Landing Light FAR

[jesse]

FAR 91.205(c)4

(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light

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)

 

[Ed Guthrie]

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)

Does your answer involve actually knowing the FAA definition of "for hire"? BTW, rental it is not...

 

[jesse]

Does your answer involve actually knowing the FAA definition of "for hire"? BTW, rental it is not...

My answer is that it is not required.

 

[Tim]

Not required as INOP?

 

[KennyFlys]

Does your answer involve actually knowing the FAA definition of "for hire"? BTW, rental it is not...

I've heard that time and time again. But, when it's the student (regardless of level) who is paying for the plane as a rental, how can that not be "for hire"? Maybe if you paid the instructor a flat amount for his time and the plane was included, that could be "for hire." The only other interpretation would lead to 135 operations.

 

[gismo]

I've heard that time and time again. But, when it's the student (regardless of level) who is paying for the plane as a rental, how can that not be "for hire"? Maybe if you paid the instructor a flat amount for his time and the plane was included, that could be "for hire." The only other interpretation would lead to 135 operations.

For hire refers to the operation, not the airplane. Privately owned, corporation owned, rental, or lease has no bearing at all. When a taxicab provides transportation for a fee, that's "for hire" whether the driver owns, rents, leases or borrows the car. If the same driver operates any of those cars for personal use, it's not for hire.

 

[ScottM]

For hire refers to the operation, not the airplane. Privately owned, corporation owned, rental, or lease has no bearing at all. When a taxicab provides transportation for a fee, that's "for hire" whether the driver owns, rents, leases or borrows the car. If the same driver operates any of those cars for personal use, it's not for hire.

Does that mean then aircraft rental operation has to hire out their plane with a landing light but the person using for personal use doe not need it to work?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I ran into this once myself. Since the operation is not for hire (not paying for someone else to act as PIC, namely a flight instructor) the landing light isn't required.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Does that mean then aircraft rental operation has to hire out their plane with a landing light but the person using for personal use doe not need it to work?

No.

Although some people use "for hire" and "available for rent" synonymously, they are not really. The way "for hire" is used almost universally (in the US at least) from a business and regulatory standpoint, I think both in and out of aviation, it has come to mean making available a vehicle coupled with a crew for the purpose of transporting people or property for compensation.

You "rent" a U-Haul but "hire" movers.
You "rent" a car, but "hire" a taxi.
You "rent" an airplane for flight lessons, but "hire" an air taxi.

Jason, I don't think you need a landing light for a flight lesson either.

(Of course, whether "for hire" or not, 91.213(d) must be considered if it's inop)

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Jason, I don't think you need a landing light for a flight lesson either.

(Of course, whether "for hire" or not, 91.213(d) must be considered if it's inop)

As a student pilot, if I'm paying a flight instructor for training, is that not considered a commercial operation? I did some quick research and it appears there is a debate out there as to whether a CFI needs a second class medical (commercial op.) or just a third class to act as PIC and give flight training. Common logic would state a second class medical is required, since s/he's accepting money for flight training, but the FARs state only a third class medical is required for a CFI acting as PIC.

I suppose it would be different if you were a current, certificated pilot getting recurrent training since that certificated pilot could act as PIC for the flight.

 

[ScottM]

No.

Although some people use "for hire" and "available for rent" synonymously, they are not really. The way "for hire" is used almost universally (in the US at least) from a business and regulatory standpoint, I think both in and out of aviation, it has come to mean making available a vehicle coupled with a crew for the purpose of transporting people or property for compensation.

You "rent" a U-Haul but "hire" movers.
You "rent" a car, but "hire" a taxi.
You "rent" an airplane for flight lessons, but "hire" an air taxi.

Jason, I don't think you need a landing light for a flight lesson either.

(Of course, whether "for hire" or not, 91.213(d) must be considered if it's inop)

Perhaps it is regional idiom but I 'hire' a car, I 'hire' a plane but I may 'rent' an apartment. In the first two examples I am still the one doing the driving or flying.

rent 1 (r

nt)n.1. a. Payment, usually of an amount fixed by contract, made by a tenant at specified intervals in return for the right to occupy or use the property of another.
b. A similar payment made for the use of a facility, equipment, or service provided by another.

hire (h

r)v. hired, hir·ing, hires
v.tr.1. a. To engage the services of (a person) for a fee; employ: hired a new clerk.
b. To engage the temporary use of for a fee; rent: hire a car for the day.


The two terms are synonyms

What is needed is a definition in the FARs or from the legal council of the FAA clarifying the term. I have not found one yet.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I did some quick research and it appears there is a debate out there as to whether a CFI needs a second class medical (commercial op.) or just a third class to act as PIC and give flight training.

