Pietenpol-List: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...

[matronics]

Original Posted By: David Scott
David, I've done something stupid I saved the neutral axisof my spar on my hard drive and my sonformatted it and erased it. Yes I know that you went to a lotof trouble to find this for me but ifwould do it again I'll copy it to a floppyimmediately. You know they say insanityis doing the same thing over again and again expecting different results So if yak rathernot I understand. I am finally ready to assemblethe wing and I don't know where to bore the holesfor hardware.----- Original Message -----________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Randall Reihing
Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... >The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction whileflying an >experimental, >however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction isdeemed: > David- This is a very interesting FAR. Luckily my CFI didn't chargeme a nickel ! What a great guy....and in fact traded me rides in hisCitabria to boot. I think if he would have accepted anything it would havebeen a large pizza and beer though ) Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Doug
This is a quick note -->Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying an experimental,however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequences couldbe legallydevastating.Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulationDavid ScottCFII---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7/-------------------- |~~_____/~~__ ||scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~|~~~ |REF: 14CFR91.319----------------------

Code: Select all

[Title 14, Volume 2, Parts 60 to 139][Revised as of January 1, 1999][CITE: 14CFR91.319][Page 219-220]  CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of ContentsSec. 91.319  Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.    (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate--    (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;or    (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.    (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it isshown that--    (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range ofspeeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and    (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics ordesign features.    (c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in specialoperating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has anexperimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congestedairway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations forparticular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted overa densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance withterms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest ofsafety in air commerce.    (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate shall--    (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of theaircraft;    (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specificallyauthorized by the Administrator; and    (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of theaircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports withoperating control towers.    (e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that theAdministrator considers necessary, including[[Page 220]]limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number2120-0005)________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
>The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying an >experimental,>however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:>David- This is a very interesting FAR. Luckily my CFI didn't charge mea nickel ! What a great guy....and in fact traded me rides in his Citabriato boot. I think if he would have accepted anything it would have beena large pizza and beer though )Mike C. The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction whileflying an experimental,however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction isdeemed:David- This is a very interesting FAR. Luckily my CFI didn'tcharge mea nickel ! What a great guy....and in fact traded me rides in hisCitabriato boot. I think if he would have accepted anything it wouldhave beena large pizza and beer though )Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: steve(at)byu.edu
My take on the charging for flight instruction in an experimental:If the person you are instructing is already a Private pilot, then you are not carrying a person for hire, since HE is PIC. The line "carrying persons or property for hire" desribes carrying non-pilot passengers or cargo which would be covered partly by part 91 or 135.I think that primary instruction of student pilots where you charge for the plane and Instructor would be forbidden. It should be okay to charge for transition training to owners/prospective-owners of experimentals if they are at least Private Pilots.Gary Meadows________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
When this talk started I did wonder how you would get your BFR. Youwould have to pay him. Or is a BFR not considered instruction?Another hypo. question.....There would be no way for a guy to build anexperimental,before he learned to fly, and get his flight training andlicence in his own plane?And another.....If you had your PPL but no taildragger signoff, youcouldn't fly your own plane till you got endorsement in anothertaildragger?walt -----Original Message-----

[matronics]

