Freelance CFIs and plane rentals??

The problem is usually one of insurance. The FBO's insurer insists that
instruction be given only by instructors employed by the FBO. The FBO may
also object to providing an airplane for an instructor that it perceives is
competing with its own business.

If you do find a private individual who is willing to rent his plane to you
for instruction, be sure to carry your own renter's insurance. The airplane
is required to have 100 hour inspections if used for rental.

Flying clubs often welcome free-lance instructors. You and your instructor
could consider joining such a club.

Actually buying an airplane and learning to fly in it can be cheaper than
renting. I have known people who did this and who ended up selling the plane
for more than they paid for it.

owners renting out their aircraft for instruction... may not have the "open
pilot policy" that allows for student solo operations..

BT

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
The problem is usually one of insurance. The FBO's insurer insists that
instruction be given only by instructors employed by the FBO. The FBO may
also object to providing an airplane for an instructor that it perceives
is
competing with its own business.

If you do find a private individual who is willing to rent his plane to
you
for instruction, be sure to carry your own renter's insurance. The
airplane
is required to have 100 hour inspections if used for rental.

Flying clubs often welcome free-lance instructors. You and your instructor
could consider joining such a club.

Actually buying an airplane and learning to fly in it can be cheaper than
renting. I have known people who did this and who ended up selling the
plane
for more than they paid for it.

"BTIZ" wrote in message news:oYf_b.30140$tM5.14018@fed1read04...
owners renting out their aircraft for instruction... may not have the "open
pilot policy" that allows for student solo operations..


Private owners are not likely to have insurance that covers this at
all. Open pilot would apply to someone else flying your plane, but
does not generally extend to a rental arrangement. This would take
the plane out of the business/pleasure class of insurance and into the
commercial (read: big bucks) class.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

The airplane is required to have 100 hour inspections if used for
rental.

Thought we had killed this myth a long time ago.

----------------------------------------snip-----------------------------------------
FAA Letter of Interpretation

May 3, 1984

In Reply Refer To: ACE-7
Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service
PO Box 330
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Mr. Rackers:

This is in reply to your request of May 1, 1984, that we render an
opinion regarding the applicability of the 100-hour inspections
requirement of Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
to rental aircraft.

Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides that,
except as noted in Section 91.169(c), a person may not operate an
aircraft carrying any person, other than a crewmember, for hire, and
may not give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that
person provides unless, within the previous 100 hours of time in
service, the aircraft has received either an annual or a 100-hour
inspection
..
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and
does not provide the pilot, that aircraft is not required by Section
91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour
inspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only
when the aircraft is carrying a person for hire, or when a person is
providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.

If there are any questions, please advise us.

Sincerely,
/s/
Joseph T. Brennan
Associate Regional Counsel.

The interesting thing about that Greg, is that is defies common sense by
changing a required safety inspection period based only upon whose name is
on the title - but then it is the FAA, right?
denny

"Greg Esres" wrote in
Thought we had killed this myth a long time ago.

----------------------------------------snip----------------------------
-------------
FAA Letter of Interpretation

May 3, 1984

In Reply Refer To: ACE-7
Mr. Perry Rackers
Jefferson City Flying Service
PO Box 330
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Mr. Rackers:

This is in reply to your request of May 1, 1984, that we render an
opinion regarding the applicability of the 100-hour inspections
requirement of Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
to rental aircraft.

Section 91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations provides that,
except as noted in Section 91.169(c), a person may not operate an
aircraft carrying any person, other than a crewmember, for hire, and
may not give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that
person provides unless, within the previous 100 hours of time in
service, the aircraft has received either an annual or a 100-hour
inspection
.
If a person merely leases or rents an aircraft to another person and
does not provide the pilot, that aircraft is not required by Section
91.169(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to have a 100-hour
inspection. As noted above, the 100-hour inspection is required only
when the aircraft is carrying a person for hire, or when a person is
providing flight instruction for hire, in their own aircraft.

If there are any questions, please advise us.

Sincerely,
/s/
Joseph T. Brennan
Associate Regional Counsel.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ...
The interesting thing about that Greg, is that is defies common sense by
changing a required safety inspection period based only upon whose name is
on the title - but then it is the FAA, right?

It doesn't have anything to do with who's name on the title. The rule says when
carrying passengers for hire or when the instructor provides the aircraft. If the
plane is rented without pilot, then it is neither of the above. Where in the rule or
the FAA interp that was posted here did you determine that the name on the title
had anything to do with it.

Old myths never die.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Old myths never die.

Neither do they just fade away.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
If you do find a private individual who is willing to rent his plane to you
for instruction, be sure to carry your own renter's insurance.

I doubt this will work. First of all the owner will have to add
insurance to allow the student to be training in his airplane. For my
plane it adds about $6000/year with a prohibitation on solo. Most
companies do not want to ensure commercial instruction insurance on
planes unless there are at least 3 airplanes on the policy.

I wish this myth of buying renters insurance would die. A renter's
policy ONLY covers situations where you can PROVE the renter was at
fault. The owner's policy will only cover those situations that the
policy allows for. I guarantee your policy only allows named insureds
to receive instruction.

So, if the "student" were flying the plane and the landing gear broke
on its own and totaled the plane, there would be NO insurance. The
student's renters' insurance would say, "Prove the student caused
this". The owners insurance would say "Prove a named insured or open
pilot was piloting" (almost all open pilot polices require at least a
private and sometimes an instrument rating).

My policy (AIG ) makes no distinction between who is PIC. It simply
says only a named insured can be "piloting" the plane. This means
there is no insurance if they think anyone else touched the controls.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If you do find a private individual who is willing to rent his plane to
you
for instruction, be sure to carry your own renter's insurance.

I doubt this will work. First of all the owner will have to add
insurance to allow the student to be training in his airplane. For my
plane it adds about $6000/year with a prohibitation on solo. Most
companies do not want to ensure commercial instruction insurance on
planes unless there are at least 3 airplanes on the policy.

I don't know whether or not it will "work," but I know of students who rent
from a non-FBO. This person had a few C172s and rented them out at
competitive rates.

So how can FBOs afford it?


I wish this myth of buying renters insurance would die. A renter's
policy ONLY covers situations where you can PROVE the renter was at
fault. The owner's policy will only cover those situations that the
policy allows for. I guarantee your policy only allows named insureds
to receive instruction.

So, if the "student" were flying the plane and the landing gear broke
on its own and totaled the plane, there would be NO insurance. The
student's renters' insurance would say, "Prove the student caused
this". The owners insurance would say "Prove a named insured or open
pilot was piloting" (almost all open pilot polices require at least a
private and sometimes an instrument rating).

My policy (AIG ) makes no distinction between who is PIC. It simply
says only a named insured can be "piloting" the plane. This means
there is no insurance if they think anyone else touched the controls.


I can have an unnamed pilot - but I assume you mean not being instructed.

-Robert