Are flight instruction aircraft considered "For Hire"

S

SierraPilot123

Well-Known Member
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.
 
SierraPilot123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
SierraPilot123 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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".
 
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.
 
subpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
meritflyer said:
I can see your in logic however, why would a rental aircraft not be ""for hire" with the same logic?
Click to expand...

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.
 
meritflyer said:
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?
Click to expand...
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".
 
tgrayson said:
Because the FAA's position is that "for hire" means providing plane and pilot.
Click to expand...

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.
 
subpilot said:
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".
Click to expand...

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".
 
meritflyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have the Summit CD. Search the legal interpretations for "for hire".
 
taildragger173 said:
If the student provides the airplane, it is not for hire. If the student is provided an airplane then it is for hire.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top