Original Posted By: GREA738(at)aol.com
>This is a quick note -->>>Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).>>The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flyingan experimental,>however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:>>>and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.>>But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.Actually, an instructor may charge for instruction given in a homebuilt, aslong as the instructor is not the owner/operator of the aircraft. As long as it isn't his airplane, he is allowed to charge for theservice(flight instruction) that he is providing. The CFI isn't being paidto fly the airplane, he's being paid to teach(My CFI examiner told me thatthe sign of a good instructor is how little stick time the CFI gets).The FAAdoesn't automatically assume that the CFI is the owner/operator of anaircraft he is flying in. Being the owner/operator is not the same thing asbeing Pilot-in-Command. For example, a pilot that works at an FBO can bePIC of an aircraft he is flying, but he is not the owner/operator.________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: walter evans
>When this talk started I did wonder how you would get your BFR. You wouldhave to pay him. Or is a BFR not considered instruction?Sometimes; :)If a pilot has all his paperwork in order, is rated in the category andclass of aircraft and current in the category and class(ie, single-engineland) of the aircraft the BFR is given in, then the BFR might not beconsidered dual instruction. Otherwise, if your medical is outdated, or youare not current in the category/class of the BFR aircraft, it is dualinstruction. If you're doing the BFR in a tailwheel equipped aircraft, you must becurrent in a tailwheel aircraft of the same category and class.Here's an example: you fly a Beech 18(multi-engine tailwheel aircraft) for aliving. The last time you flew a Cub was a year ago. If you took your BFR ina Cub tomorrow, it would be considered dual instruction. Summary:1: Rated in category and class(this is NOT the same as make and model)2: Current in category and class3: Tailwheel endorsement , if needed(not needed if you have tailwheel PICtime before the mid-80's;check the regs).4: Current paperwork(medical certificate, etc.)If you meet these criteria, you can log a BFR as PIC.You can also log it as dual(that's right; you can log it as both).>Another hypo. question.....There would be no way for a guy to build anexperimental,before he learned to fly, and get his flight training andlicence in his own plane?Someone else would have to fly off the restrictions before more than 2people could fly in the airplane(I think the rules say only the minimumflight crew is allowed to fly the aircraft before restrictions are flownoff; a Piet only requires one(1) person.>And another.....If you had your PPL but no taildragger signoff, youcouldn't fly your own plane till you got endorsement in another taildragger?This is correct; You would have to find an instructor and a tailwheel a/c toget the checkout(This may or may not be difficult; you might have to searcha while, or you might not).I hope this helps a little bit.Dick Dery1903918CFI>________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: walter evans
Dick ,Thanks for the information.waltDick ,Thanks for theinformation.walt________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Michael Brusilow
David,I beg to differ. An instructor is free to charge fairly for his time. If he doesn'town theairplane, and is only providing instruction, the flight is not "carrying personsfor hire".David Scott wrote:> This is a quick note -->>> Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).>> The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying anexperimental,> however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:>>> and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.>> But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.>> The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequences couldbe legally> devastating.>> Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulation>> David Scott> CFII________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: fishin
This is prohibited by 14CFR91.319 and it does not stipulateany exception to who owns the aircraft, who is using the controls,or what relation the person has in relation to the aircraft orwhat relation the person has to certifications.I can not find any regulation which would protect the CFI chargingfor in-flight flight instruction should there be a challenge posed.Any comments are welcome, but as with many of thesediscussion groups, it is important to fall back on hard facts.Just because I (or any other person) happen to write somethingout here, be sure to search out the truth before embarkment........... Almost sounds like the New Testament chuch at Berea . . .Any "Berean" types out there have any info they can add ?---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7/-------------------- |~~_____/~~__ ||scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~|~~~ |=======Dick Dery wrote:=======Actually, an instructor may charge for instruction given in a homebuilt, aslong as the instructor is not the owner/operator of the aircraft. As long as it isn't his airplane, he is allowed to charge for theservice(flight instruction) that he is providing. The CFI isn't being paidto fly the airplane, he's being paid to teach(My CFI examiner told me thatthe sign of a good instructor is how little stick time the CFI gets).The FAAdoesn't automatically assume that the CFI is the owner/operator of anaircraft he is flying in. Being the owner/operator is not the same thing asbeing Pilot-in-Command. For example, a pilot that works at an FBO can bePIC of an aircraft he is flying, but he is not the owner/operator.========David Scott wrote:========This is a quick note -->Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying an experimental,however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequences couldbe legallydevastating.Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulationDavid ScottCFIIREF: 14CFR91.319----------------------

