Legality of renting out a single seat experimental airplane.

[WacoFan]

Why rent one and take on the legal ambiguity?

Perhaps get a single seat Pitts and form an LLC or something. Then sell "ownership shares" in this machine. Think Fractional ownership. Structure the payments as low or high as you wish based upon costs, etc. Perhaps that is a work-around? Maybe not.

 

[Inverted]

When you rent it out by the hour, it is for hire. Does it need 100hr inspections? That answers your question.

If you have a large number of owners (such a a club), it would be okay. The club could even pay you to do MX/scheduling.

Completely false. When an aircraft is rented, that is not a for hire operation. A person can't hire an airplane itself for hire. A for hire operation would be using the aircraft, and hiring a pilot to fly you somewhere. Flight instruction is not for hire which is why you don't need a third class medical.

 

[escapepilot]

The single seat may change this answer, but what I understand from an FAA inspector was that if I wanted to provide any type of instruction in an experimental, there were only three ways to do so. 1) customer provide the experimental and I only charge for instruction. 2) get a LOA from the FSDO allowing transition training in a particular experimental (not likely, but has worked for an RV guy). Or 3) I provide the experimental at no cost and only charge for the instruction. I know your plan is for a single seat and therefore doesn't provide instruction, but the impression I got was that if anyone is trying to make money on an experimental, then if is considered commercial operation and not allowed.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Completely false. When an aircraft is rented, that is not a for hire operation. A person can't hire an airplane itself for hire. A for hire operation would be using the aircraft, and hiring a pilot to fly you somewhere. Flight instruction is not for hire which is why you don't need a third class medical.

Pure rentals don't require a 100 hour inspection, but I could have been more clear.

If you end up needing 100 hour inspections, it is likely because it is for hire.

It is pretty rare to find any rental that will not involve some sort of checkout, insurance will likely drive that.

 

[Inverted]

A great place to find out more info on the legality and logistics of single seat experimental aircraft rental might be the CAF. I personally know of 1 flying club that has a P-51 that my buddy is in. These places do exist.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

A great place to find out more info on the legality and logistics of single seat experimental aircraft rental might be the CAF. I personally know of 1 flying club that has a P-51 that my buddy is in. These places do exist.

I've mentioned before that my club has had experimentals. Even then, there were lots of things we could not use them for.

 

[ryan1234]

A great place to find out more info on the legality and logistics of single seat experimental aircraft rental might be the CAF. I personally know of 1 flying club that has a P-51 that my buddy is in. These places do exist.

Most Mustangs are not experimental...

I can't recall off the top of my head if red nose and the others are all Limited though. CAF is closer to fractional ownership, I think, than not right? Other warbird rides and "rentals" are all tied to museums or are considered "flight training" in some capacity. The information is dated and may not be accurate, but I seem to recall some discussion with Collings Foundation about needing to at least have dual controls in an aircraft like a Mustang to be legal to give rides on (as flight instruction). Granted, they certainly weren't going to send up someone in a Mustang with an over the wing, Pawnee style check out.

When I got my L-39 experimental aircraft authorization, I didn't actually pay for it per se.... so I don't really know how it the official process works.

 

[rframe]

3) I provide the experimental at no cost and only charge for the instruction

I'm quite surprised to hear an FAA inspector would suggest this. It's a wide open loop hole if they permitted it: What prevents someone from charging $150/hour for their instruction rate, but the "airplane is free".

Also, the requirement for 100 hour inspections on aircraft the instructor provides (14 CFR 91.409(b)) makes no mention of whether the instruction is for hire. If I felt really generous and wanted to give away free training to high school kids at no charge, since I'm providing the airplane, I still need to do a 100 hour.

Also, people often think "for hire" requires 100 hour, it doesn't... it's just when carrying passengers for hire or when the instructor provides the aircraft. Freight, Ag, Towing, etc are not passengers.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Also, people often think "for hire" requires 100 hour, it doesn't... it's just when carrying passengers for hire or when the instructor provides the aircraft. Freight, Ag, Towing, etc are not passengers.

Restricted category aircraft in use for towing are typically operating under so many FAA waivers that the no longer bear any resemblance to the FARs.

 

[escapepilot]

I'm quite surprised to hear an FAA inspector would suggest this. It's a wide open loop hole if they permitted it: What prevents someone from charging $150/hour for their instruction rate, but the "airplane is free".

He did qualify that statement with 'you couldn't charge more than you would in any other aircraft'. The FAA could easily look at rates for other instructors in the area to get a good average. A little high would be ok, but if the avg was $40/hr I think $200/hr would cause the FAA to pay a visit.

 

[rframe]

He did qualify that statement with 'you couldn't charge more than you would in any other aircraft'. The FAA could easily look at rates for other instructors in the area to get a good average. A little high would be ok, but if the avg was $40/hr I think $200/hr would cause the FAA to pay a visit.

Now that would be a fun case to see go down in court.

 

[Wolfy]

Now that would be a fun case to see go down in court.

Yeah, people try to propose loopholes like that to me all the time. "You'll sell a $200 t shirt that comes with a free airplane ride! That way, you're not selling rides and you can do it in an experimental".

Really? You're actually going to sit across a table from a judge/investigator and say that with a straight face? "This isn't a ride operation, I'm in the shirt business!". Tell me how that goes over.