Passengers on instructional flights

[gprellwitz]

Okay, another "legal" question. Are there any rules or regulations that restrict the carriage of passengers/observers on instructional flights? I'm not thinking here of things that might even start to look like Part 135 things. Say your student Jill wants to take her boyfriend Jack in the back seat while she goes on her dual cross-country so she can get him excited about the possibilities after she gets her private ticket.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Don't know about the legality, but Hubby and I "sat in" on each other's training flights.

Excellent way to improve skills.

 

[gprellwitz]

Don't know about the legality, but Hubby and I "sat in" on each other's training flights.

Excellent way to improve skills.

Yeah, Leslie and I did too, and I agree. The question is more about a passenger who isn't a student, though.

 

[EppyGA]

Yeah, Leslie and I did too, and I agree. The question is more about a passenger who isn't a student, though.

What's really the difference between a student and a non-student?

 

[nyoung]

When I did my flight training at U of Illinois, it was SOP to paiir flight students, one would ride in the back while the other student flew. CFI was in the right seat of course.

 

[gprellwitz]

What's really the difference between a student and a non-student?

The non-student doesn't have a logbook, has no intention of getting one (yet) and couldn't show any educational purpose for being in the plane.

I have to say that I'm not aware of any restrictions like this from the FAA or other regulatory agencies, but a friend told me that the FAA doesn't allow it. I haven't had a chance to ask for references for the statement yet.

 

[ScottM]

Think of it like this. Who is the PIC? It would be the CFI. The student and the other passenger are both passengers and a PIC who is properly rated and current can fly passengers, thus so should the CFI.

 

[tonycondon]

there is no legal reason to avoid this sort of arrangement. actually can be good practice for students to learn to deal with future passengers.

 

[Matthew]

My CFI encouraged me to bring my wife and kids along. But just on some of the flights - we did a number of just-for-fun/sightseeing flights to break up the training. No way I'd want a passenger along while doing stalls or other manuevers, don't want ot scare anyone away.

 

[brcase]

Should not be a problem, you have a commercial/CFI rated pilot in the right seat, as long as the CFI is ok with it, it should not be a problem in ~98% of the situations.

If it started to look like a 135 operation then it could be a problem, the scenerio you presented doesn't sound at all like a 135 operation to me.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[weilke]

I understand some (many) CFIs instruct on a third class medical as they don't actually exercise their commercial privileges by instructing. If the CFI is getting paid but doesn't provide instruction to the 'passenger', wouldn't he need to have a second class ?

 

[wpierce]

Grant, I've heard of many people taking family members along for the flight. The only thing I can remotely think may get you into trouble is if you flew to KABC-KDEF-KGHI-KABC and the "passenger" got out at KDEF or KGHI for a business meeting, or delivered a part or parcel and then got home some other way.

 

[myFlightCoach]

I agree with the other comments on the board that generally speaking there is no problem with someone riding along on a training flight. Even another student (who obviously isn't going to try and log this time) riding along is often not a bad idea and it can be helpful for them to observe...be sure and have them 'linked in' on the comms so they can hear what's going on, the critiques and instructions etc.

That being said, I try to keep joyriding on a training flight to a minimum. It often is distracting to the trainee and I have to watch the passengers (airsick, poddy etc.) while I'm also trying to instruct. Better I think to do what another poster said, take a break and just make a day a sightseeing day.

Chris Findley, CFI
free book giveaway at www.myFlightCoach.com
chris@myFlightCoach.com

 

[Pi1otguy]

In addition to what's been said, I personal found occasionally have a quiet passenger to be a valuable learning experience. Shifting the CG back changes the feel of things a bit. Heck, on one checkout I even had a CFI who grabbed 2 people from the FBO just for the purpose of putting us closer to (but not over) max takeoff weight.

 

[AdamZ]

Its a non issue. CFI is the PIC for PP training and the pilot is PIC for any advanced training. I suppose a theoretical issue could arise if you are using your training flight to fly your buddy from the home drome to the drome near his vacation home but he's not contributing $$ to the cause so I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[EdFred]

Just make sure that as the CFI you are 90 days current to carry pax. You don't have to be 90 days current to have a student in the left seat. Other than that....legally ok.