Code: Select all

[Title 14, Volume 2, Parts 60 to 139][Revised as of January 1, 1999]>From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access[CITE: 14CFR91.319][Page 219-220]  CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of ContentsSec. 91.319  Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.    (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate--    (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;or    (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.    (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it isshown that--    (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range ofspeeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and    (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics ordesign features.    (c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in specialoperating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has anexperimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congestedairway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations forparticular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted overa densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance withterms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest ofsafety in air commerce.    (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate shall--    (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of theaircraft;    (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specificallyauthorized by the Administrator; and    (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of theaircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports withoperating control towers.    (e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that theAdministrator considers necessary, including[[Page 220]]limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number2120-0005)________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Gary Meadows
David, I guess I don't see how 91.319 prohibits a flight instructor from being paid for his services in a Pietenpol. The "for compensation or hire" refers to providing transportation of passengers, or property. This was dealt with in all the Commercial Pilot Certificatef we had to learn, "holding yourself out for hire" and all that. An instrucional flight doesn't have this as it's purpose. A CFI isn't being paid to be PIC, just to instruct. I don't see the hard facts in 91.319 for preventing paid instruction in an experimental. I do agree however, it's very wise to investigate for yourself, things that you see on discussion groups. Now, as for Berea, isn't that the tarpits in southern California:-)Gary MeadowsAgreeing to Disagree:-)________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Michael D Cuy
David,FAR 91.319 (a) (3) states that an experimental airplane may not be operated carryingpassengersor property for hire. It does not state that an instructor can't charge for histime. As long asthe airplanes is not being used for hire, a commercial pilot/instructor can chargefor his time.Charging for instruction, charging for test flying and charging for ferrying anairplane are notnecessarily operating an airplane for hire!David Scott wrote:> This is prohibited by 14CFR91.319 and it does not stipulate> any exception to who owns the aircraft, who is using the controls,> or what relation the person has in relation to the aircraft or> what relation the person has to certifications.>> I can not find any regulation which would protect the CFI charging> for in-flight flight instruction should there be a challenge posed.>> Any comments are welcome, but as with many of these> discussion groups, it is important to fall back on hard facts.> Just because I (or any other person) happen to write something> out here, be sure to search out the truth before embarkment....>> ....... Almost sounds like the New Testament chuch at Berea . . .>> Any "Berean" types out there have any info they can add ?>> ---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7>> /-------------------- |~~_____/~~__ |> |scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~|~~~ |>> =======> Dick Dery wrote:> =======> Actually, an instructor may charge for instruction given in a homebuilt, as> long as the instructor is not the owner/operator of the aircraft.> As long as it isn't his airplane, he is allowed to charge for the> service(flight instruction) that he is providing. The CFI isn't being paid> to fly the airplane, he's being paid to teach(My CFI examiner told me that> the sign of a good instructor is how little stick time the CFI gets).The FAA> doesn't automatically assume that the CFI is the owner/operator of an> aircraft he is flying in. Being the owner/operator is not the same thing as> being Pilot-in-Command. For example, a pilot that works at an FBO can be> PIC of an aircraft he is flying, but he is not the owner/operator.>> ========> David Scott wrote:> ========> This is a quick note -->>> Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).>> The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying anexperimental,> however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:>>> and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.>> But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.>> The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequences couldbe legally> devastating.>> Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulation>> David Scott> CFII>> REF: 14CFR91.319> ---------------------->

Code: Select all

> [Title 14, Volume 2, Parts 60 to 139]> [Revised as of January 1, 1999]> >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access> [CITE: 14CFR91.319]>> [Page 219-220]>>>   CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION>> PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of Contents>>> Sec. 91.319  Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.>>     (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental> certificate-->     (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;> or>     (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.>     (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental> certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is> shown that-->     (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of> speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and>     (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or> design features.>     (c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special> operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an> experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested> airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for> particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over> a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with> terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of> safety in air commerce.>     (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental> certificate shall-->     (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the> aircraft;>     (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically> authorized by the Administrator; and>     (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the> aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with> operating control towers.>     (e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the> Administrator considers necessary, including>> [[Page 220]]>> limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.>> (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number> 2120-0005)________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: del magsam
I believe that flight instruction charges have nothing to do withairplane charges. Why would an instructor charge you for the you usingyour own airplane? You are not paying for the use of your airplane,only the professional services of the instructor.walter evans wrote:> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: steve(at)byu.edu
I don't believe it matters if the instructor owns the airplane or not, as longas he doesn'tcharge for the plane, just the instruction."David B. Schober" wrote:> David,> I beg to differ. An instructor is free to charge fairly for his time. If he doesn'town the> airplane, and is only providing instruction, the flight is not "carrying personsfor hire".>> David Scott wrote:>> > This is a quick note -->> >> > Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).> >> > The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying anexperimental,> > however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:> >> >> > and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.> >> > But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.> >> > The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequencescould be legally> > devastating.> >> > Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulation> >> > David Scott> > CFII> >> > ---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7> >> > /-------------------- |~~_____/~~__ |> > |scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~|~~~ |> >> > REF: 14CFR91.319> > ----------------------> >

