Are flight instruction aircraft considered "For Hire"

[SierraPilot123]

With regards to needing a landing light at night per the FARs and the need for a life raft when more than power off gliding distance over water?

This is in regards to a large part 141 flight academy.

There is a debate wheter these aircraft are "for hire" or the aircraft are not and just he CFI is for hire.

Thank you for your response.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by SierraPilot123

With regards to needing a landing light at night per the FARs and the need for a life raft when more than power off gliding distance over water?

This is in regards to a large part 141 flight academy.

There is a debate wheter these aircraft are "for hire" or the aircraft are not and just he CFI is for hire.

Thank you for your response.

This has been a long subject of debate. According to the Scottsdale FSDO in Scottsdale, Arizona, 91.409((b) which discusses 100 hour inspection needs. It clearly states no person may give flight instruction without a 100 hour inspection hence, they revert this to meaning the aircraft is for hire but only if a CFI is on board.

If the aircraft is a rental, they contend it is not "for hire".

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by SierraPilot123

With regards to needing a landing light at night per the FARs and the need for a life raft when more than power off gliding distance over water?

This is in regards to a large part 141 flight academy.

There is a debate wheter these aircraft are "for hire" or the aircraft are not and just he CFI is for hire.

Thank you for your response.

UND always went by the "for hire" rule for landing lights (IIRC landings lights are only required at night on aircraft used for hire). Regardless if a CFI was on board or not.

That doesn't make it right, just an "observation".

[subpilot]

I am sort of on the fence but the way I interpret the rules "for hire" is more inline with 135 ops and flight instruction does not put the airplane into the "for hire" category.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by subpilot

I am sort of on the fence but the way I interpret the rules "for hire" is more inline with 135 ops and flight instruction does not put the airplane into the "for hire" category.

What kind of aircraft need 100 hour inspections according to FAR 91.409(b)?

Flight school planes also need 100 hour inspections.

See the trend?

[SmitteyB]

I feel that is an airplane is making money for profit- it is considered "for hire".

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by SmitteyB

I feel that is an airplane is making money for profit- it is considered "for hire".

What happens if it's losing money.
yak yak yak.

[taildragger173]

If the student provides the airplane, it is not for hire. If the student is provided an airplane then it is for hire.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by taildragger173

If the student provides the airplane, it is not for hire. If the student is provided an airplane then it is for hire.

I can see your in logic however, why would a rental aircraft not be ""for hire" with the same logic?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I can see your in logic however, why would a rental aircraft not be ""for hire" with the same logic?

Because the FAA's position is that "for hire" means providing plane and pilot.

Correction: Actually, that definition has more to do with defining when air transportation has occurred. "For hire" has consistently meant in letters of interpretation that either the pilot has received compensation or the passengers have compensated *someone* for the flight. Neither happens in a pure rental situation.

[subpilot]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

What kind of aircraft need 100 hour inspections according to FAR 91.409(b)?

Flight school planes also need 100 hour inspections.

See the trend?

Flight school planes require a 100 hr inspection because the regs say that a 100hr inspection is required on all planes that are "for hire" and all planes that are provided for flight instruction.

I believe that most flight school do 100hr inspections because of the later part of the reg and not because of the "for hire" part of the reg. Then people see flight schools doing 100hr inspections and assume that "they do those inspections because the planes are for hire".

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Because the FAA's position is that "for hire" means providing plane and pilot.

Reference? I have yet to find one other than the local FSDO's word. This logic could be tied into the landing light required argument.

Some say its required for rentals, some say its not. Even different FSDO's have different opinions on this one.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by subpilot

I believe that most flight school do 100hr inspections because of the later part of the reg and not because of the "for hire" part of the reg. Then people see flight schools doing 100hr inspections and assume that "they do those inspections because the planes are for hire".

Oh, I agree completely. I wasnt thinking that a flight school needed a 100 hour because it is "for hire" although certain FSDOs will have you tie those two regs together to come out with the conclusion an airplane with CFI in it is "for hire".

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Reference? I have yet to find one other than the local FSDO's word. This logic could be tied into the landing light required argument.

Some say its required for rentals, some say its not. Even different FSDO's have different opinions on this one.

You have the Summit CD. Search the legal interpretations for "for hire".

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

You have the Summit CD. Search the legal interpretations for "for hire".

Why you gonna make me work like that.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Why you gonna make me work like that.

I made a correction to my post above.

[BuickCFI]

Originally Posted by taildragger173

If the student provides the airplane, it is not for hire. If the student is provided an airplane then it is for hire.

so then my student with his own airplane won't need to do a 100hr inspection? not that he will go over the 100hr mark before getting his private

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by BuickCFI

so then my student with his own airplane won't need to do a 100hr inspection? not that he will go over the 100hr mark before getting his private

Correct.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Reference? I have yet to find one other than the local FSDO's word. This logic could be tied into the landing light required argument.

Some say its required for rentals, some say its not. Even different FSDO's have different opinions on this one.