Restrict your research to FAA legal and the FARs and you will not find any confusion--the CFI needs a third class medical to act as PIC and needs no medical at all if not acting as PIC.

Common logic would state a second class medical is required, since s/he's accepting money for flight training, but the FARs state only a third class medical is required for a CFI acting as PIC.

Okay, so why are you confused?

I suppose it would be different if you were a current, certificated pilot getting recurrent training since that certificated pilot could act as PIC for the flight.

In that example the CFI needs no medical at all.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Restrict your research to FAA legal and the FARs and you will not find any confusion--the CFI needs a third class medical to act as PIC and needs no medical at all if not acting as PIC.

My research originally began with the FARs and FAA legal interpretations and progressed to a few others sources which discussed the confusion I mentioned earlier. I have yet to find an FAA interpretation stating whether or not flight training from a paid flight instructor is a commercial operation or not. Currently, I'm getting a myriad of errors when I try to search the FAA database for such interpretations.

Okay, so why are you confused?

I'm not, I was simply stating what I had found on another webboard.

In that example the CFI needs no medical at all.

Correct, according to FAR 61.23(b)(5).

 

[wsuffa]

But does the POH/AFM list it as required?

 

[midlifeflyer]

As a student pilot, if I'm paying a flight instructor for training, is that not considered a commercial operation? I did some quick research and it appears there is a debate out there as to whether a CFI needs a second class medical (commercial op.) or just a third class to act as PIC and give flight training.

Like a lot of other issues there's no legitimate debate about whether a CFI needs a first or second class medical, unless one is ignorant of the regs and FAA policy ("ignorant" is not an insult; it just means lack of knowledge, although sometimes that lack of knowledge is self-imposed).

A CFI needs a third class medical if she is acting as PIC or as a required crewmember. A CFI needs no medical at all if she is not acting as PIC or as a required crewmember.

All one needs to do is read 61.23 for the answer instead of "debating." Of course debating based on self-valued "opinions" is always much more fun than knowledge.

BTW, I think the revision of the FAR to make this explicit goes back =only= 10 years, and the earliest statement of the policy I'm aware of goes back to an FAA Legal opinion from 1978.

Or, how about this from the Final Rule that incorporated the 1997 revisions:

==============================
With respect to the holding of medical certificates by a flight instructor, the FAA has determined that the compensation a certificated flight instructor receives for flight instruction is not compensation for piloting the aircraft, but rather is compensation for the instruction. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is only exercising the privileges of a private pilot. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is not carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire, nor is he or she, for compensation or hire, acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. . . . In this same regard, the FAA has determined that a certificated flight instructor on board an aircraft for the purpose of providing flight instruction, who does not act as pilot in command or function as a required flight crewmember, is not performing or exercising pilot privileges that would require him or her to possess a valid medical certificate under the FARs.
==============================

(My guess is that having this information would not stop the "debate" on the other forum.)

 

[tonycondon]

==============================
With respect to the holding of medical certificates by a flight instructor, the FAA has determined that the compensation a certificated flight instructor receives for flight instruction is not compensation for piloting the aircraft, but rather is compensation for the instruction. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and is receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is only exercising the privileges of a private pilot. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember and receiving compensation for his or her flight instruction is not carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire, nor is he or she, for compensation or hire, acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. . . . In this same regard, the FAA has determined that a certificated flight instructor on board an aircraft for the purpose of providing flight instruction, who does not act as pilot in command or function as a required flight crewmember, is not performing or exercising pilot privileges that would require him or her to possess a valid medical certificate under the FARs.
==============================

and since the instructor is not getting paid to fly the airplane, no landing light is required.

 

[Tristar]

No.

Although some people use "for hire" and "available for rent" synonymously, they are not really. The way "for hire" is used almost universally (in the US at least) from a business and regulatory standpoint, I think both in and out of aviation, it has come to mean making available a vehicle coupled with a crew for the purpose of transporting people or property for compensation.

You "rent" a U-Haul but "hire" movers.
You "rent" a car, but "hire" a taxi.
You "rent" an airplane for flight lessons, but "hire" an air taxi.

Jason, I don't think you need a landing light for a flight lesson either.

(Of course, whether "for hire" or not, 91.213(d) must be considered if it's inop)

You rent the airplane but hire the flight instructor, thus it becomes for compensation or hire. You need a landing light for a dual flight lesson.

 

[Tim]

I believe it is a commercial operation when the flight instructor provides the plane and instructs in it.

 

[Tristar]

I can't exactly argue with the FAA's logic but I don't understand it either. I was told every since the beginning of my flight training that we had to have a landing light.