Code: Select all

> > [Title 14, Volume 2, Parts 60 to 139]> > [Revised as of January 1, 1999]> > >From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access> > [CITE: 14CFR91.319]> >> > [Page 219-220]> >> >> >   CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION> >> > PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of Contents> >> >> > Sec. 91.319  Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.> >> >     (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental> > certificate--> >     (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;> > or> >     (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.> >     (b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental> > certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is> > shown that--> >     (1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of> > speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and> >     (2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or> > design features.> >     (c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special> > operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an> > experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested> > airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for> > particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over> > a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with> > terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of> > safety in air commerce.> >     (d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental> > certificate shall--> >     (1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the> > aircraft;> >     (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically> > authorized by the Administrator; and> >     (3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the> > aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with> > operating control towers.> >     (e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the> > Administrator considers necessary, including> >> > [[Page 220]]> >> > limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.> >> > (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number> > 2120-0005)________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Copinfo
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Archive Download instructionsThe piet archives are zipped into two files about 3 meg a piece. For nowthey are located at http://www.aircamper.org/users/Stevee/P ... __________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: ToySat(at)aol.com
to be on the safe side, ask the local fsdo. Be sure to get the name of the fed you talk to. REMEMBER CYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Gary Meadows
Don't accept anything verbally from an FAA employee! I've had them lie throughtheir teeth on more than one occasion. Get it in writing if you think you mayneed to rely on the info later on!COZYPILOT(at)aol.com wrote:> to be on the safe side, ask the local fsdo. Be sure to get the name of the> fed you talk to. REMEMBER CYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By:>> Gary Meadows
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operatinglimitations.>> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental>certificate--> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.>>1. NO EXCEPTIONS ON WHO>> First, the regulation says "No Person" which specifically means> without exception regarding owner, operator, pilot in command,> instructor pilot, etc ....>>2. AIRCRAFT OPERATION W/O EXCEPTION OF PURPOSE>> Second, the regulation states "an aircraft that has> an experimental ceritificate" which specifically means any aircraft> which has the certification under "experimental." Nothing is> excluded concerning operations such as instruction.>>3. AIRCRAFT DOES THE CARRYING>> Third, the statement is "carrying persons or property forcompensation..."> It is not the people doing the carrying, but the aircraft. Englishlanguage> construction can be confusing, but people operate, aircraft carry...>>4. COMPENSATION OR HIRE - EXCLUDES NOTHING>> Forth, the "for compensation or hire" does not exclude who or what> or how the compensation is obtained. If the compensation isdependent> on aircraft operation, the regulation does not exclude any operations> for compensation purposes. It is without exception regardless of> operation types or purpose.>>I hope this helps. The ultimate test is at an NTSB hearing with the FAA>working towards a suspension ruling.>>David Scott 13 Sep 99 15:20>>P.S. Incidently, in response to commercial licensing, all of this comesfrom>my understandings while gaining my certificate from the FAA FSDO office.>You might notice that for the "carrying persons or property forcompensation or hire" applies>to standard certificated aircraft requirements also. There is to be a100hr>inspection met for any carrying of persons or property for hire. So, theage old>question popped for the instructor taking the oral exam is: Can aninstructor>charge for instruction in an aircraft which does not meet the 100hrinspection>requirement?>>>>>> Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:18:53 -0700 (PDT)

[matronics]

Original Posted By:>> Gary Meadows
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operatinglimitations.>> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental>certificate--> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.>>1. NO EXCEPTIONS ON WHO>> First, the regulation says "No Person" which specifically means> without exception regarding owner, operator, pilot in command,> instructor pilot, etc ....>>2. AIRCRAFT OPERATION W/O EXCEPTION OF PURPOSE>> Second, the regulation states "an aircraft that has> an experimental ceritificate" which specifically means any aircraft> which has the certification under "experimental." Nothing is> excluded concerning operations such as instruction.>>3. AIRCRAFT DOES THE CARRYING>> Third, the statement is "carrying persons or property forcompensation..."> It is not the people doing the carrying, but the aircraft. Englishlanguage> construction can be confusing, but people operate, aircraft carry...>>4. COMPENSATION OR HIRE - EXCLUDES NOTHING>> Forth, the "for compensation or hire" does not exclude who or what> or how the compensation is obtained. If the compensation isdependent> on aircraft operation, the regulation does not exclude any operations> for compensation purposes. It is without exception regardless of> operation types or purpose.>>I hope this helps. The ultimate test is at an NTSB hearing with the FAA>working towards a suspension ruling.>>David Scott 13 Sep 99 15:20>>P.S. Incidently, in response to commercial licensing, all of this comesfrom>my understandings while gaining my certificate from the FAA FSDO office.>You might notice that for the "carrying persons or property forcompensation or hire" applies>to standard certificated aircraft requirements also. There is to be a100hr>inspection met for any carrying of persons or property for hire. So, theage old>question popped for the instructor taking the oral exam is: Can aninstructor>charge for instruction in an aircraft which does not meet the 100hrinspection>requirement?>>>>>> Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:18:53 -0700 (PDT)