A 100-hour is not required for a rental airplane. That's not because a rental isn't a hire. Of course it it. A 100 hour is not required for a rental airplane because the applicable regulation says:

==============================
no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours
==============================

The 100 hour applies when there is flight instruction for hire and when there are paying passengers on board. A pure aircraft rental is neither. It has nothing to do with whether a rental is "for hire"

But the landing light regulation is a little different. It says

==============================
If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light.
==============================

So already, the landing light requirement is broader that the 100-hour one since it (at least) applies to cargo operations in addition to passenger-carrying ones

Rental qualifies? I'm really not sure. The FAR meaning of operate includes "authorizing use" and if you are renting aircraft, you are definitely authorizing the use of an aircraft and receiving a fee for it. Sure sounds like operating an aircraft for hire.

But I know that when we commonly think of the phrase for hire, we do think of a person - in the sense that at taxi is "for hire" and a "U-Haul" rental is not.

But, tgrayson, I've searched the Summit CD on this and have not been able to locate an FAA Legal opinion that says one way or another whether "for hire" necessarily contemplates a pilot being included outside of the context of carrying passengers or cargo.

[meritflyer]

June 21, 1984
Mr. E. C. Crooks

Dear Mr. Crooks:

This in response to your letter dated March 26, 1984. You refer to the following portion of Section 61.129(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): In addition, the applicant must hold an instrument rating (airplane), or the commercial pilot certificate that In Issued to endorsed with a limitation prohibiting the carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross country flights of more than 50 nautical miles, or at night.

You ask if "for hire" in this section means the pilot being paid or if it means the passengers paying for the flight. "For hire" refers to both flights in which the pilot is acting as pilot for compensation or hire, and flights on which the pilot is acting as pilot of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation of hire. This includes flights where the pilot is being paid to fly, and flights where the passengers pay for the flight, even if the pilot is not paid.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

June 21, 1984
Mr. E. C. Crooks

Dear Mr. Crooks:

This in response to your letter dated March 26, 1984. You refer to the following portion of Section 61.129(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): In addition, the applicant must hold an instrument rating (airplane), or the commercial pilot certificate that In Issued to endorsed with a limitation prohibiting the carriage of passengers for hire in airplanes on cross country flights of more than 50 nautical miles, or at night.

You ask if "for hire" in this section means the pilot being paid or if it means the passengers paying for the flight. "For hire" refers to both flights in which the pilot is acting as pilot for compensation or hire, and flights on which the pilot is acting as pilot of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation of hire. This includes flights where the pilot is being paid to fly, and flights where the passengers pay for the flight, even if the pilot is not paid.

I'm not sure how that helps answer the questions in this thread. It's an interpretation of "for hire" in the context of the phrase "the carriage of passengers for hire."

If a pilot receives compensation for a flight carrying passengers, he's carrying passengers for hire, whether or not the passengers paid anything. If the passengers pay for the flight, the pilot is carrying passengers for hire whether or not the pilot receives anything.

Actually, some of the regs have wording that specifically talks about both situations.

[DE727UPS]

"no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides..."

The way I see, you can instruct to your hearts content in aircraft without 100 hour inspections as long as YOU don't provide the aircraft. If the student provides it, you don't need to have a 100 hour done.

Now, if your working as a CFI at a flight school, I believe the CFI is considered to be "providing" the aircraft, and so you must meet the 100 hour rule.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

I'm not sure how that helps answer the questions in this thread. It's an interpretation of "for hire" in the context of the phrase "the carriage of passengers for hire."

That's the context, but the definition is of the "for hire" part--they place no limits on its applicability:

"For hire" refers to both flights in which the pilot is acting as pilot for compensation or hire, and flights on which the pilot is acting as pilot of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation of hire.

Those are two independent criteria. Whether the aircraft is rented or not plays no role in the definition of "for hire" and none of the vast number of LOI's on this topic has suggested that it did, at least that I've seen. Now, you can argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I do think that if this had been a reasonable interpretation of the regulation, it would have shown up in at least one of the interpretations.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

That's the context, but the definition is of the "for hire" part--they place no limits on its applicability:

"For hire" refers to both flights in which the pilot is acting as pilot for compensation or hire, and flights on which the pilot is acting as pilot of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation of hire.

Those are two independent criteria. Whether the aircraft is rented or not plays no role in the definition of "for hire" and none of the vast number of LOI's on this topic has suggested that it did, at least that I've seen. Now, you can argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I do think that if this had been a reasonable interpretation of the regulation, it would have shown up in at least one of the interpretations.

I haven't seen the issues show up either way, so I don't know. I know that most of the regulations regarding "for hire" talk specifically in terms of carriage of passengers for hire or carriage of property for hire and that's the context that the interpretations have always been in.

I think you are probably right in the result, but I'm not willing to say without qualification that the phrases "aircraft for hire" and "aircraft carrying passengers or property for hire" mean the exact same thing.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

I think you are probably right in the result, but I'm not willing to say without qualification that the phrases "aircraft for hire" and "aircraft carrying passengers or property for hire" mean the exact same thing.

Oh, I don't think they do. "aircraft carrying passengers or property for hire" is a subset of "for hire" operations.

One way to look at it is that anything that requires a Commercial pilot certificate is a "for hire" operation.