 

[TMetzinger]

Here's a follow-up. You take your rental airplane with the INOP landing light off on a trip. After scaring yourself a little with a night landing at an unfamiliar airport, You decide you really like having a working landing light. Can you replace the bulb yourself? Or must you hire an AMT/A&P?

Explain your logic in your answer, please.

 

[flyingron]

Operation requires both the plane and the pilot. Unless someone is "hiring" the two of us then it is not a "operation for hire". The reg doesn't say anyhting about hiring the aircraft or hiring the flight instructor it specifically says OPERATION FOR HIRE.

As for Tim. If you are a certificated pilot you can do that piece of preventive maintenance on an aircraft you are going to operate (i.e., fly). Make sure you make a notation in the aircraft records that you performed that operation before you fly (you may need to fabricate a temporary aircraft record).

 

[ScottM]

As for Tim. If you are a certificated pilot you can do that piece of preventive maintenance on an aircraft you are going to operate (i.e., fly). Make sure you make a notation in the aircraft records that you performed that operation before you fly (you may need to fabricate a temporary aircraft record).

close enough

43.3(b)

(g) The holder of a pilot certificate issued under Part 61 may
perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that
pilot which is not used under Part 121, 129, or 135.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Like a lot of other issues there's no legitimate debate about whether a CFI needs a first or second class medical, unless one is ignorant of the regs and FAA policy ("ignorant" is not an insult; it just means lack of knowledge, although sometimes that lack of knowledge is self-imposed).

A CFI needs a third class medical if she is acting as PIC or as a required crewmember. A CFI needs no medical at all if she is not acting as PIC or as a required crewmember.

All one needs to do is read 61.23 for the answer instead of "debating." Of course debating based on self-valued "opinions" is always much more fun than knowledge.

Won't say I disagree, I just mentioned that there was a debate "out there" despite what the regs say. I, like you, read the FARs and policy/interpretation first in response to a question.

However, like other issues, the need [or not] for a landing light on a dual instruction flight is something the FARs do not clearly make known.

 

[ScottM]

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).

From FAA Part 1

So if I add this to the term 'for hire'

I would read this as if I rent an airplane and use it myself or charge someone to ride in it beyond the pro-rata share then it would be for hire. If I am paying to put a CFI in it, then that is not a for hire operation.

But

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).

If I am the lessor of said aircraft then I am operating it for hire to you, the lessee, to fly.

 

[poadeleted20]

"For hire" means, to the FAA, that someone is hiring the use of the airplane for air transportation, that is providing transportation for compensation of people or cargo by air. Flight instruction is not "for hire." You are not hiring the use of the plane for the purpose of air transportation, you are hiring it for flight training (a different kettle of fish, as clearly stated repeatedly by the FAA Chief Counsel, and an important issue in cases involving faux flight training operations trying to get around the Part 135 charter rules). Renting an airplane is not "for hire." The FBO is merely renting you the airplane, not providing air transportation for hire.

Thus, for rental and flight training, no landing light need be installed. However, if it is installed, it must work (whether it's day or night) unless you go through 14 CFR 91.213. Then we go into whether or not there's an MEL (and whether the light is on it), whether it's a day or night flight, whether the landing light is required for night flying per the Kinds of Operations list or Equipment list in the POH/AFM, whether the PIC agrees that the flight may be safely made without it, and whether it's properly disabled/placarded before flight.

BTW, there's no "debate" within the FAA on the medical certificate requirements for a flight instructor. The reg is clear enough for their taste:

Must hold at least a third-class medical certificate...When exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate, except for a flight instructor certificate with a glider category rating or sport pilot rating, if the person is acting as pilot in command or is serving as a required flight crewmember...
A person is not required to hold a valid medical certificate...When exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate if the person is not acting as pilot in command or serving as a required pilot flight crewmember

 

[midlifeflyer]

"For hire" means, to the FAA, that someone is hiring the use of the airplane for air transportation, that is providing transportation for compensation of people or cargo by air. Flight instruction is not "for hire." You are not hiring the use of the plane for the purpose of air transportation, you are hiring it for flight training (a different kettle of fish, as clearly stated repeatedly by the FAA Chief Counsel, and an important issue in cases involving faux flight training operations trying to get around the Part 135 charter rules). Renting an airplane is not "for hire." The FBO is merely renting you the airplane, not providing air transportation for hire.

Yes but, according to a number of posters, who cares how the FAA uses the term?

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes but, according to a number of posters, who cares how the FAA uses the term?

My apologies -- I thought this was about what the FAA says the rules mean, not what people whose opinion carries no legal weight think they mean.

