Landing Light

[Van_Hoolio]

The FAA differentiates between operating for hire and giving flight instruction for hire for the 100-hour inspection requirement, but do they consider giving flight instruction for hire to be operating for hire as far as the requirement to have an operating landing light for VFR night?

In other words, if I’m flying with students at night, does the landing light need to work?

Mike

[specialK]

Are you getting paid from these "students" or is it just going up and getting instruction? If you are taking money from them or through a company then you bet but if not then i would have to say it doesn't apply???

[meritflyer]

Yes, you would. If you rented the airplane from ABC FBO and the landing light was out, you'd be okay as long as it wasnt req'd equipment from the manufacturer but as soon as a paid instructor is on board it becomes for hire.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

If you rented the airplane from ABC FBO and the landing light was out, you'd be okay as long as it wasn't req'd equipment from the manufacturer but as soon as a paid instructor is on board it becomes for hire.

I don't think so. A rental airplane is being operated for hire whether or not there is a paid instructor on board. And a student's personal airplane isn't being operated for hire whether or not there is a paid instructor on board.

The 100-hour and landing light regulations have very different wordings and different meanings.

[meritflyer]

You may be right. I know on my initial I was asked about this in depth on my initial. If I remember correctly from my discussion with the LAS FSDO, the 100 hour isnt required for rental unless its used for flight instruction or other "for hire" activities. I thought it was the same for the landing light.

Your thoughts?

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

100 hour isnt required for rental unless its used for flight instruction or other "for hire" activities. I thought it was the same for the landing light.

I was under the impression that having the CFI on board meant that the plane wasn't for hire.

If it was rented sans CFI (ie solo or a private pilot in it flying around for fun) it was "for hire".

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

If it was rented sans CFI (ie solo or a private pilot in it flying around for fun) it was "for hire".

A student pilot on a solo flight is prohibited from operating an aircraft for hire, so I guess that solo flight is illegal for student pilots?

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by flyguy

A student pilot on a solo flight is prohibited from operating an aircraft for hire, so I guess that solo flight is illegal for student pilots?

do you try and be difficult or does it just come naturally?

An aircraft that is "for hire" isn't the same as flying "for hire".

Are rental cars the same as taxis? No....

I'm not sure if the FAR's consider the situation differently or not, but I remember hearing it somewhere what I posted earlier.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I was under the impression that having the CFI on board meant that the plane wasn't for hire.

If it was rented sans CFI (ie solo or a private pilot in it flying around for fun) it was "for hire".

If you read the regs it clearly says for flight instruction you'll need the 100 hr. If I rent an aircraft, there is no 100 hr. required as I understand it. As soon as a CFI is on board then, the aircraft is for hire and as per the regs, would require the 100 hr. I cant find it anywhere that says aircraft for rent require the 100 hr. but I can find for instruction.

EDIT: Okay, just got a response back regarding "rental airplanes" and whether they are for hire or not.

Aircraft rental by itself isn't "for hire," and applicants bring the airplane to me for the test. However, the aircraft may have a recurring AD that requires compliance every 100 hours, so although the 100-hour inspection may be unnecessary, AD compliance may be.

Hope this clears things up. So, by this measure the landing light would not be required at night for just a rental aircraft.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Hope this clears things up. So, by this measure the landing light would not be required at night for just a rental aircraft.

Not necessarily. I think you're comparing apples and oranges. As I pointed out before, the words used by the two regulations are different. Different words mean different things.

A 100 hour inspection is not required for a rental, not because the aircraft isn't really for hire, but because renting an airplane not "carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire."

Compare that to the landing light reg that says one is required "If the aircraft is operated for hire."

Do you see the difference in the words? Do you think the mean the exact same thing?

[meritflyer]

Are you saying that the landing light is required for solo rental and a rental with a paid CFI on board?

I dont understand your position.

