BKL (ASEL) Departure 'O Death

[paulsalem]

Today I did what my student and I did the normal BKL 360 heading over Lake Eire.

We were IFR Got runway heading off of 24, initial alt of 2,000. CLE dept turned us to 350. Long story short every time I go there (and other CFIs) we end up well beyond power off gliding distance to land.

Correct me if I’m wrong here but: Since the airplane is being rented by the student, it is therefore for hire, and if it travels beyond power off gliding distance from shore, must care a raft.

Next time I am thinking of advising tower prior to departure I won't be able to accept a vector that takes me out over the lake.

Will it work?

Thanks!

 

[MauleSkinner]

You don't need a raft until you get more than 100 miles from shore...hope you're not doing that out of BKL

Don't know for sure how it falls under the "for hire" rule, but if it did, you'd need life vests and a flare gun, I think.

Fly safe!

David

 

[paulsalem]

91.205(b)(12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water and beyond power-off gliding distance from shore, approved flotation gear readily available to each occupant and, unless the aircraft is operating under part 121 of this subchapter, at least one pyrotechnic signaling device. As used in this section, “shore” means that area of the land adjacent to the water which is above the high water mark and excludes land areas which are intermittently under water.

I think if the aircraft is being rented its considered "for hire"

 

[minitour]

ah...love the CLE approach controllers...good times.

I'd probably advise ground after your clearance and on the taxi out...that way they can call Approach on the ground and let them know ahead of time. You may get vectors to hell and back...but it's better than being over the lake at 2000'...especially this time of year.

-mini

 

[SDCFI]

Today I did what my student and I did the normal BKL 360 heading over Lake Eire.

We were IFR Got runway heading off of 24, initial alt of 2,000. CLE dept turned us to 350. Long story short every time I go there (and other CFIs) we end up well beyond power off gliding distance to land.

Correct me if I’m wrong here but: Since the airplane is being rented by the student, it is therefore for hire, and if it travels beyond power off gliding distance from shore, must care a raft.

Next time I am thinking of advising tower prior to departure I won't be able to accept a vector that takes me out over the lake.

Will it work?

Thanks!

It never hurts to ask CD when you call for your clearance. Let them know as soon as possible so they can coordinate with CLE dep's and arr's. As far as being for hire: if you are instructing in an airplane you provide (ie flight school employee) the flight is for hire hence the req for 100hr inspections. If the student owns the airplane and contracts with you independently he/she is providing the airplane and it is not therefore "for hire". Also, aircraft rental itself does not constitute for hire. If your student rents the aircraft for their own personal use on a non-lesson flight it is also not for hire. As far as life raft req's go I can't help you there. Although if you regularly end up over Lake Erie in the winter I would think carrying a raft would be a sound idea whether it's req'd or not. I'm sure that water is a bit nippy this time of year. Not somewhere I'd want to be with or without a raft!

 

[paulsalem]

.....

 

[nosehair]

"For Hire", means Carrying Pax for Hire, not Rent. You "Hire" a flight instructor, you "rent" the airplane. 91.409 confuses the issue by requiring a 100 hour on an airplane not owned by the student when receivinf flight instruction "for hire". But that is specific to flight instructing in a rented airplane.
The 91.205 requirement for flotation and pyrotechnic signaling device is when the aircraft is "for hire" as in air transportation of passengers, not students.

This is my take on it. I seem to remember an official reading to that effect, but I can't remember where.

But consider this. A flight instructor is being paid to instruct, not carry passengers. That is why he can teach with no medical, if the student can be PIC. Even when the instructor must be PIC, because the student can't, he only must have a 3rd class to only be a Part 91 PIC. He is not being paid, or "hired" as a pilot, but as an instructor. The airplane is the vehicle he uses to perform the instruction, which is the "hire" part.

The 100 ispection requirement is a recent (relatively) addition to flight instruction in rented airplanes. But that does not include all the other requirements for "commercial air transportation" flights.

Also, I am not indicating that you should put yourself over water without flotation devices. I am only speaking of the legal terms.

 

[paulsalem]

I didn't mean for this to be a debate about "for hire", just how do i keep from turning into a popsicle floating in lake Erie. I really don't have an option of putting a raft in our 172 anyway, outside of me going out and buying it myself.

 

[RipCurl]

What if he put something like "no over water" in the remarks section when he files?

 

[atldc9]

This topic was opined about in one of last year's Aviation News by the FAA. The link is

http://www.faa.gov/library/aviation_news/2005/media/JulyAugust2005Issue.pdf