Return to service

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Student owns the aircraft. CFI mentoring
can the student complete preventive maintenance and return it to service FAR 43-.7 (f). says
(f) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve an aircraft for return to service after performing preventive maintenance under the provisions of §43.3(g).

I say no, needs the PPL

But and here is the real question.
Can the CFI act as the OPERATOR and return the aircraft to service as supervisor of preventive maintenance.
 
Does a CFI hold at least a private pilot certificate?

EDIT: Oh, I see... I read (G): "Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, 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 of this chapter."

In the FAR definitions, "operate" 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)."

I'm thinking yes, the CFI can return it to service.
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
Does a CFI hold at least a private pilot certificate?

EDIT: Oh, I see... I read (G): "Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, 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 of this chapter."

In the FAR definitions, "operate" 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)."

I'm thinking yes, the CFI can return it to service.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that the owner is the one who caused the aircraft to be used. "operated' I don't believe the CFI can do preventive maintenance on any aircraft they do not own.
What legally makes the CFI the operator? I can understand when you rent/borrow my aircraft you would be the operator. But when you are being hired to teach in the owner's aircraft isn't the owner the operator?
 
Who is the PIC? The CFI, right? If he is "piloting" the aircraft as PIC and hopefully with a bit of demonstrating maneuvers and such I think he would fall under the operate definition.
 
Tom-D said:
Can the CFI act as the OPERATOR and return the aircraft to service as supervisor of preventive maintenance.
Click to expand...
No, he can't supervise preventive maintenance, but he can perform it, and return the aircraft to service. From the FAR posted above; Technically, the student, owner, can authorize the CFI to use the aircraft, that makes the CFI the operator without even operating the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
No, he can't supervise preventive maintenance, but he can perform it, and return the aircraft to service. From the FAR posted above; Technically, the student, owner, can authorize the CFI to use the aircraft, that makes the CFI the operator without even operating the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Isn't the CFI simply a crew member - not the operator?
Here's the rule
(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, 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 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.

How would the FAA determine who is the operator?
 
Tom-D said:
Isn't the CFI simply a crew member - not the operator?
Here's the rule
(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, 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 of this chapter. The holder of a sport pilot certificate may perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.

How would the FAA determine who is the operator?
Click to expand...
It would depend on the fact of the case. Here's the 14 CFR 61.1 definition of "Operator"

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).

Can the CFI make the argument that he has done one of those three things? I'd argue if the CFI was a fellow club member you could make the case yes. If the CFI was just hired to instruct, I'd argue none of those things apply. Again, it depends on the circumstances and you're not going to get a definitive answer.
 
"Operator" is pretty well defined. When the owner/student and the CFI are flying, who is PIC? So who is the operator? The CFI. Actually, by definition they BOTH are operators, I suppose... but the CFI holds a pilot certificate.

So you just have to remove any uncertainty by doing the oil change in flight.
 
DaleB said:
"Operator" is pretty well defined. When the owner/student and the CFI are flying, who is PIC? So who is the operator? The CFI. Actually, by definition they BOTH are operators, I suppose... but the CFI holds a pilot certificate.

So you just have to remove any uncertainty by doing the oil change in flight.
Click to expand...
But the definition of operator has nothing to do with PIC. If my CFI calls me up and asks to fly my airplane and I say yes, he is using it. If I call him up and ask him to give me dual instruction in the airplane, I'm using it; he is providing me with instruction.

Ultimately in a enforcement case it's going to come down to intent:
1) replace a burnt out bulb before a training flight and your CFI logs the replacement? Probably won't be an issue.
2) Hire your CFI to change your oil? Probably will be an issue.
 
Brad Z said:
But the definition of operator has nothing to do with PIC. If my CFI calls me up and asks to fly my airplane and I say yes, he is using it. If I call him up and ask him to give me dual instruction in the airplane, I'm using it; he is providing me with instruction.

Ultimately in a enforcement case it's going to come down to intent:
1) replace a burnt out bulb before a training flight and your CFI logs the replacement? Probably won't be an issue.
2) Hire your CFI to change your oil? Probably will be an issue.
Click to expand...
3) Change the oil, replace the bulb, log it and go fly without worrying about the FAA crawling out from under the bed to find a problem?

Has there ever been an enforcement issue over who logged (or even who performed) a light bulb replacement or an oil change? This sort of nonsense is one reason I fly an experimental... as well as why I normally don't respond to Tom's posts. :) Nothing personal, Tom. I'm sure there are a lot of people who enjoy the endless debate over the subtle nuances of the FARs. It's like yeshiva for us goyim, I guess. I'm generally not one of them.
 
DaleB said:
3) Change the oil, replace the bulb, log it and go fly without worrying about the FAA crawling out from under the bed to find a problem?

Has there ever been an enforcement issue over who logged (or even who performed) a light bulb replacement or an oil change? This sort of nonsense is one reason I fly an experimental... as well as why I normally don't respond to Tom's posts. :) Nothing personal, Tom. I'm sure there are a lot of people who enjoy the endless debate over the subtle nuances of the FARs. It's like yeshiva for us goyim, I guess. I'm generally not one of them.
Click to expand...