 

[Ted]

That being said, I try to keep joyriding on a training flight to a minimum. It often is distracting to the trainee and I have to watch the passengers (airsick, poddy etc.) while I'm also trying to instruct. Better I think to do what another poster said, take a break and just make a day a sightseeing day.

While I agree that fun flights of this sort can be distracting from instruction, that in itself presents a realistic distraction that the student should get the opportunity to deal with prior to getting cut loose with his or her private, and think that it's useful.

I've never heard any reason not to, legal or otherwise (other than a few people saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" without giving good reasons as to why), so I would go ahead and do so. I don't have a problem if students want to bring a friend, significant other, etc. along. It makes it fun and gives a realistic distraction.

 

[JeffDG]

I understand some (many) CFIs instruct on a third class medical as they don't actually exercise their commercial privileges by instructing. If the CFI is getting paid but doesn't provide instruction to the 'passenger', wouldn't he need to have a second class ?

The reason behind the CFI being able to instruct on a third class is that they're being paid to instruct, not fly. Therefore, there's no payment for the flying of the passnger either.

Now if the CFI charges extra to have the passenger on the dual XC, then we're getting int Part 134 1/2 territory there...

 

[poadeleted20]

Are there any rules or regulations that restrict the carriage of passengers/observers on instructional flights?

Only insofar as you're planning to do maneuvers requiring you to be in the Utility category when passengers in the back push you out of that envelope and into Normal. 'Course, you probably don't want pax aboard for that sort of maneuvering unless you have plenty of barf bags handy.

Say your student Jill wants to take her boyfriend Jack in the back seat while she goes on her dual cross-country so she can get him excited about the possibilities after she gets her private ticket.

If Jill has trouble getting Jack excited...

Sorry, not going there.

I see no problem at all bringing adult (or mature teenage) passengers along in the back on a dual XC. However, no kids or anyone else possibly requiring adult attention.

 

[poadeleted20]

...a friend told me that the FAA doesn't allow it.

For student solos, that's correct, but not for instructional flights with a CFI except as noted above (maneuvering restriction issues). Perhaps your friend misunderstood the question.

 

[poadeleted20]

I understand some (many) CFIs instruct on a third class medical as they don't actually exercise their commercial privileges by instructing. If the CFI is getting paid but doesn't provide instruction to the 'passenger', wouldn't he need to have a second class ?

No, because the passenger isn't paying for air transportation. And if s/he was, it would take a lot more paperwork than just a second class medical to make the flight legal (at least a 91.147 LoA and maybe a 135 certificate).

 

[weilke]

The reason behind the CFI being able to instruct on a third class is that they're being paid to instruct, not fly. Therefore, there's no payment for the flying of the passnger either.

Mh, now that sounds like a bit of a stretch. The CFI is not instructing the passenger.
A regular student is not considered a passenger for currency and medical requirements because, well because he is being instructed. That case is hard to make for 'Jill' sitting in the backseat.

 

[Matthew]

While I agree that fun flights of this sort can be distracting from instruction, that in itself presents a realistic distraction that the student should get the opportunity to deal with prior to getting cut loose with his or her private, and think that it's useful.

I've never heard any reason not to, legal or otherwise (other than a few people saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" without giving good reasons as to why), so I would go ahead and do so. I don't have a problem if students want to bring a friend, significant other, etc. along. It makes it fun and gives a realistic distraction.

I'm not a CFI, but I can think of a couple of reasons NOT to bring a spouse or kids along. Maneuvers might seem fun, but an inexperienced passenger in the back seat can get queasy when that ball isn't centered. And, depending on the teaching style of the instructor and your own learning style, you might not want your spouse/kids to be exposed to you getting 'corrected'. Summer isn't always the best time either - most of my training flights were at low altitudes where it was almost always hot and bumpy.

Worst sight I saw was an Archer sitting on the ramp with the door open. That didn't seem right, so I asked about it. The CFI had let his student bring his kids along. Student forgot to mention that they'd had a big Mexican lunch prior to the flight.

Other than that, have fun!

 

[JeffDG]

Mh, now that sounds like a bit of a stretch. The CFI is not instructing the passenger.
A regular student is not considered a passenger for currency and medical requirements because, well because he is being instructed. That case is hard to make for 'Jill' sitting in the backseat.

