Tour or Introductory flight?

[gilbert86]

The big question that I would like to know is; If I am a CFI and conduct a first flight training flight, in which I give instruction but also act as a tour guide, is the flight to be conducted under 91?

I am hoping that by asking this question I will be able to answer whether or not the regulation 119.1 (e) 1 and 3 would exclude me from needing a 121,135, or 136 certificate to conduct this flight.

Any insight would be great.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Depends. What category of aircraft?

 

[gilbert86]

SEL 4 seater.

 

[ndakcfi]

As long as the intent of the flight is to provide instruction and you're logging dual given/received, I really can't see why the FAA would care if some sightseeing happened as well.

If an operator was clearly using "intro flights" as an excuse to do an end-run around the 25 mile limitation of 119 on tour flights, that would be a different story, but I'm pretty sure the FAA would have to suspend the tickets of most CFI's out there if showing students cool things in the area during lessons (especially intro flights) was illegal.

 

[gilbert86]

Thank you for your time and reply.

I completely agree it's just that I am confused on the way the regulations are written, I haven't seen "intent" written in the 119.1 e 1 and 3 it just excludes flight training and flight instruction, and doesn't define what kind of flight instruction..ie area familiarization, pilotage, and something else that I am very curious about is whether or not if I take a student on a training flight from one departure to another destination and then decide to leave them at that other airport am I conducting a flight governed by 91 or 135?

I know that it could be seen as common carriage but that seems to be regulations for commercial pilots not certified flight instructors...

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Thank you for your time and reply.

I completely agree it's just that I am confused on the way the regulations are written, I haven't seen "intent" written in the 119.1 e 1 and 3 it just excludes flight training and flight instruction, and doesn't define what kind of flight instruction..ie area familiarization, pilotage, and something else that I am very curious about is whether or not if I take a student on a training flight from one departure to another destination and then decide to leave them at that other airport am I conducting a flight governed by 91 or 135?

I know that it could be seen as common carriage but that seems to be regulations for commercial pilots not certified flight instructors...

The regulations against transportation for hire without the appropriate operating certificates apply to all pilots, not just commercial pilots and not excluding CFIs.

The difference between true instruction and a "sham" that is being used to put the "sheep's clothing" of flight instruction around a transportation "wolf" is going to depend o a lot of different factors and what the entire picture looks like. There is not "if you do this it is and if you do that it isn't" bright line. When you start dropping people off, there is an additional element of risk to the picture that it will be seen as transportation but that's not conclusive.

Consider the following 2 scenarios. In both dual is logged:

1. CFI is giving a private pilot student transition training to a Bonanza. 3 hours into the training, before signing the pilot off, the student has a business meeting out of town.The CFI goes with the pilot, drops the pilot off and returns to home base.

2. CFI has a history of doing one-shot "intro" flights with people going to a business meeting out of town. He has them do the flying, and drops them off. The students involved never take another lesson (unless, of course, they have another meeting).

Any problem you see in making a distinction between the two?

 

[PilotDefenseAttorney]

I agree with MidlifeFlyer. In the legal world we often talk about the "totality of the circumstances" and I think that is the analysis that has to be applied here. What type of operation would a disinterested but reasonable third party think was going on - instruction or transportation. I like the "wolf in sheep's clothing" analogy. Similarly, I often tell folks that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

 

[jtrain609]

I agree with MidlifeFlyer. In the legal world we often talk about the "totality of the circumstances" and I think that is the analysis that has to be applied here. What type of operation would a disinterested but reasonable third party think was going on - instruction or transportation. I like the "wolf in sheep's clothing" analogy. Similarly, I often tell folks that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

QFT.

 

[Stomp16]

There is a regulation/exemption that allows you as a private pilot to conduct sight seeing flights within 25SM of your departure airport.

 

[🦈💜]

There is a regulation/exemption that allows you as a private pilot to conduct sight seeing flights within 25SM of your departure airport.