[matronics]

Original Posted By: David Scott
The Neutral Axis of a symetrical spar (either a plain beam or a routed beamthat is the same top and bottom) is the center of the spar.Mike BellColumbia,SCMaiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/12/99 09:38:13 PMPlease respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNETcc:Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...David, I've done something stupid I saved the neutral axisof my spar on my hard drive and my sonformatted it and erased it. Yes I know that you went to a lotof trouble to find this for me but ifwould do it again I'll copy it to a floppyimmediately. You know they say insanityis doing the same thing over again and again expecting different results So if yak rathernot I understand. I am finally ready to assemblethe wing and I don't know where to bore the holesfor hardware.----- Original Message -----________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By:> Gary Meadows
Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate-- (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.1. NO EXCEPTIONS ON WHO First, the regulation says "No Person" which specifically means without exception regarding owner, operator, pilot in command, instructor pilot, etc ....2. AIRCRAFT OPERATION W/O EXCEPTION OF PURPOSE Second, the regulation states "an aircraft that has an experimental ceritificate" which specifically means any aircraft which has the certification under "experimental." Nothing is excluded concerning operations such as instruction.3. AIRCRAFT DOES THE CARRYING Third, the statement is "carrying persons or property for compensation..." It is not the people doing the carrying, but the aircraft. English language construction can be confusing, but people operate, aircraft carry...4. COMPENSATION OR HIRE - EXCLUDES NOTHING Forth, the "for compensation or hire" does not exclude who or what or how the compensation is obtained. If the compensation is dependent on aircraft operation, the regulation does not exclude any operations for compensation purposes. It is without exception regardless of operation types or purpose.I hope this helps. The ultimate test is at an NTSB hearing with the FAAworking towards a suspension ruling.David Scott 13 Sep 99 15:20P.S. Incidently, in response to commercial licensing, all of this comes frommy understandings while gaining my certificate from the FAA FSDO office.You might notice that for the "carrying persons or property for compensation orhire" appliesto standard certificated aircraft requirements also. There is to be a 100hrinspection met for any carrying of persons or property for hire. So, the age oldquestion popped for the instructor taking the oral exam is: Can an instructorcharge for instruction in an aircraft which does not meet the 100hr inspectionrequirement?>> Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:18:53 -0700 (PDT)

[matronics]

Original Posted By: David Scott
David,I assume that the first statements are the regs. and the second section areyour interpritations. If so ,,,I don't agree. It means that " you can'tmake money on an experimental airplane" that's all. I don't see where itlimits if you need a check ride or a BFR in your Piet. Isn't it commonsense that if you live in, let's say colorado , or Utah, and only fly yourown Aircamper, and you need a BFR. What are you to do,,,,hire, and check outin another plane just to take your BFR? ???I was the one who started this questioning on instruction in an experimentalplane,,,,,and never could even imagine the amount of interpritations toall of this.walt" for hire " means the money comes from them to you,,,,,instruction from acheckride is from you to him.-----Original Message-----

