Renegade Charter?

[lisboa]

Two weeks ago I had a demo flight with a potential student; this morning he calls me back for the first time and asks me if I can fly him to a family funeral three hundred miles away. I explained to him that we do not do charter flights. After an hour of trying to get any flight instructor to take him, he finally made a deal with the owner of my flight school. The owner signed him up as a student and had me train him on a cross country flight. I dropped him off at the airport, he did his business and two hours later we were on our way home. I did the whole flight from the right seat and was instructing the whole time. Did i break the law or was this an instruction flight?

[jrh]

All I can say is, personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with flying in that situation.

It's pretty clear the guy didn't care about doing cross country training, and the training that was happening wasn't especially pertinent to his level of experience, anyway. He didn't call up saying, "Hey, I want to learn what it's like to fly a cross country, and oh, by the way, would you mind if we stop for a few hours so I can attend a funeral?" The primary purpose of the trip was to attend the funeral and training came as a distant second. Was he actually manipulating the controls and caring about what you were teaching?

I heard a good way to test situations like this--if you have to think for a while about why it was legal, chances are, it wasn't.

Of course, shame on your flight school's owner for putting you in that position. You might want to talk to him about the legal implications of those flights. Maybe he's shady, but maybe he's honestly uninformed of the FAA's stance. Just remember, it's your certificate on the line with these sorts of things. The FAA can't do anything to the owner for sitting behind his desk while you fly people across the state.

[Mr_Creepy]

No you didn't do anything wrong.

He's a student, and it was a funeral! Sheesh!

Now if he starts doing it every week ...

Even then I don't care. He is learning how to fly.

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by lisboa

Two weeks ago I had a demo flight with a potential student; this morning he calls me back for the first time and asks me if I can fly him to a family funeral three hundred miles away. I explained to him that we do not do charter flights. After an hour of trying to get any flight instructor to take him, he finally made a deal with the owner of my flight school. The owner signed him up as a student and had me train him on a cross country flight. I dropped him off at the airport, he did his business and two hours later we were on our way home. I did the whole flight from the right seat and was instructing the whole time. Did i break the law or was this an instruction flight?

You did indeed break a number of FAA regulations - keep quiet about it and nobody will ever know - happens all the time.

Here's a STELLAR way to tell if it's a training flight. Change the destination - if you change the destination and everybody is still happy, well it's training, but if you cannot change the destination without making somebody unhappy, it's carriage of people for compensation or hire.

[zerouniform]

Originally Posted by lisboa

Two weeks ago I had a demo flight with a potential student; this morning he calls me back for the first time and asks me if I can fly him to a family funeral three hundred miles away. I explained to him that we do not do charter flights. After an hour of trying to get any flight instructor to take him, he finally made a deal with the owner of my flight school. The owner signed him up as a student and had me train him on a cross country flight. I dropped him off at the airport, he did his business and two hours later we were on our way home. I did the whole flight from the right seat and was instructing the whole time. Did i break the law or was this an instruction flight?

Put yourself in the situation of going for that $100 hamburger once a week with your student. "I want to go to this airport for food." "Plan it."

Are you breaking a law then, or still instructing?

[Mr_Creepy]

You did indeed break a number of FAA regulations

I challenge you to name even one.

[Chris_Ford]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

I challenge you to name even one.

91.17.
91.1
135.403
91.123
91.45
61.145(e)(iii)

[Mr_Creepy]

Chris - LOL you are funny.

(note to bystanders: none of those apply and many of those don't exist )

[MSNFlyer]

I like the 91.17 reference to the Drugs and Alcohol section

While this first seemed to be a 135 operation to me I simply cannot find anything or any reason why it would be since the guy was setup as a student and this is a training flight. As long as it is logged as dual given and dual received why wouldn't it be a 91 flight?

I have students who would be unhappy if I changed their x-country destination on them but that certainly doesn't make it a 135 flight. As long as we don't carry something for business or do any business (and I am just assuming neither passenger was being paid to go to the funeral) it just seems like 91 training flight to me with long stopover.

Steve

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by MSNFlyer

I
While this first seemed to be a 135 operation to me I simply cannot find anything or any reason why it would be since the guy was setup as a student and this is a training flight. As long as it is logged as dual given and dual received why wouldn't it be a 91 flight?

Your first impression was the right one.

What the initial post describes was a Part 135 flight transporting a person for hire dressed up to look like a instructional flight. The poster's story admits that. (I want to watch the explanation of how the first full lesson with a new student was a long cross country with a big stop-over. That should be fun.) I don't think the FAA would have even a little bit of sweat showing that the "instruction" was a sham if it chose to do a certificate bust. Probably won't unless word gets out that this flight school is doing it regularly.

