Flight Instructor in His Own Plane...

[ShyFlyGuy]

As a flight instructor, giving flight instruction in his own plane, is the 100 hour inspection the only FAR that has to be complied with in order to charge for "rental"?

 

[SDCFI]

As I recall aircraft rental does not count as "for hire" and therefore a 100hr is not required. It does however open up a large can of worms as far as insurance and liability go. You do need it if you are giving instruction because you are providing the aircraft.

 

[Ralgha]

As I recall aircraft rental does not count as "for hire" and therefore a 100hr is not required. It does however open up a large can of worms as far as insurance and liability go. You do need it if you are giving instruction because you are providing the aircraft.

If you read the FAR, this is true, however case law indicates otherwise. I've been looking into it recently with a lawyer.

 

[Crizz]

You do need it if you are giving instruction because you are providing the aircraft.

Only if "for hire." If you are instructing someone who is simply paying your operating costs, there is no 100 hour requirement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Only if "for hire." If you are instructing someone who is simply paying your operating costs, there is no 100 hour requirement.

I'm sure the FAA would love to catch a CFI trying that one! Not making a profit doesn't take it out of the "for hire" category.

CFI provides flight instruction in CFI's airplane + student pays CFI = flight instruction for hire

The rule doesn't care how the CFI allocates the charge.

Ralgha, the only case law I've seen on this involve situations like Crizz's suggestion - ways that places have used to try to get around the 100 requirement in various ways. The favorite is the FBO that says "we just rent the airplane to the student. The student hires the flight instructor separately". Of course, the FBO would never =really= rent an airplane to an unsupervised student pilot who can then choose an instructor that the FBO never heard of.

Other than those kinds of situations, I haven't heard of anything to indicate that the FAA Legal Counsel's 1984 interpretation does not still apply

==============================
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and does not provide the pilot, that aircraft is not required by Section 91.169(b)* of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour inspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only when the aircraft is carrying a person for hire, or when a person is providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.
==============================
* 91.169(b) was the older version of what is now 91.409(b). The language didn't change.

If the lawyer you're speaking with has some cases that suggest otherwise, they'd be interesting to look at.

 

[Ralgha]

I'm taking the lawyer's word for it, I haven't seen the examples. That's the lawyer's job, and I have better things to do with my time. If I do happen to see one I'll let people know about it by all means.