Jeremy, I live in Oakwood, and will be closing on a house in Flowery Branch this week (if the bureaucracy would ever let up), and I would LOVE for someone to train me free. I have a Sport Pilot Student Certificate, and joined EAA 690 (Lawrenceville) in December (was a prior EAA 241 member in IL, but moved a couple times, let my EAA lapse, and just got back into it).
No FAA issue there.
Receiving any amount of compensation (and "half the gas" constitutes "compensation") brings 91.409(b ) into play, and that will require that 100-hour inpections be conducted as well as annuals. That's the only additional FAA requirement.
I just checked mine, and it has no such rider. Neither has any of the policies I've had for the last 20 years with several different underwriters. They've all specifically prohibited giving training in the plane to anyone but Fran, who was a named pilot and named insured on the policy. But maybe you get some special policy somewhere to cover your instructing activities like that.
The FAA doesn't separate payment for the instructor from payment from the plane when both are provided by the same party. That party is receiving compensation for providing training in an aircraft which s/he provides, and that triggers the 100-hour requirement. No doubt this is to avoid quibbles over whether the money is for the plane or for the instructor.
Not correct. If you're giving training in an aircraft you provide, and you are receiving anything of value in return, the 100-hr is required.
Again, not true. Every business/personal policy I've seen excludes giving training to others not on the policy without regard for payment.
Correct. And neither will telling them you were sharing expenses while giving training.Selling $300 pens (or anything else) which include a 'free' flight lesson sounds good, but won't hold legal water if the feds find out (i.e. in case of an incident or accident) and want to pursue it .
If you add this one student as a named pilot/insured on the policy, that's one thing. If you start bringing in a bunch more students, that's another, much more expensive thing.
I suspect the FAA would see it as exchanging money for training in an aircraft provided by the instructor, and that would mean 100-hour required. I would most definitely advise against trying it without the 100-hour without something in writing from the Chief or Regional Counsel saying otherwise.
Quack, quack.
Without a 100-hour? Sure, as long as neither you nor your friend's Great Uncle are providing the training.
In that case, I'd agree with a real good look-over and probably an annual before any flight. But 100 hours later, if Uncle John is providing the training and the airplane, and the trainees are paying for it, it will require a 100-hour inspection.
Not much way for the registered owner to avoid being a target for a liability suit if anything bad happens during such an operation, short of some sort of lease arrangement where all operational control is assumed by the lessee (you).
As long as the corporation isn't providing the training, then 100-hour inspections aren't required.
