Sightseeing Flights againts FAR's for Flight Schools?

[Anthony]

I still am friends with some folks back where I used to live in Colorado. Normally, I'd just take people up for sightseeing and such, but I live in Kentucky now so flying to CO just to give a sightseeing ride is out of the question. I advised him to contact this place and take a sightseeing flight with a CFI along the Front Range:

http://www.aspenflyingclub.com/

This is the response he got to an email inquiring about a "sightseeing" flight.

So I emailed these guys asking for prices etc for a sightseeing flight & got this reply.

"The FAA has special rules for companies providing sight seeing, and we do not qualify. All we can do is give instructional flights, such as the discovery flights or regular lessons. You can always take a flight with a friend, as long as it is not for hire. You can split expenses, again according to the FAA."

So they can't do a sightseeing flight & probably wont do a 2 person discovery flight.

Is there a special FAA regulation for sightseeing flights even if given by a commercial op and CFI? I smell an insurance issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's the relatively new 91.147, which makes a drug/alcohol testing program mandatory for the formerly exempt 25sm radius sightseeing flights. No flight schools want to add that expense and hassle just for the occasional sightseeing ride.

 

[Anthony]

It's the relatively new 91.147, which makes a drug/alcohol testing program mandatory for the formerly exempt 25sm radius sightseeing flights. No flight schools want to add that expense and hassle just for the occasional sightseeing ride.

Thanks Ron. So if they just call it a "Discovery Flight" for the purpose of seeing if someone is interested in flight training its OK?

 

[skyflyer8]

Thanks Ron. So if they just call it a "Discovery Flight" for the purpose of seeing if someone is interested in flight training its OK?

You can't just *call it* a discovery flight - you'd better be putting the client in the left seat and providing (logged) dual instruction. I suppose it's up to the client how much they actually want to learn. But yeah, Anthony, you've pretty much got it.

Oddly enough I can't recall ever having a request for a sightseeing flight. (Must be nothing to see around here ) But I think it is sad that I can get paid to give dual, which is inherently more dangerous than taking someone for a ride-- yet I would have to jump through hoops to get paid to take someone for a ride... same local area, same plane.

If I were only a commercial pilot I'd pretty much be out of luck unless I really wanted to bother with the drug testing stuff. But since I am an instructor, I would be able to package the flight as training (being sure there is proper documentation). I would want to make sure that person is at least steering us around as we fly. This could get into some gray areas I suppose.

I know schools out there who still advertise sightseeing rides. They happen to have part 135 operations, so they manage to bundle the sightseeing operations in with that.

AOPA has some good resources to help explain the rules. A starting point is here: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html If it weren't for AOPA's lobbying, things could have been worse.

Some flight schools, for example, give sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception. Any operator conducting those kinds of flights must now apply for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol misuse and prevention program. A recent decision from the Office of Management and Budget allows the FAA to start collecting that information as is required under the "National Air Tour Safety Standards" rule. The FAA originally wanted to make all sightseeing operations fall under Part 135 charter rules, but AOPA successfully opposed that.

Anthony, have your friend rephrase his question and explain he would like to go flying with an instructor to log some dual. And then he can bring his camera along.

 

[poadeleted20]

What Kate said, and that's why I don't think cost-sharing would be legal unless the two discoverers swapped seats for half the flight. Of course, if they settled up later outside visual range of the flight school, the FAA would be none the wiser, but if I were running that school, I would not have put that cost-sharing comment in writing in the first place.

 

[tonycondon]

yea our FBO just started getting the CFIs drug tested along with the 135 pilots and mechanics. not a big deal to add them on to what already existed. probably a PIA though if you didnt have to do it before.

 

[poadeleted20]

yea our FBO just started getting the CFIs drug tested along with the 135 pilots and mechanics. not a big deal to add them on to what already existed. probably a PIA though if you didnt have to do it before.

For an FBO with a preexisting 135 op, it's not a big deal to add the CFI's to the program -- they'll be flying charter soon enough anyway. But for a flight school with no 135 op, the extra cost is more than the extra revenue will support.

 

[gprellwitz]

What Kate said, and that's why I don't think cost-sharing would be legal unless the two discoverers swapped seats for half the flight. Of course, if they settled up later outside visual range of the flight school, the FAA would be none the wiser, but if I were running that school, I would not have put that cost-sharing comment in writing in the first place.

Since they added "as long as it is not for hire", I think they were referring to a private pilot taking a friend up for a ride, not the school themselves doing it. I agree, however, that it is a little confusing as worded.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since they added "as long as it is not for hire", I think they were referring to a private pilot taking a friend up for a ride, not the school themselves doing it. I agree, however, that it is a little confusing as worded.

Ah, yes -- I see your point.