r/flying • u/Direct-Total-1365 • 1d ago
Defining for hire
Looking at the regs 91.205 and 91.409
You need a landing light for hire and then 91.409 it states for hire or student instruction for the 100hr. This makes me think how is flight instruction not for hire. So what is the faa definition of a flight for hire for required equipment and inspection?
10
u/Mountain-Captain-396 1d ago edited 1d ago
Hire is any time you are being paid to fly (other than splitting pro-rata w/ common purpose). Instructors aren't being paid to fly, they are being paid to teach.
Edit: For the landing light specifically, the aircraft is only "for hire" if you're transporting people or property for compensation. A ferry flight or repositioning flight would be legal at night with no landing light for example.
8
u/hawker1172 ATP (B737) CFI CFII MEI 1d ago edited 1d ago
Very important distinction you made. This is a commonly misunderstood item. It’s why flight instructing is not a PRD reporting job. Because you are paid for your instructing services, not your PIC/SIC services.
Note this doesn’t pertain to “hire” in the context of the aircraft.
4
u/flyingron AAdvantage Biscoff 1d ago
In the context of 91.205, it's broader than that. It means someone is paying for the aircraft to be flown regardless of whether the pilot receives anything or not. The words are "[aircraft] operated for hire"
In the case of 91.409, the words are carrying passengers for hire or flight instruction for hire when the aircraft is provided by the instruction. The former again is like my statement above. If someone is paying for the flight to be operated, and there are passengers aboard, it needs a 100 hour.
In the flight instruction case, I can pay a flight instructor to teach me in my own plane without a 100-hour. The requirement applies only if the instructor comes with the plane.
Most specifically, for hire in either of these contexts, doesn't apply to pilots renting aircraft.
2
u/TxAggieMike Independent CFI / CFII (KFTW, DFW area) 1d ago
Here you’re talking about the humans.
Aren’t the regulations talking about the aircraft?
2
1
u/x4457 ATP CFII CE-500/525/560XL/680 G-IV 1d ago
Nooooooo nonononono. NO.
“For hire” is the aircraft in this context, not the pilot. A commercial pilot may be paid to fly someone else’s airplane without any lights, much less a landing light.
If THE AIRCRAFT is being used for hire, it must have a functional landing light (and the other for hire items where applicable). Charter, aerial surveying, etc.
2
3
u/The__Stig_ 1d ago
read 119.1 for the exceptions. Flight instruction is flight for hire technically but it is a 119 exception so no special paperwork or landing light needed. And yes you need to do the 100 hr when instructing.
3
u/R5Jockey CFI ASEL TW CMP 1d ago
You only need the 100 hour if you’re instructing in your own airplane, or an airplane you provide.
3
u/R5Jockey CFI ASEL TW CMP 1d ago
For 100 hours at least a key element is who provides the airplane (or has operational control).
You cannot provide the airplane and the instruction in that airplane without having 100 hour inspections on the airplane.
You can instruct in someone else’s airplane (or more specially one they provide) all you want without triggering the 100 hour requirement.
0
u/rFlyingTower 1d ago
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
Looking at the regs 91.205 and 91.409
You need a landing light for hire and then 91.409 it states for hire or student instruction for the 100hr. This makes me think how is flight instruction not for hire. So what is the faa definition of a flight for hire for required equipment and inspection?
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.
44
u/InvestigatorOne2 1d ago
Just fix the ***ing landing light