I think Rick is extrapolating that since you don't need a medical to serve as a CFI* or just a third class, it's not commercial flying. The Feds have come out and said you're being paid to teach, not be a pilot. Whether your Chief Pilot will see it that way is another question.

*(certain conditions apply)

 

OK, I did a little poking around. There are several FAA opinions on this, the most recent one I could find references several others and seems to make these conclusions (taking previous findings into account)...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...Martindell.pdf

- Paid flight instruction IS "other commercial flying" for purposes of 135 flight time limits (I think we can assume that would apply to 121 too).

- Any paid 91 flying is "other commercial flying" and counts against flight time limits (obviously).

- Non-paid flight instruction is NOT "other commercial flying" and does not count against any limits. They seem to consider this a recreational activity, which makes sense. Teaching my family member to fly is less tiring than some of the other things I do in my off time.

You have to be careful on the last. "Compensation" can include things other than money. Historically, gifts, hotel accommodations, meals, etc might be considered compensation. In some cases flight time itself might be considered compensation, but I think this would have to be pretty clear-cut, ie a time builder who makes it known to all comers that he will CFI for free to build time. One of the FAA opinions specifically used an example of teaching a spouse as non-compensated CFI work , so teaching a relative or friend should be OK. But if you have a lot of "friends" whom you teach that might raise questions.

This is actually good clarification from the feds, for years there were different opinions, some folks said CFI was commercial flying whether paid or not because you needed a commercial ticket. Others said it was not commercial flying because you don't need a medical.

These opinions don't address the affect of "other commercial flying" on 135/121 duty/rest, I'll try to look that up later.

 

I would agree with the last post, that makes the most sense and actually seems reasonable!

 

It seems a lot of you are getting hung up on the "free" part. I'm planning on instruction my nephew.

 

I would think that if you intune with the professional pilot world that you would understand why professional pilots (those who fly for a living) would be "hung up" on someone working for free.
If you were in tune, then you might have given an added word or two to make it more clear to those professional pilots that I am assuming you knew would be reading your post and circumvent the chance that someone would take exception with the thought of instructing for free.

Glad it was a miscommunication.
Hope the responses from this thread have been helpful to you.

USMCFLYR

 

There's another hang up on "free"

The FAA has been cracking down on concept of "compensation". We all know the idea of money, but the FAA has taken it to the next level. Good will, flight time and favors all form compensation in the eyes of the FAA.

I think that instructing a family member would be fine.

 

I know this is a dated post, and I ran across it by purely by chance, but after reading the legal interpretation I do have a question...


So the letter states that the flight time does not count towards the commercial time IF the instructor isn't getting paid for the FLIGHT instruction.

Ok, so what about getting paid for the ground time before and after the flight, not charging the student for the instruction time, specifying on the receipts that the monies recived was for ground only, and not logging the time so that you're not getting compensated by accruing hours.



I know it's gray area, splitting hairs rediculousness..I'm not suggesting this as a way to intentionally circumvent the rules but rather as a "just in case measure" to prevent exceeding the flight times.

Thoughts?

 

I think that would open you up to trouble. It establishes that there is a professional/commercial relationship between you and the student and raises serious doubts that this is a recreational activity.

What if you are just shifting the fee for flight training into the ground fees?

What if you are getting paid cash for the ground, but your compensation for the flying is the logged time?

I think you would get burned doing this.

 

(Shrugs) That's idea, correct me if in wrong but the letter never specifies the intended relationship, but rather stops at saying "If you get paid for it, it's commercial"


And if you're getting paid cash, not collecting receipts, and not logging the time, then There is nothing to show that you were getting compensated at all, and nothing for the FAA to go off of except the students testimony in court. But of course this is assuming something really, really, really bad happeneds.

I guess the only real safe guard in doing this would be to fly to not charge the student if you inadvertently went over you rest times.

 

The FAA is not bound by the restraints typical of criminal law when pursuing violations of regs for administrative action. They can interpret things any way they want, and the only appeal is to the NTSB...which almost always sides with the FAA.

Any time a young up-and-comer is instructing they assume you are doing it for a reason....either money up front or under the table, or flight time. They will be very suspicious of anyone giving it away for free unless it's a relative. If they are suspicious, they dig until they figure it out.