 

[Richard]

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)?

 

[RMCN172RG]

I did get one wrong on the knowledge test but it was not on the required equipment list.

Since I could not find a definition of "For Hire" in the FAR book I tried googling " 'for hire' airplane".

Not to surprising all of the first page responses come from English speaking countries. As opposed to American speaking countries

A sample quote

Wits Flying Club airplanes are available for hire & fly. In order to hire an airplane you have to become a member and hold minimum a Private Pilot Licence and must have a rating on the airplane type in question.

I'll stand by my understanding that in the context of FAR 91.205 "For Hire" and "For Rent" are synonymous. If the plane is rented it needs a landing light.

 

[jesse]

I'll stand by my understanding that in the context of FAR 91.205 "For Hire" and "For Rent" are synonymous. If the plane is rented it needs a landing light.

Based on the above quote courtesy of the Wits Flying Club which is located in South Africa??

 

[RMCN172RG]

Based on the above quote courtesy of the Wits Flying Club which is located in South Africa??

NO I used the definition in the Dictionary for the word hire
1.to obtain the services of (a person)for compensation
2. to acquire the use of (a thing) for a fee; rent
3. to grant the use or services of (someone or something)in return for payment

I did mention that the uses of the word in text were all from English speaking countries, South Africa, New Zealand, etc.

 

[Richard]

I did get one wrong on the knowledge test but it was not on the required equipment list.

Since I could not find a definition of "For Hire" in the FAR book I tried googling " 'for hire' airplane".

Not to surprising all of the first page responses come from English speaking countries. As opposed to American speaking countries

A sample quote

Wits Flying Club airplanes are available for hire & fly. In order to hire an airplane you have to become a member and hold minimum a Private Pilot Licence and must have a rating on the airplane type in question.

I'll stand by my understanding that in the context of FAR 91.205 "For Hire" and "For Rent" are synonymous. If the plane is rented it needs a landing light.

"For hire" is also known as "to let". IE, the act of renting.

So you are correct so far.

But your interpretation is not the same as the definition of the term as found in the FARs.

 

[RMCN172RG]

"But your interpretation is not the same as the definition of the term as found in the FARs.

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.

 

[ScottM]

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.

Neither have I. I have been searchign for a legal interpretation from the FAA but I have yet to be successful in that search as well. It is that definition that will truly answer the question. What most are saying is what I have been led to believe but I would like to see an official instead of quasi official interpretation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ray, here's a reg that will confuse the issue even more...

==============================
§ 91.327 Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category: Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except--
(1) To tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309 of this chapter; or
(2) To conduct flight training.
****
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has--
==============================

I would say that (a) (2) is a redundancy error or an over-attempt to clarify (these are "plain English" reg attempts that sometimes come out worse than regulese).

You would say it's not legal to rent light sport aircraft to some one who isn't going to tow a glider or train in it, right?

 

[ScottM]

.

You would say it's not legal to rent light sport aircraft to some one who isn't going to tow a glider or train in it, right?

I dunno, what type of landing light does it have

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ray, here's a reg that will confuse the issue even more...

==============================
§ 91.327 Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category: Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except--
(1) To tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309 of this chapter; or
(2) To conduct flight training.
****
(c) No person may operate an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to tow a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has--
==============================

I would say that (a) (2) is a redundancy error or an over-attempt to clarify (these are "plain English" reg attempts that sometimes come out worse than regulese).

You would say it's not legal to rent light sport aircraft to some one who isn't going to tow a glider or train in it, right?

Unfortunately, Mark, you're right...you're just confusing the issue

This reg talks about "compensation or hire"...unfortunately, it doesn't tell us which of the examples are for compensation and which are for hire.

No help there.

Fly safe!

David

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Neither have I. I have been searchign for a legal interpretation from the FAA but I have yet to be successful in that search as well. It is that definition that will truly answer the question. What most are saying is what I have been led to believe but I would like to see an official instead of quasi official interpretation.

Here's a quote from an FAA legal opinion letter, dated April 8, 1991:

"...the fewer the ties between the pilot and the FBO who rents the airplane the clearer the line between pilot service and an operation conducted for hire...".

Clearly simply renting the aircraft is not the decision point between "for hire" and not.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What most are saying is what I have been led to believe but I would like to see an official instead of quasi official interpretation.

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,

 

[poadeleted20]

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

True, but "for hire" is not, in FAA parlance, the same as "to let" or "for rent." While that's not explicitly stated in the FAR's, a stroll down Regulatory Lane will reveal that when they say "for hire," they mean that someone other than the pilot is paying the aircraft operator for the flight.