Regardless of if Jill is a passenger or not, she's not paying anything for the flight.

 

[weilke]

No, because the passenger isn't paying for air transportation. And if s/he was, it would take a lot more paperwork than just a second class medical to make the flight legal (at least a 91.147 LoA and maybe a 135 certificate).

Bbut the CFI is getting paid to fly which would be the other 'arm' of the commercial requirements.

 

[poadeleted20]

A regular student is not considered a passenger for currency and medical requirements because, well because he is being instructed. That case is hard to make for 'Jill' sitting in the backseat.

Not if you're in a Cub, since that's where Jill would sit as the trainee. 'Course, that creates a problem about where to put passenger Jack.

 

[poadeleted20]

Bbut the CFI is getting paid to fly which would be the other 'arm' of the commercial requirements.

The Chief Counsel has already said that CFI's are paid to instruct, not to fly, and that's why only a Third is needed to fly with a Student Pilot, even if someone else is riding along. The situation would change only if the passenger were paying to be taken flying (i.e., additional charge for the presence of the third person), and then, as I said above, it's a whole new ballgame and generally speaking, no training would be permitted.

 

[Areeda]

I see no legal reason not to bring passengers on instructional flights. Ed's point about instructor being passenger carrying current is valid.

I allow it and encourage it to some extent. The toughest PP maneuvers on passengers seem to be steep turns and then stalls. I'm game for sight seeing flights, there is valid instructional content in them, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

Joe

 

[weilke]

The Chief Counsel has already said that CFI's are paid to instruct, not to fly, and that's why only a Third is needed to fly with a Student Pilot, even if someone else is riding along.

I would say that that case hasn't been tested yet.

If I was an evil FAA buerocrat I would argue that the moment there is a non-student pax on board the CFI is also getting paid to fly the plane.

I know, most cases the ride-along is innocent and nobody will care. But just as people have been dinged for 'primary instruction' in a cabin twin, I can see scenarios where someone may be tempted to combine the 'ride along' with a business appointment 400miles away (well sir, we can't really call it charter but see, what we'll do is we have CFI Billy here fly the plane, we'll put student Bob in the left seat and you just give Bob $800 when you all return.)

 

[Dave Theisen]

Just make sure that as the CFI you are 90 days current to carry pax. You don't have to be 90 days current to have a student in the left seat. Other than that....legally ok.

Really? So you are saying," CFI isn't current to carry passengers as a pilot, they can just throw them in the left seat, call it a lesson, and every thing is OK?

I need to see a reference on that one.

 

[Areeda]

...
I know, most cases the ride-along is innocent and nobody will care. But just as people have been dinged for 'primary instruction' in a cabin twin, I can see scenarios where someone may be tempted to combine the 'ride along' with a business appointment 400miles away (well sir, we can't really call it charter but see, what we'll do is we have CFI Billy here fly the plane, we'll put student Bob in the left seat and you just give Bob $800 when you all return.)

I see them as two different situations.

I have seen 135 ops rationalized into a lesson and I agree it just doesn't pass the duck test.

But I am comfortable with a passenger along on a legitimate lesson.

Joe

 

[poadeleted20]

I would say that that case hasn't been tested yet.

Nothing to test -- it's black-letter law in the regs, and the Chief Counsel's position has been clearly stated in writing. It doesn't get any more definitive than that.

I know, most cases the ride-along is innocent and nobody will care. But just as people have been dinged for 'primary instruction' in a cabin twin, I can see scenarios where someone may be tempted to combine the 'ride along' with a business appointment 400miles away (well sir, we can't really call it charter but see, what we'll do is we have CFI Billy here fly the plane, we'll put student Bob in the left seat and you just give Bob $800 when you all return.)

Whole 'nother story, and then it doesn't matter if there's anyone besides the putative trainee aboard.

 

[poadeleted20]

Really? So you are saying," CFI isn't current to carry passengers as a pilot, they can just throw them in the left seat, call it a lesson, and every thing is OK?

No. It must be a bona fide instructional flight. But if it is, it's OK.

I need to see a reference on that one.

