Kiddo's Driver said:
So the suggestion now is to commit a lie of omission? Why not do the instrument training required for your CPL, log it, and include a not that it is being done per FAR FAR §61.129 (i)? It is perfectly legal, involves no streching of the facts, and even meets the spirit of the law.

Jim
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting anything so Machiavellian, however I was suggesting that even Cap'n Ron's olfactory senses would not detect this as suggested above and now confirmed below.

Ron Levy said:
Assuming the TSA interpretation really does cover what we have always called "intro" or "discovery" flights, I agree. However, if the person comes to me and says, "I'm starting on my instrument training, and I'd like you to give me an instrument training flight to see if you're the instructor with whom I want to fly," then that plausible deniability goes out the window. OTOH, if someone comes to me and says as Jim suggests, "I want to start on my Commercial, and I'm auditioning instructors, so can you give me a 61.129(a)(3)(i) lesson to see if I want to hire you permanently)?", I'm off the hook and happy to do it without further ado (and you can bet it will be logged appropriately when we're done). If they come back after that and say, "Well, I've decide to do my IR first," we can at that point take care of whatever 49 CFR Part 1552 paperwork is appropriate before going further.

Yeah, it may be picky, but it's what I as an instructor need to do to be sure TSA stays off my back.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
... OTOH, if someone comes to me and says as Jim suggests, "I want to start on my Commercial, and I'm auditioning instructors, so can you give me a 61.129(a)(3)(i) ...
Click to expand...

Oops! Thanks for the correction. I somehow dropped the (a)(3) from my "Per FAR §61.129 (i)". I'm going to go back and fix that! "Per FAR §61.129 (a)(3)(i)" It is!

Jim
 
Ron Levy said:
The concept of the "Discovery Flight" is well established in the industry as flights for nonpilots considering taking flying lessons leading to an initial pilot rating. Instrument training flights taken to decide if you like an instructor or not are not and never have been called "discovery flights" by anyone in the industry. If you want to make up your own definition of that term to include such flights, mighty fine, but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking TSA has ever said such a flight falls within that term.
Click to expand...

I never suggested he take instrument training flights and call them something other than exactly what they are. Those are words you are putting in my mouth that I didn't say. I suggested that he interview a couple CFI's and find one or two that he likes. There's no reason he couldn't take the exact same discovery flight anyone else would take. The point is to find a CFI that he wants to train with. That also seems to be the point of a discovery flight, and he wouldn't be asking the CFI to do anything he wouldn't do with another new prospective student. Once he decides he likes the guy, he does the proper paperwork and starts the instrument training legally.
 
StinkBug said:
I never suggested he take instrument training flights and call them something other than exactly what they are. Those are words you are putting in my mouth that I didn't say. I suggested that he interview a couple CFI's and find one or two that he likes. There's no reason he couldn't take the exact same discovery flight anyone else would take. The point is to find a CFI that he wants to train with. That also seems to be the point of a discovery flight, and he wouldn't be asking the CFI to do anything he wouldn't do with another new prospective student. Once he decides he likes the guy, he does the proper paperwork and starts the instrument training legally.
Click to expand...
Your way of interpreting the meaning of "discovery" flight (finding a CFI with whom the pilot wants to train) is, in my experience, unique. If you as a CFI ever give training which otherwise requires compliance with 49 CFR 1552 to folks without complying with 49 CFR 1552 merely because the trainee is just looking to choose a CFI with whom to train, and TSA audits you, and tells you that's OK, please let us know. Until then, I'll not give anyone other than a prospective Student Pilot a "discovery" flight without complying with 49 CFR 1552, and I will continue to recommend to other CFI's that they do the same. Perhaps the biggest reason I choose to operate that way is that I am absolutely certain that what I am doing/recommending is entirely TSA-legal, while I cannot say the same of in the case of a rated pilot shopping for instructors for instrument training by taking an instrument training flight with each of several different instructors, which is the issue I though was under discussion.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your way of interpreting the meaning of "discovery" flight (finding a CFI with whom the pilot wants to train) is, in my experience, unique. If you as a CFI ever give training which otherwise requires compliance with 49 CFR 1552 to folks without complying with 49 CFR 1552 merely because the trainee is just looking to choose a CFI with whom to train, and TSA audits you, and tells you that's OK, please let us know. Until then, I'll not give anyone other than a prospective Student Pilot a "discovery" flight without complying with 49 CFR 1552, and I will continue to recommend to other CFI's that they do the same. Perhaps the biggest reason I choose to operate that way is that I am absolutely certain that what I am doing/recommending is entirely TSA-legal, while I cannot say the same of in the case of a rated pilot shopping for instructors for instrument training by taking an instrument training flight with each of several different instructors, which is the issue I though was under discussion.

