Landing Light FAR

[gismo]

This discussion makes it obvious a new poll is in order. Of those 5 who voted yes, how many attempts did it take for you to pass your checkride(s)?

There was a poll?

 

[KennyFlys]

There was a poll?

Yep. I realized half way through the thread after I had even asked a question to verify my thoughts that I had not voted. Then, in haste I checked the wrong one. So, I answered "Yes." Oops!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Or there is this opinion letter stating that a leased aircraft is not operating "for hire":

I'm not sure that an opinion referencing th 100 hour reg is a good one to use given the wording of the 100 reg, which specifies " no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire."

 

[ScottM]

Or there is this opinion letter stating that a leased aircraft is not operating "for hire":

May 3, 1984
In Reply Refer To: ACE-7
Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service
PO Box 330
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Dear Mr. Rackers
This is in reply to your request of May 1, 1984, that we render an opinion regarding the applicability of the 100-hour inspections requirement of Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to rental aircraft.
Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides that, except as noted in Section 91.169(c), a person may not operate an aircraft carrying any person, other than a crewmember, for hire, and may not give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides unless, within the previous 100 hours of time in service, the aircraft has received either an annual or a 100-hour inspection.
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and does not provide the pilot, that aircraft is not required by Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour inspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only when the aircraft is carrying a person for hire, or when a person is providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.
If there are any questions, please advise us.
Sincerely,

Thanks Ed , that starts to give a real legal definition.

 

[bjohnson]

Yep. I realized half way through the thread after I had even asked a question to verify my thoughts that I had not voted. Then, in haste I checked the wrong one. So, I answered "Yes." Oops!

Run Kenny Run!!

 

[nosehair]

Good Grief!! What a bunch of flap over a word - but it does show how greasy these FAR's can be.

But no matter how you cut it - the FAA intended meaning for "hire" is 'to hire a pilot and airplane for transportation - not flight instruction."

I never encounterd this anomoly in all my 40 plus years of flying / training until the last 10 or 15 years when European students began to fill our flight schools. They use the term hire synonymously with rent, as does the dictionary. But the more common use by Americans is to use the word "hire' with hiring people - not things. We rent things and hire people. At least that was the more-or-less norm back when theses regs were written. Maybe in the New England states the word hire was maybe used more in renal property as the Old English do, but the major majority of the U.S. used hire people-rent things.

It would be Hertz Hire-A-Car if that were the norm.

So,...how about this? If it is a commercial operation, that is, a plane and pilot in a package together for the purpose of transporting person(s) or property from one point to another point (not flight training)...does the electric landing light referenced in 91.205(c)(4) have to be approved? How strong must it be? Can it be a flashlight? gick-gick-gick

 

[midlifeflyer]

Good Grief!! What a bunch of flap over a word - but it does show how greasy these FAR's can be.

My impression is that at this point most of the folks understand how the FAR uses the term and are just playing with the words, sort of arguing about "what the meaning of 'is is."

 

[flyingron]

I could not find a specific definition of "for hire" in the FAR's?

Thus if "For Hire", "to let" and "for rent" are all the same then a landing light is required.

People keep ignoring that the regulation has more than two bleeding words in it. The word preceding "for hire" is "operating". Rental of the aircraft without a pilot is NOT OPERATION.

To operate for hire, the customer must rent both the aircraft and the pilot.

 

[taters]

FAR 91.205(c)4
If you are flying a rental plane (not flight training) is an operational landing light required for VFR flight at night?