[MidlifeFlyer]

I don't believer the FAA has ever given it a special definition in the rental context, so we're stuck with English. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "hire" ad "for hire" like this:
==============================
hire
Main Entry: hire
Pronunciation: 'hI(-&)r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hyr; akin to Old Saxon huria hire
1 a : payment for the temporary use of something b : payment for labor or personal services : WAGES
2 a : the act or an instance of hiring b : the state of being hired : EMPLOYMENT
3 British : RENTAL -- often used attributively
4 : one who is hired <starting wage for the new hires>
- for hire also on hire : available for use or service in return for payment
==============================

I would say that an airplane that is available for use for a payment of a fee to an FBO is being operated (by the FBO) for hire and therefore must have an operating landing light for night flight.

But that's the FBO. It gets kind of funky in terms of the renter - after all, the renter is not the one operating the aircraft for hire.

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

do you try and be difficult or does it just come naturally?

An aircraft that is "for hire" isn't the same as flying "for hire".

Are rental cars the same as taxis? No....

I'm not sure if the FAR's consider the situation differently or not, but I remember hearing it somewhere what I posted earlier.

I guess it just comes naturally, as I'm a smartass.

I'm just having trouble with the logic that if an airplane is rented, it is for hire, as long as there is no instructor (who is getting paid) on board. How would having an instructor make it not for hire? The student certainly does not stop paying for the aircraft as soon as the CFI boards.

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

But that's the FBO. It gets kind of funky in terms of the renter - after all, the renter is not the one operating the aircraft for hire.

According to the FSDO that gave an airworthieness presentation to my school a couple years back, operator (even though not defined in the FARs) is defined by the FAA as the person who is operating the aircraft or causes the aircraft to be operated. Operate is basically defined as flying the aircraft. Therefor the PIC is always the operator, and depending on who owns the airplane, there may be aditional operators resonsible for making sure inspections etc. are done, but it always comes back to the PIC. This particular FSDO went on to explain that even if an aircraft is stolen, the thief has the resonsibility to comply with 91.205, 91.213 etc, and make sure all inpections are current. They led me to believe that if they were to happen upon a stolen aircraft, they would be ramp checking it, trying to find ways to bust the thief for flying an unworthy aircraft, as that I'm sure is a much more serious offense than theft.

Now, on the other side of the coin, each FSDO seems to think the FARs are open to their own interpretation, so if you ask 50 FSDOs for clarification, you'll get 50 different answers. However, the FAA has a lot of fun putting the blame squarely on the pilot, reguardless of the regulation in question, so I think it wise to take the most conservative interpretation on any FAR where there is some grey area.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by flyguy

I guess it just comes naturally, as I'm a smartass.

I'm just having trouble with the logic that if an airplane is rented, it is for hire, as long as there is no instructor (who is getting paid) on board.

Who said that? If the airplane is for hire, it makes no difference who is on board.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by flyguy

According to the FSDO that gave an airworthieness presentation to my school a couple years back, operator (even though not defined in the FARs) is defined by the FAA as the person who is operating the aircraft or causes the aircraft to be operated. Operate is basically defined as flying the aircraft.

Unless you misinterpreted what the FSDO said, that's not quite accurate. There are multiple human beings and corporate entities that "operate" an aircraft. The PIC is just one of them.

We can start with the fact that "operate" is very definitely defined in the FAR. Right at the very beginning, in fact, in FAR 1.1:

==============================
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).
==============================

You can see that definitions in use with the "operator" being variously, pilot, owner, renter, FBO, etc in different regulatory contexts.

BTW, "person" includes corporations and other entities. That's not just FAR, although FAR 1.1 also says that:

==============================
Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them.
==============================

[MSNFlyer]

I love all these regulations debates when the simply truth of the matter is why not just fix the landing light so it is working for a night flight??? I know, I know, there are tons of situations where that isn't the most feasible thing to do. I see many people trying to figure out these regulations when it would take less time and energy to just fix the problem (ok, yes, it would take more money but who ever said flying was cheap???).

Ok, rant is complete let's go back to arguing over the definition of the word "is"

[meritflyer]

I will try to prove the landing light isnt required when flown at night in a rented airplane. Its only required for commercial operations.

91.205 (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.

So, we'd maybe assume an rented airplane, flown at night, is considered for hire right? The inspections are the same for "for hire" aircraft correct? For example, an annual, 100 hour, and IFR.

Lets look at 91.409(b) -

.. "No person may operate an aircraft carring any person for hire, and no person may give flight instruction in an aircraft which that person provides inless its has a 100 hour inspection"..

