Are flight instruction aircraft considered "For Hire"

[MidlifeFlyer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

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.

LOL. Unfortunately, when it come to certificate actions, it's more like, if it's an operation for hire, it requires at least a commercial pilot certificate and/or a 135 operating certificate.

 

[tgrayson]

LOL. Unfortunately, when it come to certificate actions, it's more like, if it's an operation for hire, it requires at least a commercial pilot certificate and/or a 135 operating certificate.

Well, yes, but most of those involve the definition of "compensation". Still, I was referring to the Part 119 exemptions, such as pipeline patrol, banner towing, crop dusting, etc, which require a Commercial pilot certificate yet do not involve the carriage of passengers or property.