Definition of "For Hire"

[Tired Soul]

I know, I should know all this.
But it's the end of the day, my brain died and I can't find in the FAR's the true definition of for hire.
It's to settle a discussion so I would appreciate some help.
91.205 requires a landing light if it's "for hire"
Does this mean a flight school aircraft needs a landing light on an instructional flight?

100 hr inspection is required if the airplane is used for flightinstruction/ for hire.
So does an airplane being used for a checkride have to have a inspection in the previous 100 hrs?
Not if it's a privately owned aircraft but what if it's a rental from the local flightschool? Is that now for hire?
I tried but can't seem to get a definitive answer.
I am somehow stuck on "for hire" as being commercial operators such as 135/121

Regards,

 

[nosehair]

Don't think you'll find an "FAA Definition" of 'for hire', but it is used in the same context as "carrying passengers for hire".

Like, you "hire" a taxi (car & driver), you "rent" a car when you are the driver.

We "rent" airplanes, and they do not have to fall under that rule. Flight schools "rent" for solo flights.

The dual flights must meet the 100 hr inspection rule, but not the "carrying passengers for hire" rule.

Flight instruction is not carrying pax for hire.

 

[midlifeflyer]

nosehair is correct about the way the FAA tends to view this. But look at the words of the regs you are citing.

91.205 does =not= require a landing light "if it's for hire;" it requires a landing light "if the aircraft is operated for hire." As nosehair points out, you won't see a specific definition anywhere, but a review of FAA materials and legal opinions will show that "operated for hire" means "carrying passengers or cargo for compensation" like a taxi or interstate moving company; not renting the airplane, like Hertz or U-Haul.

Flight instruction does not involve transporting passengers or cargo, so no landing light is required.

The 100 hour reg is even more specific; a 100 hour is required if someone is carrying passengers for hire (not cargo) or if someone is giving "flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides."

Checkride is not an instructional flight, and even if you want to argue that it really is, the applicant is providing the airplane, not the examiner.

(Yeah, I know, you get get to that thin edge about whether the CFI or the student is really providing the aircraft for regular instruction, but in the case of examiners, you also have a specific reg that says that the examiner is not really in charge of the flight)

 

[Tired Soul]

Got into a discussion with some FAA inspectors concerning the 100 hr for a check ride.
Funny thing is they didn't agree with each other; one insisted on a 100hr while the other one didn't.
Guess it also depends on the FSDO and the manager in question....

 

[midlifeflyer]

Got into a discussion with some FAA inspectors concerning the 100 hr for a check ride.
Funny thing is they didn't agree with each other; one insisted on a 100hr while the other one didn't.
Guess it also depends on the FSDO and the manager in question....

Usually does. FDSO inspectors are generally no better than you are at understanding many of the FAR. That was probably of the reasons for the now-abandoned Part 61 FAQ - uniformity in interpretation.

 

[nosehair]

At that level, it actually comes down to the inspector; whether or not he 'accepts' the airplane, sorta like we all respect a pilots decision on a preflight. If he wants a 100 hour to have been performed to feel "safe", and that includes 'legal liability', then no body in the office is going to be on record forcing him to fly it.