(I already know my answer. This is to resolve a debate)

Jesse, to settle your debate,
IT IS REQUIRED. I replaced the landing light in N8838J since Silversqawk did not get around to it today. Have fun on your trip.For hire implicates you are simply renting the aircraft.The FAA will grill your A$$ on that one if you go to the FSDO for your CFI C/R
-Clay B. CFI/II/MEI
Required VFR Night Equipment Remeber "FLAPS"
F uses 3 of each kind
L anding light if for hire
A nti-collision light
P osition Light
S ource of Electrical Power

VFR Day Equipment Remember "TOMATO FLAMES"

T achometer
O il Pressure Gauge
M anifold Pressure Gauge
A ltimiter
T emperature Gauge for Liquid cooled engine
O il Temp Gauge

F uel Gauge
L anding Gear Position Light
A irspeed Indicator
M agnetic Direction Indicator
E LT
S eat Belts

 

[Tim]

Jesse, Most absoultely is it required. BTW I replaced the landing light in N8838J since Silverhawk did not get around to it today. Have fun on your trip.For hire implicates you are simply renting the aircraft.The FAA will grill you on that one if you get a commercial cert. or CFI
-Clay Barnes CFI/II/MEI

Required VFR Night Equipment

F uses 3 of each kind
L anding light if for hire
A nti-collision light
P osition Light
S ource of Electrical Power

I guess some body wasn't paying attention

 

[taters]

People keep ignoring that the regulation has more than two bleeding words in it. The word preceding "for hire" is "operating". Rental of the aircraft without a pilot is NOT OPERATION.

To operate for hire, the customer must rent both the aircraft and the pilot.

This is false. If you rent an airplane you "hired it" call your local FSDO they will be happy to explain this concept.
Trust me.

 

[taters]

I guess some body wasn't paying attention

The spirit of the Reg is a simple concept. If you want to go be less than safe and land with out a l.light in your own plane then go do it, but it won't be in someone elses airplane or when some innocent passenger is aboard.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

This is false. If you rent an airplane you "hired it" call your local FSDO they will be happy to explain this concept.
Trust me.

Call FAA legal, they'll be happy to explain the concept to you and your FSDO.

Trust me.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The spirit of the Reg is a simple concept.

Obviously is isn't simple enough for some.

If you want to go be less than safe and land with out a l.light in your own plane then go do it,

Correct.

but it won't be in someone elses airplane

What part of the previous FAA legal opinion letter didn't you understand? A leased (or rented) aircraft is not, in and of itself, a "for hire" operation.

or when some innocent passenger is aboard.

Almost correct; if you had written "paying passenger" you might have gotten at least part of your answer correct.

Please read the opinion letter posted above. Please explain the FAA attorney's error if you can....

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW, Save the memorization for when you won't have time to look it up, like when one engine fails on takeoff. Those acronyms Clay posted are neat, but unnecessary, and no examiner or check airman should be testing you on them from memory. If you're in the air, 91.3(b) says you do whatever you need to do to bring the flight to a safe conclusion, even if that means deviating from 91.7(b)/205/213 (and nobody really knows just when during the flight your VSI failed, anyway). If you're on the ground getting ready to fly and you discover something's broke, unless the Horvidos Indians are closing in with their spears and poison dart blowguns (in which case you do like Indiana Jones' pilot and toss your fishing pole in the river, get in the plane and do your best to get the plane in the air, because nothing the FAA can do to you is worse than have your head removed, shrunk, and stuck on a pike in front of the chief's hut), you look it up in the book so you're sure you've got it right.

And I would like to hear from Clay the name of the Inspector and which FSDO told him a flight training hop is a "for hire" operation -- I'd like to hook those folks up with their Regional Counsel for some retraining. An off-line PM or email will do fine.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Those acronyms Clay posted are neat, but unnecessary,

..not to mention that my informal non-scientific survey indicates that pilots who learned those acronyms are more likely to get a simple airworthiness question wrong than those who didn't.

 

[Tim]

Obviously is isn't simple enough for some.

Correct.

What part of the previous FAA legal opinion letter didn't you understand? A leased (or rented) aircraft is not, in and of itself, a "for hire" operation.

Almost correct; if you had written "paying passenger" you might have gotten at least part of your answer correct.

Please read the opinion letter posted above. Please explain the FAA attorney's error if you can....

Yea, what Ed said....

 

[Tim]

The spirit of the Reg is a simple concept. If you want to go be less than safe and land with out a l.light in your own plane then go do it, but it won't be in someone elses airplane or when some innocent passenger is aboard.

How come you don't get it?