Like very many things, I suspect its not an issue until something goes wrong.

John
 
DaleB said:
3) Change the oil, replace the bulb, log it and go fly without worrying about the FAA crawling out from under the bed to find a problem?

Has there ever been an enforcement issue over who logged (or even who performed) a light bulb replacement or an oil change? This sort of nonsense is one reason I fly an experimental... as well as why I normally don't respond to Tom's posts. :) Nothing personal, Tom. I'm sure there are a lot of people who enjoy the endless debate over the subtle nuances of the FARs. It's like yeshiva for us goyim, I guess. I'm generally not one of them.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I'm pointing out the extremes.
And I agree that Tom likes to ask lots of hypothetical questions that have little practical application. Like a said, its about the facts of the situation, and I suspect that a CFI hanging a shingle offering to provide preventive maintenance services to student pilots is going to be treated very differently by an FAA Inspector from the CFI that swaps out a bulb so they can go fly.
 
When I was learning to fly I paid a CFI
Now I'm learning to maintain my own airplane so I pay an A&P.

Render to Caesar thinks which are Caesars.
 
Brad Z said:
If I call him up and ask him to give me dual instruction in the airplane, I'm using it; he is providing me with instruction.

Ultimately in a enforcement case it's going to come down to intent:
1) replace a burnt out bulb before a training flight and your CFI logs the replacement? Probably won't be an issue.
2) Hire your CFI to change your oil? Probably will be an issue.
Click to expand...
Brad Z said:
I doubt it. I'm pointing out the extremes.
And I agree that Tom likes to ask lots of hypothetical questions that have little practical application. Like a said, its about the facts of the situation, and I suspect that a CFI hanging a shingle offering to provide preventive maintenance services to student pilots is going to be treated very differently by an FAA Inspector from the CFI that swaps out a bulb so they can go fly.
Click to expand...
Well maybe,, but recently I found a CFI supervising an oil change and plug cleaning by the student, and they argued that they could do that. The student owns the A/C. I did not agree with their interpretation of the rules.
So I ask here, because they read here.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Would it be different if the student/owner asked the CFI, and authorized them to "operate" the aircraft?
Click to expand...
Agreed, but when the CFI provides the aircraft, the A/C is required to have 100 hour inspections. that's not the case here.
 
Brad Z said:
But the definition of operator has nothing to do with PIC. If my CFI calls me up and asks to fly my airplane and I say yes, he is using it. If I call him up and ask him to give me dual instruction in the airplane, I'm using it; he is providing me with instruction.

Ultimately in a enforcement case it's going to come down to intent:
1) replace a burnt out bulb before a training flight and your CFI logs the replacement? Probably won't be an issue.
2) Hire your CFI to change your oil? Probably will be an issue.
Click to expand...
here's a carry on to the question. Could a CFI add the time they spend watching you change your lightbulb to their bill?
 
Why not? They charge to watch you put fuel in your plane, don't they?
 
To clarify, The case in question the CFI was teaching preventive maintenance, and charging the time to the owner, to me that simply wrong.
 
rolivi said:
Why not? They charge to watch you put fuel in your plane, don't they?
Click to expand...

Really?

I've only charged a student for that a couple times, to show them how to fuel, after that most students have the plane pre flight done and ready to rock before I start my clock.
 
Tom-D said:
To clarify, The case in question the CFI was teaching preventive maintenance, and charging the time to the owner, to me that simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe wrong by FAR's, but obviously a very thorough CFI.
 
Tom-D said:
To clarify, The case in question the CFI was teaching preventive maintenance, and charging the time to the owner, to me that simply wrong.
Click to expand...

What I don't get about this situation is why a student would be seeking maintenance advice and training from a flight instructor. A flight instructor may be knowledgeable and able to teach about flying but teaching about maintenance seems to be outside their area of expertise if you ask me (unless of course that instructor is also a mechanic).

I haven't met more than one or two instructors that I'd take maintenance advice from as well, so this seems like a case of the blind leading the blind to me.
 
mtuomi said:
Maybe wrong by FAR's, but obviously a very thorough CFI.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that could be determined, given what has been said. Do we know that the flight instructor actually knows something about maintenance? That student may walk away more screwed up than they were before.
 
mondtster said:
I don't see how that could be determined, given what has been said. Do we know that the flight instructor actually knows something about maintenance? That student may walk away more screwed up than they were before.
Click to expand...

I'd hope the CFI has some self criticism to evaluate what he can teach and what not. I've met mechanics who know nothing about maintenance, so having the A&P is meaningless in that sense.
 
mtuomi said:
I'd hope the CFI has some self criticism to evaluate what he can teach and what not. I've met mechanics who know nothing about maintenance, so having the A&P is meaningless in that sense.
Click to expand...
The A&P is a "license" to learn. That is why FAR 65.81 has privileges and limitations.
 
as a cfi i will show any student how to do allowed preventative maintenance and sign it off no problem. perfectly legal.....

oh, i forgot, i would sign it with my A&P number after my name.

bob
 
GlennAB1 said:
The A&P is a "license" to learn. That is why FAR 65.81 has privileges and limitations.
Click to expand...

