When does the plane count as “for hire”?
Posted by FunRow1018@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 29 comments
I’ve got a friend who owns a plane, and is giving me permission to fly it whenever as long as I pay for fuel and pitch in a little for Mx costs. Does this count as the plane being used for hire and thus requiring a 100hr inspection? Where is that line drawn?
Dunnowhathatis@reddit
lol you are a cpl?! No in both cases.
FunRow1018@reddit (OP)
I am a CPL. He owns the plane but doesn't have his license and just wants me to fly him to various places because he works in construction. He would like to avoid the 100hr inspection, so that's what I'm trying to figure out
Dunnowhathatis@reddit
It’s his plane; he hires you as his pilot. No need for 100 Hr inspections. Clean as can be. If you owned the plane, and you fly him, it’s not clean, and in fact against FAA rules.
Canadian47@reddit
The only thing better and owning an airplane is having a friend who owns an airplane.
...just make sure you are properly covered under his insurance and understand the term "(waiver of) subrogation" and how it might apply to you.
ManyPandas@reddit
You’re not taking anybody anywhere, they’re just letting you use the plane.
It’s when you start transporting people for money that it becomes a problem.
Mispelled-This@reddit
… or instructing for money.
dat_empennage@reddit
Emphatically no RE: 100 hours. The FAA is not interested in the rental business, even if renting to the general public.
The only time 100 hour inspections become required is when you’re providing flight instruction in your own plane, or holding out to the general public in some way (ie running a Part 135 charter, flying people on tours, etc… basically anything where you’re exercising the privileges of a Commercial certificate)
Citation: 91.409 (b)
cyberzl1@reddit
So if you are the CFI and providing instruction, or just that someone other than you (the owner) is providing instruction in the plane? If both students are members of a club/partnership that owns the plane does this still apply?
dat_empennage@reddit
The reg is concerned with the instructor and the owner of the airplane being from the same entity. Flight schools fall under this category (independent contractor CFIs notwithstanding as the school typically sets the CFI schedules)- this is why flight schools perform 100 hour inspections.
Flying clubs are typically exempt as long as the members are part owners in the aircraft, and CFIs are truly unaffiliated with the club (ie they must set their own rates and directly invoice members they fly with).
The last common case is if you as a CFI instruct in your own airplane. In that case you’re basically a flight school with a fleet of 1- per 91.409(b) you’d need to do 100 hour inspections as the airplane and instructor are coming from the same entity.
Gutter_Snoop@reddit
True statement. I was an IP and flying club member back in my time building era. Perfectly acceptable to charge other members for instruction.
nascent_aviator@reddit
If the plane and the pilot are a package deal and are getting paid, then the operation is for hire. Examples: flight training with a flight school but not flight training in your own aircraft. Sightseeing flights but not renting an aircraft and flying it yourself.
fender1878@reddit
For hire applies to passengers, not the aircraft. Also, aircraft rentals don’t require a 100hr.
In fact, most flight schools, when there’s a delay getting the 100hr done, will rent the plane out (instead of instruction) until they can get it done.
MunitionGuyMike@reddit
IANAL
Assuming you’re a licensed commercial pilot, flying someone in their own plane is A-O-K as it’s part 91 ops. The moment he starts having you fly people for profit in his plane is when you would need an ATP as that would be part 135 or part 121 ops.
And for the renting his plane, I’m not sure how that works.
Call an aviation lawyer
azpilot06@reddit
An ATP is not universally required to transport people for hire. Need for an ATP is dictated by the type of operation (such as scheduled airline or cargo services), or size and type of the aircraft (seat capacity / turbojet).
For the notional owner to have the OP fly people for hire in his plane, the owner would indeed have to obtain a part 135 or 121 certificate, and employ the commercial pilot under that certificate.
SamSamTheDingDongMan@reddit
Nah, that’s more just your friend letting you borrow a plane. No contract, no paying passengers, no problem I would think. You can always contact an aviation lawyer for more, uhhh, legal advice than what you find on Reddit
flyingron@reddit
Well it would start if he would just read the regulation:
Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection
It doesn't say "hiring" an aircraft. Rental of the bare metal isn't a 100-hour requiring operation.
throwaway5757_@reddit
So if Joe says hey I have a plane and asks me to instruct him in it for monetary compensation, would that plane need a 100 hour. And follow up, if I own the plane and Joe paid me to instruct him in it, it would need a 100 hour?
jlvit@reddit
No, because you aren't providing the aircraft. Joe is providing the aircraft.
cazzipropri@reddit
No and yes, respectively.
Tone-Powerful@reddit
No. Yes.
cazzipropri@reddit
In the first case it's clearly not hire.
Even in the second case, you acting as your friend's contract pilot, I don't think the operation meets the verbiave "carrying a person for hire". Your friend is not a paying passenger. He's the owner and he's not hiring a flying service. He's only hiring a pilot.
imblegen@reddit
According to my DPE in my CSEL debrief, “for hire” is when you’re carrying a paying member of the public.
AIRdomination@reddit
While the OP’s situation is nowhere near the definition “for hire,” that is still incorrect. That is simply one example.
mattiasmick@reddit
The “for hire” means “passengers for hire”.
AIRdomination@reddit
No, for hire means compensation/payment for operation.
flyingron@reddit
The rules for the 100 hour don't say "for hire" it says "carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire" and then follows it with "or giving flight instruction in that aircraft the person provides."
Rental or borrowing (even if you kick in money) does not meet this definition. If you were giving flight instruction to someone else in the plane or taking money (or other tangibles) to fly them somewhere, then you would.
bhalter80@reddit
Buy your friend lots of good scotch for being a good guy
2ndCareerPilot@reddit
No issue.
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I’ve got a friend who owns a plane, and is giving me permission to fly it whenever as long as I pay for fuel and pitch in a little for Mx costs. Does this count as the plane being used for hire and thus requiring a 100hr inspection? Where is that line drawn?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.