 

[Ed Guthrie]

And I would like to hear from Clay the name of the Inspector and which FSDO told him a flight training hop is a "for hire" operation -- I'd like to hook those folks up with their Regional Counsel for some retraining. An off-line PM or email will do fine.

Tip of the iceberg. You have a CFI/CFI-IA/MEI who is presented an FAA legal opinion letter yet persists in presenting an answer counter to the authoritative source he is provided. What you have is a classic example of a very poor CFI. Fixing one specific misinformation issue with a FSDO won't fix the fact that the CFI has demonstrated an inability discern discrepancies in his knowledge, much less learn on his own.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Although I agree on the bottom line, I'm not sure why you guys say that that Legal opinion is authoritative on the issue. The Opinion deals with the requirement for 100-hour inspections, which =does not= talk about "aircraft for hire." It talks about

==============================
no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire,
==============================

I really don't see where it interprets the phrase "aircraft for hire" at all. You might as well cite the opinion as saying that a cargo operation isn't "for hire."

 

[Greebo]

Regardless of any question or debate on the interpretation of the FARs (cause we all know how clearly worded they are sometimes...)

... lets please refrain from drifting away from debate over the interpretation into the land of making personal attacks about those who interpret differently.

In other words - stick to the topic, not the posters.

 

[JohnR]

What if the aircraft is rented for the purposes of testing the treadmill theory at night?

That's how this thread is going, just like the treadmill thread(s).

 

[taters]

Tip of the iceberg. You have a CFI/CFI-IA/MEI who is presented an FAA legal opinion letter yet persists in presenting an answer counter to the authoritative source he is provided. What you have is a classic example of a very poor CFI. Fixing one specific misinformation issue with a FSDO won't fix the fact that the CFI has demonstrated an inability discern discrepancies in his knowledge, much less learn on his own.

Flame bait..Sorry to hear you are one of those guys Eddie.. This was a very healthy debate until you decided to get your panties in a wad and be a complete tool here. You wanna call me a poor CFI, you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't deserve mine.

 

[taters]

BTW, Save the memorization for when you won't have time to look it up, like when one engine fails on takeoff. Those acronyms Clay posted are neat, but unnecessary, and no examiner or check airman should be testing you on them from memory. If you're in the air, 91.3(b) says you do whatever you need to do to bring the flight to a safe conclusion, even if that means deviating from 91.7(b)/205/213 (and nobody really knows just when during the flight your VSI failed, anyway). If you're on the ground getting ready to fly and you discover something's broke, unless the Horvidos Indians are closing in with their spears and poison dart blowguns (in which case you do like Indiana Jones' pilot and toss your fishing pole in the river, get in the plane and do your best to get the plane in the air, because nothing the FAA can do to you is worse than have your head removed, shrunk, and stuck on a pike in front of the chief's hut), you look it up in the book so you're sure you've got it right.

And I would like to hear from Clay the name of the Inspector and which FSDO told him a flight training hop is a "for hire" operation -- I'd like to hook those folks up with their Regional Counsel for some retraining. An off-line PM or email will do fine.

Are you some kind of FAA SI ?

 

[Richard]

Clay, this aint my fight but I would be extremely interested in seeing you slap your credentials down on the table, especially after your last two posts.

 

[Tim]

Flame bait..Sorry to hear you are one of those guys Eddie.. This was a very healthy debate until you decided to get your panties in a wad and be a complete tool here. You wanna call me a poor CFI, you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't deserve mine.

hummmm

 

[Tim]

Are you some kind of FAA SI ?

I sure would like you to post the name of the inspector for all of us to see then I would like to hear what Ron finds out!

 

[jesse]

Seriously guys, grow up. We all have a different opinion and there is a mature way to express them.

Clay--please don't judge our community based on the actions of a few bad apples in this thread. I assure you that the majority is not like this.

I am disappointed in those of you that decided to take one man's opinion and turn it into a blatant personal attack against everything this forum is known for.

 

[jason]

I've seen some doozy threads around here, but this one is plain nasty. Two differing interpretations of the FARs. I understand that everybody feels confident in their interpretation, but why get personal?

 

[Tim]

Seriously guys, grow up. We all have a different opinion and there is a mature way to express them.