Looking at this tells me that the aircraft being operated for hire (i.e. part 135) is differentiated from flight instruction. Now, if the aircraft is even being used by a student and a CFI (on board), according to three seperate FSDOs in three different states, its not required by the relation to this regulation.

So the 100 hour inspection is required for schools and/or FBOs by this specific regulation for their instruction aircraft. Remove the sentence saying flight instruction aircraft require a 100 hour and now you have nowhere in the regs that say such rental or instruction aircraft need a 100 hour. Now, by the same logic a landing light is not required at night in a rental aircraft unless its required by the required equipment list provided by the manufacturer because its not being operated commercially and its not spelled out directly by any other regulation.

There are no parts that require any inspections and/or additional equipment for rental aircraft.

This is the lecture that three FSDOs gave me today. I hope I transcribed it correctly.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Now, by the same logic a landing light is not required at night in a rental aircraft

I'm not completely sure, but I don't think

"A" says this.
"B" says something different than "A"
Therefore A and B mean the same thing.

is a logical argument.

So, we'd maybe assume an rented airplane, flown at night, is considered for hire right? The inspections are the same for "for hire" aircraft correct? For example, an annual, 100 hour, and IFR.

No. The inspections are not the same for "for hire" aircraft.

For example, an aircraft used "for hire" to fly cargo does not need a 100 hour inspection because 91.409 specifies "carrying =passengers= for hire" and cargo is not a passenger. But carrying cargo does require a landing light at night because the aircraft is being used for "for hire."

[Airdale]

I'm not sure why'd you want to fly without a landing light - period.

I had one blow out with a student once while we were doing night T/O's and Landings, we had to stop because you couldn't judge your height very well. Almost got dangerous!

[jrh]

Originally Posted by Airdale

I'm not sure why'd you want to fly without a landing light - period.

I had one blow out with a student once while we were doing night T/O's and Landings, we had to stop because you couldn't judge your height very well. Almost got dangerous!

I teach all my students to land without a light for this exact reason...fly long enough at night, and sooner or later you're going to need to land without a light for some reason (breakers pop, lights been out, alternators fail, etc.). You just use your peripheral vision with the spacing of the runway lights to judge height. I've become very comfortable with it.

This skill is also very useful to have if you really want to make a trip at night and find the landing light burnt out. This exact situation happened to me while I was building time for the instrument rating. I wanted to fly a night XC with a buddy and we both thought a burnt out light was a lousy reason to cancel a perfectly good night of flying. Since we had done night landings without the light in our training, it was no big deal, and we decided to go anyway. Want to know the hardest part of that trip? Navigating the taxiways at Spokane International without a light. It turned in to me holding a Maglite (sp?) out the window while he taxied, and him doing the same for me while I taxied. Haha...good memories...

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by jrh

I teach all my students to land without a light for this exact reason...f

Me too. It usually "burns out" on short final. (A go-around is a perfectly acceptable response, but they'll still have to land without the light). Even if I go up alone just for currency, at least one of may landings will be without the landing light.

[flyguy]

I'm just having trouble with the logic that if an airplane is rented, it is for hire, as long as there is no instructor (who is getting paid) on board.

Wheelsup did

I was under the impression that having the CFI on board meant that the plane wasn't for hire.

If it was rented sans CFI (ie solo or a private pilot in it flying around for fun) it was "for hire".

As for operating the aircraft, I agree with you, however, guess who's going to give out violations. I don't know the way it is in the rest of the country, but the OAK FSDO just loves busting pilots. If there is anything wrong and there is any way they can pin it on the PIC, they will. With that in mind, I'll jsut do what they say, and complain about them behind their back.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by flyguy

Wheelsup did

I did, and I know realize what I was thinking - it was the 100 hour stuff, not "for hire" stuff. Glad this post came up to jog my memory.

If it's rented out solo, no 100 hour is needed.

When a CFI jumps on board, the 100 hour is needed.

Is that correct?

[Bandit_Driver]

Back when I was instructing my school required the landing light to be working (however the rule was never enforced). We also taught students how to land with the lights off since the students hard landings were constantly blowing the lights.