Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
You're reading. Just not comprehending.
Instruction isn't taking place. The owner "just likes someone to go up with him."
The original poster is seeking to find a way to call it instruction and log it.
Again, that instruction given can be logged has never been in question. This is obvious and not debatable. This was never asked, and is irrelevant.
More on point is the question whether the instructor can ride around with the owner and find a way to call it instruction in order to justify logging it, as this is a logging question. Not a question over whether flight training given can be logged. Not at all. It's a question regarding whether riding around with an owner can be twisted just enough to justify padding one's logbook.
This is not correct. It's also irrelevant to the thread.
The question of compensation does not reside in the second flight, but in whether the three passengers on the second legal provided compensation in any form for the transportation. The owner does not need to be aboard.
In fact, if the owner is aboard and property or persons are carried for compensation or hire from one point to another, then the owners presence doesn't change the nature of the flight; it's still illegal without an operating certificate.
1. I reposted the OP exactly. As the OP originally posted he is legal to do so. Again, the amount of flight time possessed by the owner of the airplane, which many subsequent posters concentrated on, is irrelevant to giving and logging instruction.
2. You are correct. I was merely giving a simplified example to try and demonstrate that receiving compensation as a commercial pilot is perfectly legal outside the realm of 135 certificate. People tend to get caught up in pro rata cost sharing when it does not apply. There are many "what if's" and "gotcha's" for pilots in those operations.
https://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html