Clay--please don't judge our community based on the actions of a few bad apples in this thread. I assure you that the majority is not like this.

I am disappointed in those of you that decided to take one man's opinion and turn it into a blatant personal attack against everything this forum is known for.

Seriously, why don't we get to the bottom of this!

 

[Greebo]

# Participant shall not post messages containing personal phone numbers or addresses other than their own.

If we're going to be exact in FAR interpretation, lets be equally exact in ROC interpretation, please.

I don't want to see anything like this again.

 

[wsuffa]

Folks, this thread is getting way out of hand.

It's one thing to have a discussion on the merits, it's another to take it and make it personal. Debate is fine, personal attacks, challenges, and posting of personal info is not.

 

[poadeleted20]

Are you some kind of FAA SI ?

No, but I am a FAASTeam rep, and the outgoing chair of the University Aviation Association's Flight Education Committee, and I work with AFS-800 in several areas including FITS, PTS development, and Part 61 rule changes.

 

[Tim]

If we're going to be exact in FAR interpretation, lets be equally exact in ROC interpretation, please.

I don't want to see anything like this again.

It came from his web sight posted on the board so its already here.

 

[Greebo]

Then you can post a link to his website in future.

 

[Tim]

Then you can post a link to his website in future.

alrighty

 

[flyingron]

This is false. If you rent an airplane you "hired it" call your local FSDO they will be happy to explain this concept.
Trust me.

I will not trust you. Thank you for the gratuitous insult. Now go read what I wrote:

People keep ignoring that the regulation has more than two bleeding words in it. The word preceding "for hire" is "operating". Rental of the aircraft without a pilot is NOT OPERATION.

To operate for hire, the customer must rent both the aircraft and the pilot.

The issue is not the word HIRE. The issue is the word "operation". There is a difference between renting an aircraft and operating it. It's important enough of a concept the the FAA actually defines the term in 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).

Renting the aircraft without a pilot is not OPERATION.

As a commercial pilot you should be aware of the distinction, it's an important concept when it comes to what you can use your ticket for.

 

[wsuffa]

OK, while this thread should be a valuable discussion topic, it seems to continue down the wrong path.

Thread closed while the MC reviews the whole thing.

 

[poadeleted20]

If a private pilot can act as PIC, then the operation is not "for hire," as "for hire" operations require a CPL. If renting an aircraft is a "for hire" operation, then private pilots can't rent planes. If flight training were a "for hire" operation, the flight instructor would be exercising his/her commercial pilot privileges and a 2nd class medical would be required -- this is specifically rejected in 14 CFR 61.23, paragraphs (a)(3)(iv) and (b)(5). As they say in logic class, "reductio ad absurdum."

That said, 14 CFR 91.213 still applies, and if the landing light is inop, the PIC must determine that the flight may be safely accomplished without it. If you prang on landing in the dark after launching with the landing light inop, and the FAA looks into it, another Latin phrase comes to mind -- "res ipsa loquitur."

PS: For those wondering, this was posted while Bill was closing the thread but before I saw it was closed.

 

[wsuffa]

Upon review by the Management Council, this thread will remain closed.

As noted in several warning posts in the thread, the Rules of Conduct (RoC) for PoA clearly spell out that 1) Personal attacks are not tolerated, 2) trolling is not permitted, and 3) posting of personal information of others (whether participants on PoA or not) will not be tolerated. Further, the goal of PoA (as outlined in our RoC)is to:

"Show respect at all times.
Help build the Community."

This thread ended up doing neither.

As I noted in my last post before closing (despite Ron's slipping a last post in before the lock), the thread had merit when it started, and the MC believes in encouraging robust debate, as long as the debate doesn't cross the line to personal attacks.

Aside from closing the thread, the MC is considering formal warnings and suspensions to several participants as a result of the thread. Any such action will be by consensus.

Questions or comments may be directed to one of the MC members, those being Greebo, myself, Ron Levy, Chip, Mike Andrews, or AdamZ.

Aside from this posting, we will not discuss disciplinary matters in public.