OK...
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...tations/data/interps/2006/Kortokraxinterp.doc
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...etations/data/interps/2007/Olshock inter1.pdf

 

[weilke]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...etations/data/interps/2007/Olshock inter1.pdf

You also ask whether another student pilot may "occupy the rear seat during the same flight? The student in the rear will switch seats with the student at the controls at an interim airport to receive training as well." You believe that "the student in the rear seat would be classified as a passenger and this would be prohibited by the regulation." While the FAA has never addressed this hypothetical situation, and even though everyone aboard the aircraft has an instructional connection to the flight, we limit the application of the Kortokrax interpretation to the situation where the individual being instructed is actively receiving instruction. Anyone aboard the aircraft not actively receiving instruction (unless acting as a required flight crew member), would be a passenger for application of §61.57.

There it is !​

 

[poadeleted20]

You also ask whether another student pilot may "occupy the rear seat during the same flight? The student in the rear will switch seats with the student at the controls at an interim airport to receive training as well." You believe that "the student in the rear seat would be classified as a passenger and this would be prohibited by the regulation." While the FAA has never addressed this hypothetical situation, and even though everyone aboard the aircraft has an instructional connection to the flight, we limit the application of the Kortokrax interpretation to the situation where the individual being instructed is actively receiving instruction. Anyone aboard the aircraft not actively receiving instruction (unless acting as a required flight crew member), would be a passenger for application of §61.57.​

There it is !​

Right -- currency is required if there's a passenger aboard, not just trainee and instructor. But that interpretation is, as it says in the underlined portion, limited to 61.57 issues. It has nothing to do with the issue of a second class medical, which is not required for flight with passengers who not paying for air transportation. Jack is not paying for air transportation, nor is Jill paying to have Jack transported (no extra charge beyond the regular instructional rate), so no requirement for a Second class or a 91.147 LoA or a 135 certificate.

 

[weilke]

Right -- currency is required if there's a passenger aboard, not just trainee and instructor. But that interpretation is, as it says in the underlined portion, limited to 61.57 issues. It has nothing to do with the issue of a second class medical, which is not required for flight with passengers who not paying for air transportation. Jack is not paying for air transportation, nor is Jill paying to have Jack transported (no extra charge beyond the regular instructional rate), so no requirement for a Second class or a 91.147 LoA or a 135 certificate.

Again, I would say the question of a passenger during a instructional flight and its relation to the question of the medical hasn't been tested yet. Sure, this particular letter only applies to 61.57, but if that question ever came in front of enforcement or chief counsel, I would bet money that that exact wording would be cited to deal with the 'pax or not' question. As for the the 'who pays for what' question, given that the FAA even considers nonpayment as compensation, I would not want to rely on the fact that it is the student and not the pax who does the paying to make the fact go away that the PIC of the flight received money.

 

[poadeleted20]

Again, I would say the question of a passenger during a instructional flight and its relation to the question of the medical hasn't been tested yet.

Nothing to test -- it's black-letter law backed up by a legal interpretation from the Chief Counsel. You can choose not to do it if you feel uncomfortable, but that's your own decision for your own reasons, not the law as written.

 

[weilke]

Nothing to test -- it's black-letter law backed up by a legal interpretation from the Chief Counsel.

Is there an interpretation that deals with that very scenario: Passenger during instructional flight ?

The wording 'While the FAA has never addressed this hypothetical situation,' in the Olshock letter would suggest that there is none.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Ron, I'm not trying to be nit picky, I am truly trying to learn something here.

The two letters you cited talk about "an current except for 61.57(b)" and a response limited to 61.57(b). My interpretation is that the instructor is assumed to my current by 61.57(a) but can give dual at night even if not night current. Are you saying that would still be OK if the CFI was not 90 day current at all?

Personally, for the sake of my ticket and liability, I am going to be current for any operation to be performed. In the event something gets bent, even if the FAA is on board, the insurance company could have grounds to not pay the claim.

 

[gprellwitz]

And for the purposes of the initial post, lets just take as given that the CFI has a second class medical and is current for the carriage of passengers.

I fully agree that we wouldn't generally want a passenger when working on maneuvers, especially stalls and steep turns. That's why the example I gave was a cross-country. Of course, the legal answer wouldn't change, absent things like being out of the appropriate category or student solo flight.

Sounds like everyone is in agreement that for the type of case I presented this is perfectly legal. That was my belief going in too. I just wanted confirmation from the peanut gallery.

Thanks!