flight instructing

[pilot602]

Isn't there an exception where someone with an ATP can teach people as long as it's the same category, class, and type if needed?

Yeah, yeah, shut up, Tony. Who gets an ATP in a single engine Cessna?

ATPs can only instruct company pilots in company aircraft for the purpose of company needs under parts 135 or 121.

I.E. If I want to be a line check airman at my current employer all I would need is an ATP. When I gave instruction it would be underthose priviliges and not my CFI certificates.

So an ATP can not go down to a flight school with nothing BUT an ATP and instruct privates, commercials, etc.

 

[jrh]

As stated in your hypothetical, your purpose is strictly to build time and have someone pay part of it. You've already seen the sights form the air. You coldn't care les about sightseeing. Your friend's purpose is sightseeing.

Ok, I can see what you're saying, but here's what I'm getting at: if you want to build time for some reason, why not do it in the most cheap, fun way possible? In the case of sightseeing, I think a lot of pilots would go out and fly just for the sake of flying more if it were cheaper. I know I would. Taking a passenger can make it cheaper. You are building time, but you're also simply enjoying flying, which is what I'd say the purpose of the flight is.

If a pilot says to themself, "I have $XXX to spend on flying, how far can I make it go?" they can get the most bang for their buck by splitting costs.

I'm not talking about running a tour business or air taxi service at a loss. In the cases you've cited, they all seem to focus on marketing oneself as a commercial pilot without the privileges to do so. It's as though they're set up as strictly a way to build a bunch of time without having a job. I'm talking about making the flying you're already doing go as cheaply as possible.

It's a commonly accepted practice for two pilots to fly together, one under the hood and one as safety pilot, then they split the cost. That is a cheap way to build time. How is it different to split costs with a passenger versus another pilot? Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

It's a commonly accepted practice for two pilots to fly together, one under the hood and one as safety pilot, then they split the cost. That is a cheap way to build time. How is it different to split costs with a passenger versus another pilot? Do you see what I'm saying?

I do. Definitely.

Here's the problem. There is a (IMO) =necessary= grey area between what is allowed and what is not allowed. Necessary because how creative we can be in trying to get around the rules.

Ultimately I think the =real= rule the FAA uses is the "duck" rule: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." Or, if you prefer, the legal test for whether something is obscene: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

In the 2-pilot scenarios, you can stand on your head and twist your neck around like in the Exorcist, but it's still tough to make it look even remotely like a commercial flight. The 2-pilot scenarios don't look or sound or act anything like the "duck" of carrying passengers for hire. It barely even looks like carrying passengers to begin with.

But whenever a non-pilot comes on board, the dynamic changes. Keep in mind that the general rule is that a private pilot cannot receive =any= compensation for flying. the shared cost exception is just that- an exception, and one that is very limited. Cross the line in a situation that gives the FAA a reason to look at it and =bam=.

That doesn't mean to walk in fear of the FAA. There are some really stupid scenarios I've seen in these discussions, like whether you can fly your sister to her best friend's wedding if you're not going yourself and have her share the expenses (or even pay all of them). Yeah sure, maybe it's =technically= outside of the limits of the exception, but really. I can't imagine worrying about that one. The other good ones are those where the passenger buys lunch. Puh-leeze!

None of my posts are meant to tell anyone what they should do. They are only meant to try to explain what I think the rules are and the way I think the FAA approaches the question. After that, for things that are in that grey area, it's up to you to make your own decision about where it falls and what level of risk of being wrong you are willing to accept.

 

[Grabo172]

I don't think it is. As stated in your hypothetical, your purpose is strictly to build time and have someone pay part of it. You've already seen the sights form the air. You coldn't care les about sightseeing. Your friend's purpose is sightseeing.

I sight see every time I'm in the air no matter who's paying!:nana2:

I think this thread started off about flight instruction by a non CFI. Here's my take on that...

If you take a friend up for a flight and let them have the Yoke and show them how to fly a bit, that's great. Teach them how to hold an altitude, make turns climbs and descents... Because, if that friend of yours enjoys it and starts to get a hang of it, they will probably end up taking lessons.

Now, can you call that "Flight Instruction"... no. Can you call that getting someone hooked on flying... YES!

That's the best think any private pilot can do for the industry... get people involved and share the fun and joy of flight. That makes the industry grow and I would challenge every pilot on this board to take a friend up and show them a little about the airplane and get them to see the greatness of aviation!

 

[derg]

ERAU had a flight training manager with a single-engine ATP.

For what purpose, I don't know.

 

[jrh]

There is a (IMO) =necessary= grey area between what is allowed and what is not allowed. Necessary because how creative we can be in trying to get around the rules.

Ultimately I think the =real= rule the FAA uses is the "duck" rule: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." Or, if you prefer, the legal test for whether something is obscene: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

That makes complete sense now. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Who gets an ATP in a single engine Cessna?

I've given training to a couple of people for their Single-Engine ATP. It doesn't do much, but it doesn't hurt!

I know I'm planning on doing my ATP in a Skyhawk first, and then adding the ATP-Multi after the fact. If the initial's going to be harder, why not do it in something I'm intimately familiar with?

 

[shooter13]

teaching

I am currently teaching my wife how to turn, climb, descend, manage airspeed. demonstrating stalls but I am nto plannign on letter her perform them. i just want her to see how the airplane feels when it is about to stall. Get used to the horn blaring and learn that when she hears that horn, it is time to lower the nose. I am also showing her how to follow along a sectional and know where the closest airport is/how to use the gps and how to change frequecies on the radio to 121.5. My plan is once she is comfortable with those things, she will fly with a CFI and learn to land. I don't want her to be ready to solo. I just want her to be able to find an airport, declare an emergency and have a resonably good chance of getting the airplane on the ground (even bent) without killing her self should something happen to me while I am flying her somewhere.