"for hire" in 91.205(c)(4) and 91.409(b)

[VNugget]

My friend was wondering about what "for hire" means with regard to the landing light requirement, and more specifically, if renting a plane meant "for hire." I personally think it doesn't apply, since it says "if the aircraft is operated for hire," and that seems to mean what you're using the plane for, not how you have access to it.

The reason I made a reference to the other reg is that 100-hour inspections is the most commonly debated reg in which "for hire" is also an issue. It seems that general concensus is that renting a plane from a club is not "for hire." But what is that based on? Also, what about renting from a for-profit establishment?

I used the search function and didn't turn up anything.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Virtually all of the "for hire" rules refer to aircraft operations that involve carriage of people or property for compensation, not whether someone is or is not paying a rental fee for the airplane.

One example is your question,

It seems that general concensus is that renting a plane from a club is not "for hire." But what is that based on?

It's based on the way the regulation is worded.

"no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire"

means

you must have 100 inspections in order to carry passengers for hire

not

you must have 100 inspections in an aircraft that is for hire if there is a passenger in it.

I don't think that the language is particularly susceptible to either interpretation, but if it were, the second one doesn't make sense. Which sounds more reasonable from an FAA policy perspective? A distinction based on whether or not the =operation= is commercial in nature or a distinction based on whether or not the pilot is flying solo in a rental airplane?

There is also a 1984 FAA Legal opinion that touches on it. Here's a snip:

==============================
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.
==============================

 

[MTpilot]

Yep!

I agree with midlife flyer. The thing to remember is flight instruction is "for hire" so if the club or company that you rent from does instruction then they have to have the plane in 100hr to do any of that. They could rent you the airplane when it's out of 100hr as long as you weren't getting instruction. Your legal to go with no landing light if your just renting.

 

[Fly_Chick]

Let me toss this out to those who responded... If you are building hours, renting the aircraft to build your hours, can it go over the hundred hour? Same with the landing light?

That is the first I have heard of that, makes sense, just wanted some more clarification. Isn't the aircraft itself "for hire"?

 

[StarChk20]

You can be a part of a club and recieve instruction without a 100 hour inspection. It all depends on how the club is organized. If the club is set up that each person is an owner, then you wouldn't need the 100 hour. I also have a question though, the traffic watch operators that carry a reporter along with them, do they need a 100 hr? They aren't giving instruction, and I know of at least one operator that doesn't do 100 hrs, is there something that I am missing that makes this ok?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Let me toss this out to those who responded... If you are building hours, renting the aircraft to build your hours, can it go over the hundred hour? Same with the landing light?

That is the first I have heard of that, makes sense, just wanted some more clarification. Isn't the aircraft itself "for hire"?

You can. The 100-hour regualtion talks about flight instruction for hire and carrying passengers for hire, not the aircraft itself being hired out.

In the GA arena, the biggest thing to watch out for are ADs that are due at the same time as a 100 hour, local FBO administrative policies that require renters to not exceed them, and a widesperad practice (not based in any regualation or FAA official policy) of treating exceeding the 100 hour as "tainting" the aircreft and a major headache for the opeartion.

The landing light is less of a problem.

 

[Illini Pilot]

i know for a fact that rentals are not covered under the "for hire"...i did my ppl checkride in a 172 that had just hit its 100 hr or was maybe a tenth or two away. examiner was an old FAA guy and asked me and explained we weren't for hire or instruction, so we were cool and he agreed.

 

[HarbourPilot]

Someone explained it to me like this..short and simple!!

IF THE COST OF THE AIRPLANE COMES WITH A PILOT THEN ITS FOR HIRE!! (OUTSIDE OF FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP SITUATIONS)

 

[midlifeflyer]

Someone explained it to me like this..short and simple!!

IF THE COST OF THE AIRPLANE COMES WITH A PILOT THEN ITS FOR HIRE!! (OUTSIDE OF FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP SITUATIONS)

It's short. It's simple. It's yelled. It's even accurate.

Unfortunately it doesn't tell the whole story... Some of the variations on the theme aren't quite as simple.

 

[igneousy2]

i know for a fact that rentals are not covered under the "for hire"...i did my ppl checkride in a 172 that had just hit its 100 hr or was maybe a tenth or two away. examiner was an old FAA guy and asked me and explained we weren't for hire or instruction, so we were cool and he agreed.

Be careful, the only guy that can spew "fact" from his mouth at the FAA is the Chief Counsel or one of the deputies under his direction. Everyone else just has an opinion. So unless your examiner from the FAA was Andrew Steinberg...

later