Since it's my ticket on the line, I'll take the most restrictive interpretation that keeps me clearly out of hot water, than you very much.
Click to expand...


FTFY:D
 
Ron Levy said:
I would appreciate it if you make very clear the words you added to my quoted post are yours, not mine.

Even if they accurately reflect the main reason behind what I'd do.;)

Thank you.
Click to expand...

It what way is it not clear?!?!?? Even "The Grinch" could see the satire in:

Fix
That
For
You
:D

Just offering a hint that saves you a few keystrokes.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It what way is it not clear?!?!?? Even "The Grinch" could see the satire in:

Fix
That
For
You
:D

Just offering a hint that saves you a few keystrokes.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, I never cared for "FTFY" attempts at humor. No way to stop its use, but this is as good a place as any to register my opinion of it.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Just FYI, I never cared for "FTFY" attempts at humor. No way to stop its use, but this is as good a place as any to register my opinion of it.
Click to expand...


offendsonthispage.jpg
 
Do these rules mean that the US govt has decided that a pilot with a commercial cert but no instrument rating is a lesser terrorist threat than a private pilot with the rating?
 
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps the biggest reason I choose to operate that way is that I am absolutely certain that what I am doing/recommending is entirely TSA-legal, while I cannot say the same of in the case of a rated pilot shopping for instructors for instrument training by taking an instrument training flight with each of several different instructors, which is the issue I though was under discussion.
Click to expand...

And again, though the original question may have been about taking instrument training under somewhat questionable pretenses, that is not at all what I suggested. You seem to like reading words that weren't written however.

So I will ask you this. What legally would keep the OP from riding along on a flight with a CFI simply to get to know them and how they are in an airplane? I'm not talking getting instrument training, I'm not even necessarily talking about training at all. I'm talking about sitting next to the guy in an airplane, and getting to know him. FWIW I think he could probably learn almost as much by sitting across a desk from the CFI, but I generally get a good feel for people just in conversation.
 
StinkBug said:
And again, though the original question may have been about taking instrument training under somewhat questionable pretenses, that is not at all what I suggested. You seem to like reading words that weren't written however.
Click to expand...
I realize thread drift can make it hard to follow. I was responding to a later post regarding instructor shopping.
So I will ask you this. What legally would keep the OP from riding along on a flight with a CFI simply to get to know them and how they are in an airplane? I'm not talking getting instrument training, I'm not even necessarily talking about training at all. I'm talking about sitting next to the guy in an airplane, and getting to know him. FWIW I think he could probably learn almost as much by sitting across a desk from the CFI, but I generally get a good feel for people just in conversation.
Click to expand...
If you're just riding along with a CFI, I see no problem, but then who's paying for the ride, and where does that lead? I'm certainly not paying my own freight to take somebody along for a ride solely because they want to see me fly, and if they're paying me, it's either flight training, a 91.147 sightseeing ride (for which I don't have an LoA), or a 135 charter ride (for which I don't have an operating certificate). And if it's flight training, then the purpose of the flight and how we document it will decide whether we're required to comply with 49 CFR 1552 or not -- and I'll err on the side of caution in that regard, as a run-in with TSA could cost me my vocation.
 
Ron Levy said:
if they're paying me, it's . . . a 91.147 sightseeing ride (for which I don't have an LoA) . . .
Click to expand...

Sorry for even more thread drift, but realized that the way I read 91.147(a), compared to 119.1(e)(2) vs 119.1(e)(4)(iii), it looks like a sightseeing flight does require an LoA, while an aerial photography flight does not.

Do you know of where the line is drawn there? Do people have to be established professional photographers in order to engage a commercial pilot for an aerial photography flight? Or is a colloquially "sightseeing" passenger snapping a few pictures on a camera phone enough to qualify?
 