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
First, in answer to the very last question, no a plane doesn't necessarily have to have a 100hr inspection for an instructor to be able to charge for instruction in. If he supplies the plane for rent, then yes, it is generating income and must get the 100hr. An instructor can charge all day long in an airplane that is owned by the student, or a third party, as long as it is not generating income. This was all from the FSDO, CFI and examiner that I was working with as I was completing my commercial ticket earlier this year.Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimentalcertificate-- (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.1. Okay2. Okay3. This is the point raised which contains the subtle and for some difficult to decipher "English language" meaning of this FAR."Englishlanguage construction can be confusing, but people operate, aircraft carry...""English language constuction" aside, we have AGREEMENT! PEOPLE do OPERATE, and AIRPLANES do CARRY, so when a person gives instruction for pay in the owner's experimental, the AIRCRAFT is not being OPERATED for hire, since IT is NOT carrying for compensation or hire. Therefore, acknowledging that an AIRCRAFT has to CARRY for compensation or hire, if no money passes hands for the aircraft, then there is no violation! It is really very simple logic, after all! If you try to charge rent for the experimental, or try to hang out your shingle to charge for flights as a commercial pilot, then you are now in violation of the FAR's.4. Well, this has been dealt with, but for the sake of completeness:"carrying persons or property for compensation or hire"We've been told that "people operate, aircraft carry". In our case, since the AIRCRAFT does not carry for hire - no money is changing hands for it's use, then it isn't part of the compensation and does not figure into the equation. Just don't charge someone to fly grandma to Peoria! This really isn't that hard to understand, but I've been glad to share my knowledge with anyone in the discussion that cares.By now, I seriously doubt that anyone really does care about this particular discussion, since this is a group with the mission of discussing our grand ole plane, the Pietenpol!!! FAR discussions can be carried out on a NAFI discussion group. (if there is one) Out of respect for all the other Piet lovers out there, I'm retiring my side of the thread, to continue on would be an exercise in poor taste. By the way, my plans are headed my way, and my work table is under construction! Let the sawdust fly!Gary________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: fishin
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>Hey Wal;t, See what you started? Its OK, I've learned a bunch. Thanks,Ryder>________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: walter evans
Hey Wal;t, See what you started? Its OK, I've learned a bunch. Thanks, Ryder________________________________________________________________________________

[matronics]

Original Posted By: ToySat(at)aol.com
Ryder,Ain't it great! Gets the juices flowing. Thats how we all learn, bytalking about all kind of "stuff"walt-----Original Message-----

[matronics]

Original Posted By:>>> Gary Meadows
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>David, I have to disagree with your interpretation of this law and I think>that your item number three is the>key. The law is written with the experimental aircraft and the aircraft>owner/operator as the entity concerned. The law addresses what the aircraft>owner/operator may do with the aircraft, and says that he cannot be>compensated for the operation of the aircraft. When the aircraft ownerhires>a flight intructor he is not being compensated by the intructor, just the>opposite. "Carrying persons or property for compensation" does not mean>"compensating persons or property for being carried". The flightinstructor>is not paying for the services of the aircraft and no one is being>compensated for the operation of the aircraft.>You state "It is not people doing the carrying, but the aircraft". You are>right, and again, the aircraft and compensation for it's use is what thelaw>is concerned with.>>Your interpretation of this law would have a negative impact from a safety>standpoint. It would prevent>the experimental aircraft owner with a pilot rating from receiving>professional instruction in the aircraft he flys most, and in most cases,>the only aircraft he flys. It would prevent him taking his biennial in the>airplane he>flys and it would prevent him from taking any "brush-up" dual time if he's>feeling rusty. I don't think the FAA ever discourages dual time.>>Certainly an instructor using his own experimental aircraft to charge for>intruction in (supposedly without>charge for the aircraft) might be pushing the law. For the experimental>owner who wants dual intruction the intent of the law is very clear.>>Mike>-----Original Message----->From: David Scott >To: Pietenpol Discussion >Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 3:35 PM>Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>>>>Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating>limitations.>>>> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental>>certificate-->> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.>>>>1. NO EXCEPTIONS ON WHO>>>> First, the regulation says "No Person" which specifically means>> without exception regarding owner, operator, pilot in command,>> instructor pilot, etc ....>>>>2. AIRCRAFT OPERATION W/O EXCEPTION OF PURPOSE>>>> Second, the regulation states "an aircraft that has>> an experimental ceritificate" which specifically means any aircraft>> which has the certification under "experimental." Nothing is>> excluded concerning operations such as instruction.>>>>3. AIRCRAFT DOES THE CARRYING>>>> Third, the statement is "carrying persons or property for>compensation...">> It is not the people doing the carrying, but the aircraft. English>language>> construction can be confusing, but people operate, aircraft carry...>>>>4. COMPENSATION OR HIRE - EXCLUDES NOTHING>>>> Forth, the "for compensation or hire" does not exclude who or what>> or how the compensation is obtained. If the compensation is>dependent>> on aircraft operation, the regulation does not exclude any operations>> for compensation purposes. It is without exception regardless of>> operation types or purpose.>>>>I hope this helps. The ultimate test is at an NTSB hearing with the FAA>>working towards a suspension ruling.>>>>David Scott 13 Sep 99 15:20>>>>P.S. Incidently, in response to commercial licensing, all of this comes>from>>my understandings while gaining my certificate from the FAA FSDO office.>>You might notice that for the "carrying persons or property for>compensation or hire" applies>>to standard certificated aircraft requirements also. There is to be a>100hr>>inspection met for any carrying of persons or property for hire. So, the>age old>>question popped for the instructor taking the oral exam is: Can an>instructor>>charge for instruction in an aircraft which does not meet the 100hr>inspection>>requirement?>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>>> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:18:53 -0700 (PDT)