. . . wat.

 

[Stomp16]

. . . wat.

I'm getting old. There used to be an exemption, (I believe the same area that allows 91 commercial aerial survey operations). Looking it up, you can still do it, but not more than 4 times a year. Looks like the FAA ruled on this in 2007. Before that, as a private pilot, you could do sight seeing flights within 25SM of your departure airport (no stops, to and from the primary airport).

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...mercial-Air-Tour-Charity-and-Sightseeing-Rule
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...s_Rules_For_Sightseeing_Flights_195117-1.html

 

[🦈💜]

I'm getting old. There used to be an exemption, (I believe the same area that allows 91 commercial aerial survey operations). Looking it up, you can still do it, but not more than 4 times a year. Looks like the FAA ruled on this in 2007. Before that, as a private pilot, you could do sight seeing flights within 25SM of your departure airport (no stops, to and from the primary airport).

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...mercial-Air-Tour-Charity-and-Sightseeing-Rule
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...s_Rules_For_Sightseeing_Flights_195117-1.html

The key word for that set of regs is 'charitable airlift'. Think young eagles, etc.

Not the same as an intro-flight-cum-bay-tour, which I believe was at the heart of this thread. (And which is still a bit sketchy, to me)

You can't just offer air tours as a private pilot unless it's specifically for charity and other provisions of the regs are complied with as well.

-Fox

 

[Stomp16]

The key word for that set of regs is 'charitable airlift'. Think young eagles, etc.

Not the same as an intro-flight-cum-bay-tour, which I believe was at the heart of this thread. (And which is still a bit sketchy, to me)

You can't just offer air tours as a private pilot unless it's specifically for charity and other provisions of the regs are complied with as well.

-Fox

I agree. "Back-in-the-day", there was a provision that allowed sight seeing. It looks like all of that changed in 2007.

 

[🦈💜]

I agree. "Back-in-the-day", there was a provision that allowed sight seeing. It looks like all of that changed in 2007.

Not before 1996, if you mean by private pilots for compensation or hire. (Where compensation equals paying less than the pro-rata share)

Not trying to be excessively anal ... I was just surprised and confused by your post, and I want to drag this back to some reality that I can understand.

-Fox

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I agree. "Back-in-the-day", there was a provision that allowed sight seeing. It looks like all of that changed in 2007.

How far "back in the day" are you talking about? AFAIK, the current restrictions on private pilots flying for compensation or hire, except for the tightening of the requirements for charitable airlifts and permitting glider towing, has been in pretty much the same form since at least 1973. Nothing about sightseeing.

Perhaps you are thinking of the 119.1(e)(2) air tour exception to the requirement for a Part 135 commercial operating certificate? That did change in 2007 but by requiring a LOI and some other requirements. But AFAIK, at least for the 20 years before that, a commercial pilot certificate was still required; it was not a private pilot privilege.

 

[Stomp16]

How far "back in the day" are you talking about? AFAIK, the current restrictions on private pilots flying for compensation or hire, except for the tightening of the requirements for charitable airlifts and permitting glider towing, has been in pretty much the same form since at least 1973. Nothing about sightseeing.

Perhaps you are thinking of the 119.1(e)(2) air tour exception to the requirement for a Part 135 commercial operating certificate? That did change in 2007 but by requiring a LOI and some other requirements. But AFAIK, at least for the 20 years before that, a commercial pilot certificate was still required; it was not a private pilot privilege.

Once I get back home, I will dig through an old FAR/AIM. I can't remember exactly what the reg was so I apologize. I tried finding the reference on the net but had no luck,

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Once I get back home, I will dig through an old FAR/AIM. I can't remember exactly what the reg was so I apologize. I tried finding the reference on the net but had no luck,

No apology needed. I'll be extremely surprised if you find it.

 

[PilotDefenseAttorney]

No apology needed. I'll be extremely surprised if you find it.

Me too - but then I get surprised almost every day (seems to come with the territory).