There's a great story about two CFIs who had a great idea. They were building time, so they gave each other flight instruction on every flight. Logged it all as dual and everything. So they could "legitimately' both log PIC for the flights. heck, if you look at words on the paper, it's perfect, isn't it?

Guess what happened ?

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

I challenge you to name even one.

The entire set of 135.

It's transportation for compensation. The fact that it's in the guise of training is just a cover - and if forced to review it that's what the FAA would find.

Read the legal precedents on this - if there is ANY hint of transportation then the FAA has held it to be transportation requiring a certificate - the fact that it's 99% training and 1% transportation isn't good enough - it has to be 100% training.

Sorry - I've looked at this HARD - because I worked for a boss who wanted us to do all kinds of 134.5 work. Our FSDO agreed, it goes on ALL the time, but it's not legal.

[DE727UPS]

"Did i break the law or was this an instruction flight?"

I guess that would really be up to a FSDO inspector. You could call one up and ask, I guess. And even then, different inspectors interpret things differently.

Personally, I'd have had no problem doing what you did. And I'd do it again if the student seems to really wants to learn and get his license. If it became clear that the student is just trying to use the system and has no interest in becoming a pilot, I'd ask to not fly with them anymore.

I think the fact that you did a discovery flight with the guy shows he has some interest in flying.

[Mr_Creepy]

None of you who say this is illegal have any concept of what you are talking about.

Sorry to be harsh, but I have been in 135 operations since 1991, and I have worked closely with the FAA in trying to prove what is illegal and what isn't. I was in a 134.9 operation before that as well.

It's a huge gray area.

What he did was within the letter of the rules.

What you are all saying is that it is not in the spirit of the rules.

Well you may have a point, but until they can enforce "not being in the spirit of the rules" then he has nothing to worry about it.

FSDO inspectors have much bigger fish to fry than people who are going to family emergencies on a CFI flight.

And as for that remark about CFI's, I can tell you what happened. I have about 200 hrs in my logbook of PIC time developed exactly that way and in 16 years as a professional aviator nobody ever said a word.

Anybody who has gotten in trouble with our FSDO for an illegal charter has done one or more of the following:

1) Holding out to the public as a charter
2) Repeatedly doing flights in the gray area even after being warned
3) Trying to beat the system after being warned not to.
4) Stolen customers from a legitimate charter operation that filed a complaint about it
5) Had an accident which drew attention to them
6) Messed with a lawyer on the rampage
7) Acted like a complete a**hole in front of the FAA

[OldTownPilot]

I have to agree with Don on this one. All it is is a X-C to a strategic destination. I did my Student X-Cs to Sugarloaf Regional (next to a ski resort) to do some skiing and fly back. Would I have been pissed if I did not get there? Heck yea, as they were good skiing days. 135, I think not. If the guy was out of the blue calling, then it is 135, but he had already gone to the FBO as a student.

[Mr_Creepy]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

I have to agree with Don on this one. All it is is a X-C to a strategic destination. I did my Student X-Cs to Sugarloaf Regional (next to a ski resort) to do some skiing and fly back. Would I have been pissed if I did not get there? Heck yea, as they were good skiing days. 135, I think not. If the guy was out of the blue calling, then it is 135, but he had already gone to the FBO as a student.

Think of it this way. If the guy owned the plane and hired a CFI to fly with him to a location, then of course it's part 91!

Since he rented the plane and hired the instructor, he is legally the "owner of the plane" for the duration of the flight.

One gray area that was finally stopped here at ORL was the practice of renting someone a plane from one company and renting them pilots from another. But it was stopped because it was being advertised as aircraft charter.

[MSNFlyer]

If I had a student who on their second flight wanted to go to someplace 50NM away I would certainly take them and feel completely justified in doing so. Aviation isn't for everyone, which is why the Discover flight is so cool. You can get up in an airplane, fly the thing and see if it is something you want to do before plunking down a heap of cash. This student had done that. So, there is nothing stopping him from continuing his learning experience. As far as I am aware there is no set syllabus for flight training that says students cannot do x-country flights before they solo, on their second flight, or whenever. That is the beauty of being a part 61 school, you go at your own pace. Although I have never done and it and usually wouldn't go on a x-country on the second lesson, if the student specifically asked to do it I would. It could easily be defended. A student could certainly want to experience other areas of aviation (x-country flying) before jumping in all the way.

Last week I took one of my students up in a 172. It was the first time he had flown one and the only reason we went up in it was to take his two friends along. Was this a 135 operation? Is it so different from the funeral situation?

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

None of you who say this is illegal have any concept of what you are talking about.

of course you do...

And as for that remark about CFI's, I can tell you what happened. I have about 200 hrs in my logbook of PIC time developed exactly that way and in 16 years as a professional aviator nobody ever said a word.

Buzz! Wrong answer.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF

Their certificates were revoked.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Buzz! Wrong answer.

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4008.PDF

Their certificates were revoked.