I'd be curious to how the FAA views that as well, as I know a lot of "professional" photographers and the lines are very blurry even on land. A tourist can snap photos basically anywhere, but somehow if you're a professional and you are on public lands (BLM, National Park, etc.) you have to get a permit. I've actually been approached by Park Rangers about this while out off-roading with friends just getting some fun shots, because the Ranger felt the camera my friend had was too big and fancy to not be a pro. I've yet to see anything actually defining what makes one a professional and one a hobbyist.
 
mcmanigle said:
Sorry for even more thread drift, but realized that the way I read 91.147(a), compared to 119.1(e)(2) vs 119.1(e)(4)(iii), it looks like a sightseeing flight does require an LoA, while an aerial photography flight does not.
Click to expand...
In the various interpretations on this subject, the FAA is careful to say that all persons on board are employees of the company providing the aerial photography service.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...helicopters - (2007) legal interpretation.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...011/bonilla - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../shamborska - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

Thus, the line appears to be drawn when a photographer hires an aircraft operator to provide the aerial portion of the aerial photography operation. If the aerial photography flight involves only employees of the aerial photography company, you are correct -- no LoA or 135 certificate required. OTOH, if the photographer is unassociated with the aircraft operator, and is merely hiring an aircraft and pilot to be taken aloft in order to take pictures, it does not fall within that exception, and the Part 119 requirements (sightseeing or charter) apply.
 
Last edited:
StinkBug said:
I'd be curious to how the FAA views that as well, as I know a lot of "professional" photographers and the lines are very blurry even on land. A tourist can snap photos basically anywhere, but somehow if you're a professional and you are on public lands (BLM, National Park, etc.) you have to get a permit. I've actually been approached by Park Rangers about this while out off-roading with friends just getting some fun shots, because the Ranger felt the camera my friend had was too big and fancy to not be a pro. I've yet to see anything actually defining what makes one a professional and one a hobbyist.
Click to expand...
The FAA is not concerned with the National Parks Service's regulations on who can take pictures on NPS land or what use is made of those pictures. The FAA's only concern is the FAA's own regulations.
 
Ron Levy said:
In the various interpretations on this subject, the FAA is careful to say that all persons on board are employees of the company providing the aerial photography service.

. . .

OTOH, if the photographer is unassociated with the aircraft operator, and is merely hiring an aircraft and pilot to be taken aloft in order to take pictures, it does not fall within that exception, and the Part 119 requirements (sightseeing or charter) apply.
Click to expand...

I'm confused... reading the letter, it seems the FAA is saying that all persons on board have to be either employees of the aircraft operator, or employees of the aerial photography operation:

Sapp Letter said:
ENG media photography and reporting flights may be conducted under Part 91 pursuant to the aerial work operations, aerial photography, exception in part 119.1(e)(4)(iii) provided each person on board, in addition to the flight crew members, is necessary to perform the aerial work operation.
Click to expand...

Shamborska letter said:
In your letter you stated that you have been invited to bid on a contract where you would provide pilots and aircraft for a radio network traffic reporting team . . .

In the Sapp interpretation the FAA addressed an issue similar to yours in which it determined that helicopter operations conducted for the purpose of electronic news gathering could be conducted under Part 91 of the regulations. The FAA concluded that those operations fell with in the exception for aerial work operations, i.e., aerial photography, contained in §119.1(e)(4)(iii) of the regulations.
Click to expand...

etc. Anyway, probably my question wasn't clear, so let me rephrase. It seems pretty clear that a random commercial pilot with her own airplane can't hang a sign at the airport saying "local sightseeing flights available, $100/half hour" without either a 135 cert or an LoA. But could the same pilot hang a sign saying "take pictures of your house from the air! local aerial photography flights, $100/half hour"?
 
mcmanigle said:
etc. Anyway, probably my question wasn't clear, so let me rephrase. It seems pretty clear that a random commercial pilot with her own airplane can't hang a sign at the airport saying "local sightseeing flights available, $100/half hour" without either a 135 cert or an LoA. But could the same pilot hang a sign saying "take pictures of your house from the air! local aerial photography flights, $100/half hour"?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the FAA would see through that as a ruse to avoid the requirements of 91.147 since it is clearly not an aerial photography work operation.

As for the Sapp interpretation, I can see the FAA accepting that on a case-by-case basis where the TV station and the helicopter operator enter into an agreement to work together, and the TV station employees are trained and designated as crewmembers. I can't see that happening if Joe Smith of Joe's Photography Studio goes out to the airport and says, "I want to take some pictures from the air. Can you fly me around the city for an hour to do that?" I'm pretty sure that latter situation would be viewed by the Chief Counsel as requiring a 91.147 LoA (or even a 135 certificate if they went more than 25 miles from the airport).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top