[matronics]

Original Posted By: David Scott
David, I have to disagree with your interpretation of this law and I thinkthat your item number three is thekey. The law is written with the experimental aircraft and the aircraftowner/operator as the entity concerned. The law addresses what the aircraftowner/operator may do with the aircraft, and says that he cannot becompensated for the operation of the aircraft. When the aircraft owner hiresa flight intructor he is not being compensated by the intructor, just theopposite. "Carrying persons or property for compensation" does not mean"compensating persons or property for being carried". The flight instructoris not paying for the services of the aircraft and no one is beingcompensated for the operation of the aircraft.You state "It is not people doing the carrying, but the aircraft". You areright, and again, the aircraft and compensation for it's use is what the lawis concerned with.Your interpretation of this law would have a negative impact from a safetystandpoint. It would preventthe experimental aircraft owner with a pilot rating from receivingprofessional instruction in the aircraft he flys most, and in most cases,the only aircraft he flys. It would prevent him taking his biennial in theairplane heflys and it would prevent him from taking any "brush-up" dual time if he'sfeeling rusty. I don't think the FAA ever discourages dual time.Certainly an instructor using his own experimental aircraft to charge forintruction in (supposedly withoutcharge for the aircraft) might be pushing the law. For the experimentalowner who wants dual intruction the intent of the law is very clear.Mike-----Original Message-----

[matronics]

Original Posted By: Mike Cunningham
-----Original Message-----

[matronics]

Original Posted By:>> Gary Meadows
How about:"I will charge "$ ???.??" the hour of the ground school teaching only (hasto be the price of the complete course), and all the flying training (40hours) in your experimental aircraft will be for free..."Has to be perfectly stated in the contract :-)Also you can sell a T shirt for $ 70.00 (for example) and get a FREE 1/2hour ride.... in the experimental aircraft :-)Fair and legal for everybody.SaludosGary Gower>Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.>> (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental>certificate--> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.>>1. NO EXCEPTIONS ON WHO>> First, the regulation says "No Person" which specifically means> without exception regarding owner, operator, pilot in command,> instructor pilot, etc ....>>2. AIRCRAFT OPERATION W/O EXCEPTION OF PURPOSE>> Second, the regulation states "an aircraft that has> an experimental ceritificate" which specifically means any aircraft> which has the certification under "experimental." Nothing is> excluded concerning operations such as instruction.>>3. AIRCRAFT DOES THE CARRYING>> Third, the statement is "carrying persons or property for compensation..."> It is not the people doing the carrying, but the aircraft. Englishlanguage> construction can be confusing, but people operate, aircraft carry...>>4. COMPENSATION OR HIRE - EXCLUDES NOTHING>> Forth, the "for compensation or hire" does not exclude who or what> or how the compensation is obtained. If the compensation is dependent> on aircraft operation, the regulation does not exclude any operations> for compensation purposes. It is without exception regardless of> operation types or purpose.>>I hope this helps. The ultimate test is at an NTSB hearing with the FAA>working towards a suspension ruling.>>David Scott 13 Sep 99 15:20>>P.S. Incidently, in response to commercial licensing, all of this comes from>my understandings while gaining my certificate from the FAA FSDO office.>You might notice that for the "carrying persons or property forcompensation or hire" applies>to standard certificated aircraft requirements also. There is to be a 100hr>inspection met for any carrying of persons or property for hire. So, theage old>question popped for the instructor taking the oral exam is: Can an instructor>charge for instruction in an aircraft which does not meet the 100hr inspection>requirement?>>>>>> Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...>> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:18:53 -0700 (PDT)