There's quite a lot more going on in that case than a simple swapping of flight instruction. These guys appear to have completely failed to record the time as flight instruction until after the fact (which suggests they never really intended it to be flight instruction); one of them appears to have been claiming to have given instrument instruction in a twin when he didn't have an MEI; and it also appears that they had padded their flight time.

[Chris_Ford]

Can I claim credit for the "spirit of the reg" argument?

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

FSDO inspectors have much bigger fish to fry than people who are going to family emergencies on a CFI flight.

I'm afraid I'm confused by your argument.

Are you arguing that it is legal? If so your list of points about why the FSDO won't get involved aren't helping your case, do you have anything else?

Or are you arguing that it's illegal but nobody will do anything about it? In which case we agree. But it's still illegal.

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by MSNFlyer

Last week I took one of my students up in a 172. It was the first time he had flown one and the only reason we went up in it was to take his two friends along. Was this a 135 operation? Is it so different from the funeral situation?

Transportation requires that you go from place to place. Sightseeing specifically has the 119 exception. You, of course, were under the management of a federally approved drug progam I'm sure. Otherwise you conducted a sightseeing flight that was not in accordance with the regulations and my advice to you is to stop.

If you take a student pilot from place to place 100% for the purpose of training, that's flight instruction, that's got the 119 exemption. If you take them from place to place, 99% for flight instruction and 1% so they can attend the funeral of a close friend, that's transportation and requires a Part 135 certificate.

AGAIN - the fact that it goes on ALL the time, and as pointed out by another poster is RARELY enforced, doesn't make it legal. It's still illegal and if anything else about the flight is brought to the attention of the FAA they'll yank your ticket for conducting an illegal charter operation as quick as they can.

[Mr_Creepy]

Originally Posted by CFIse

I'm afraid I'm confused by your argument.

Are you arguing that it is legal? If so your list of points about why the FSDO won't get involved aren't helping your case, do you have anything else?

Or are you arguing that it's illegal but nobody will do anything about it? In which case we agree. But it's still illegal.

It is legal! You haven't quoted me one reg that says it isn't.

All you've done is to argue very poorly "all of part 135".

I'd love to have you in one of my ground schools sometime. You could teach us all how we're wrong and you're right!

[MSNFlyer]

I have to stick with Mr. Creepy here. I still don't see why it is illegal for me to have a student in the left seat, me in the right seat and the student's friend in the back seat. If I am wrong then I am wrong but I would love to read the reg. I certainly don't want to be in violation.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

It is legal! You haven't quoted me one reg that says it isn't.

You're right, there isn't a reg. No argument there. But I still wouldn't do it.

The way I see it, it boils down to what can be considered "legitimate" instruction. That's something that isn't strictly spelled out in the regs, and that's why we get into these nebulous arguments over the "spirit" of the regs.

The FAA tries to protect the general public through regulation, and part of that regulation includes what procedures need to be followed to run an air taxi operation. The paperwork, checkrides, flight time requirements, etc. for 135 operations are designed to protect the general public.

By calling something like this an instructional flight, you're throwing all of that out the window. Any old guy with a CFI ticket can hop in and go. No training, no oversight, no nothing. And when I say "calling" it an instructional flight, I mean, there was no legitimate instruction going on, but it was being logged as dual. Just because the CFI is going through the motions of instructing doesn't mean it's instruction. That guy was not sitting in the plane because he wanted to learn about cross countries--he was sitting there because he wanted to get to a funeral.

You talk about CFIs doing stuff like this all the time, which I know happens, but that doesn't make it legal. This supposed "loophole" in the regs of providing instruction isn't a loophole at all. It's just a way for people to justify something they already know is shady.

Would you really want to tell an FAA inspector that you go on flights like this? I wouldn't. Maybe some inspectors would be fine with it, but others would try to string you up for it. I don't think it's worth the gamble.

I also have a question about that 200 hours of PIC time you got through giving unnecessary instruction. You say nobody has ever questioned it. That's fine, I believe you....but how many people have seen it, especially government types? The FAA has never seen my logbook, ever. Only a few designated examiners, and all they care about is making sure I have the minimum experience to take a checkride. I could put whatever I want in there. I'm an active instructor...I could forge a couple hundred hours of dual given, easily. I wouldn't even have to fly for it. I could just make up students and write them in. I doubt anybody would notice, especially later in my career. If nobody questions it, does that make it legal?

[jrh]

Originally Posted by MSNFlyer

I still don't see why it is illegal for me to have a student in the left seat, me in the right seat and the student's friend in the back seat.

There's nothing illegal about that at all. I've done it many times myself.

But that's not the issue at hand. The issue is doing everything like a charter flight, but because a CFI is on board, calling it an instructional flight. If it looks like a charter flight, smells like a charter flight, and acts like a charter flight, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still a charter flight.