compensation for hire.

[escapepilot]

Just be very careful on both possibilites. Just because we think that you'd be ok, doesn't mean the FAA sees it the same. I have an aquaintence that is FAA and I've learned that when it comes to the regs, its often more of "if the regs don't expressly allow it, then its not allowed" rather than its not prohibited then its allowed.

 

[minitour]

You are right, I could give my student flight training, he is an instrument student right now. But the owners insurance will not allow it to be used for flight training. At least that is how I understand it.

Insurance may not allow it, but the regs don't care about insurance. Has the plane had a 100 hour inspection? ...Since you'd be providing the plane for instruction, it's now "for hire" isn't it?

Better arrangement would be for the student to "borrow" the plane from the owner for the cost of gas (paid directly to owner) or whatever arrangements they make.

Then, the student could contact you and hire you as a pilot to fly HIS plane (even if it's only his for the day). Maybe a "dry lease" agreement between the student and owner if this is going to be a common thing.

Even better...sit home and have a cold one.

-mini

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Insurance may not allow it, but the regs don't care about insurance. Has the plane had a 100 hour inspection? ...Since you'd be providing the plane for instruction, it's now "for hire" isn't it?

A private aircraft doesn't require a 100 hour inspection. If the instructor is providing the aircraft and instruction, or a company is providing the aircraft and instruction, it is required. If Joe Blow wants to get his instrument rating in his 172, it doesn't need a 100 hour.

If Student A is borrowing an aircraft from whoever, it wouldn't need a 100 hour.

91.409

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, 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 of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. The 100-hour limitation may be exceeded by not more than 10 hours while en route to reach a place where the inspection can be done. The excess time used to reach a place where the inspection can be done must be included in computing the next 100 hours of time in service.

 

[escapepilot]

A private aircraft doesn't require a 100 hour inspection. If the instructor is providing the aircraft and instruction, or a company is providing the aircraft and instruction, it is required. If Joe Blow wants to get his instrument rating in his 172, it doesn't need a 100 hour.

If Student A is borrowing an aircraft from whoever, it wouldn't need a 100 hour.

91.409

But if the owner is making money on the deal, then its considered rental and does require the 100 hr. The instructor COULD be considered the operator since he would be acting PIC.

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

But if the owner is making money on the deal, then its considered rental and does require the 100 hr. The instructor COULD be considered the operator since he would be acting PIC.

If the instructor is not the one providing the aircraft, it doesn't matter if the owner is making money. Rental is not the same as "for hire". It won't need a 100 Hour.
From a 1984 FAA Chief Counsel opinion:
==============================
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and does not provide the pilot, that aircraft is not required by Section 91.169(b)* of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour inspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only when the aircraft is carrying a person for hire, or when a person is providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.
==============================
* - the number of the rule changed; the substance has not

 

[minitour]

If the instructor is not the one providing the aircraft,...

That's where I went wrong. I missed...

(I fixed my original post)

I was still going by the "pay me for the fuel..." thing.

If the instructor/pilot is only being paid for his or her pilot/instructor services, you should be good to go. ...unless the nuns are paying for the flight, which they aren't.

-mini