Yes. My point was, a CFI can be perfectly capable of showing how those procedures are done, while an A&P might be completely clueless about it.

I'd say that sounds like a very good CFI if he shows the student these practical things. Might save the students bacon one day if he gets stuck somewhere with some lead in a plug...
 
James331 said:
Really?

I've only charged a student for that a couple times, to show them how to fuel, after that most students have the plane pre flight done and ready to rock before I start my clock.
Click to expand...
Isn't that teaching use of the equipment, kinda like checking the oil as part of the preflight?
 
mtuomi said:
Yes. My point was, a CFI can be perfectly capable of showing how those procedures are done, while an A&P might be completely clueless about it.

I'd say that sounds like a very good CFI if he shows the student these practical things. Might save the students bacon one day if he gets stuck somewhere with some lead in a plug...
Click to expand...
I guess you believe A&Ps didn't learn anything in the school or experience required or they never past a test or practical exam. Gaining a ppl, is a walk in the park compared to getting the A&P plus the IA.
To you it may sound like a great CFI, But show me how many CFI's own a torque wrench, antiseze, a plug cleaner, or a oil filter cutter.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Really?

I've only charged a student for that a couple times, to show them how to fuel, after that most students have the plane pre flight done and ready to rock before I start my clock.
Click to expand...

I was surprised as you... but 'some' people charge for the whole appointment rather than by the Hobbs or Tach. So unfortunately I've been charged for watching me fuel, going to the restroom while I fuel, talking to spouse while I fuel. You name it from Hello to Signature. It was like a __________.

Needless to say, I don't call them often, or first.
 
Tom-D said:
I guess you believe A&Ps didn't learn anything in the school or experience required or they never past a test or practical exam. Gaining a ppl, is a walk in the park compared to getting the A&P plus the IA.
To you it may sound like a great CFI, But show me how many CFI's own a torque wrench, antiseze, a plug cleaner, or a oil filter cutter.
Click to expand...

I've already met a few A&Ps who obviously didn't learn anything in school or from that experience.

Who the heck needs these things, when you're stuck in some remote hole and simply need a brush and a plug socket to get you out of there. That moment that lesson is worth a lot.
 
mtuomi said:
I've already met a few A&Ps who obviously didn't learn anything in school or from that experience.

Who the heck needs these things, when you're stuck in some remote hole and simply need a brush and a plug socket to get you out of there. That moment that lesson is worth a lot.
Click to expand...
If they were taught engine management by a A&P in the first place they would not be stuck remote by lead fouling. I am spending last week and this, teaching two new owners and their CFI about leaning, nether had any Idea about How to prime for start, or lean during flight. This seems to be my new full time job.

I asked the CFI this question " when you introduce fuel to the induction system, how does it get to the cylinder?" he didn't have a clue.
 
mtuomi said:
I've already met a few A&Ps who obviously didn't learn anything in school or from that experience.
Click to expand...
Are we sure they are stupid? or is it simply that they disagree with you?
 
Tom-D said:
Are we sure they are stupid? or is it simply that they disagree with you?
Click to expand...

Stupid, and unable to diagnose a problem.
"It should work even when that earth is disconnected". That's stupidity, not disagreement.

(note: after 500 bucks of useless stuff, that earth fixed it).
 
Tom-D said:
If they were taught engine management by a A&P in the first place they would not be stuck remote by lead fouling. I am spending last week and this, teaching two new owners and their CFI about leaning, nether had any Idea about How to prime for start, or lean during flight. This seems to be my new full time job.

I asked the CFI this question " when you introduce fuel to the induction system, how does it get to the cylinder?" he didn't have a clue.
Click to expand...

Thankfully I fly behind a simple O-200. Mixture rich, throttle slightly open, push primer in while cranking, starts every time and never fouled a plug.
About the actual operation, well, I've yet to meet a full time A&P who understands how an engine works.
 
rolivi said:
I was surprised as you... but 'some' people charge for the whole appointment rather than by the Hobbs or Tach. So unfortunately I've been charged for watching me fuel, going to the restroom while I fuel, talking to spouse while I fuel. You name it from Hello to Signature. It was like a __________.

Needless to say, I don't call them often, or first.
Click to expand...

I will say, I do expect some things to be done before I shake say "hi" especially for a student with over 7-10hrs.



Tom-D said:
Isn't that teaching use of the equipment, kinda like checking the oil as part of the preflight?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not something I need to keep helping them with every lesson,
 
mtuomi said:
Thankfully I fly behind a simple O-200.
Click to expand...
The answer to my question is the same on all internal combustion engines from the simple 1880, 1 cylinder hit and miss, to the P&W R-4360
 
mtuomi said:
Thankfully I fly behind a simple O-200. Mixture rich, throttle slightly open, push primer in while cranking, starts every time and never fouled a plug.
About the actual operation, well, I've yet to meet a full time A&P who understands how an engine works.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't met many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top