Rule bending?

[Aerco]

Saw this ad recently on barnstormers.com:



SPORT PILOT TRAINING • YOUR SEARCH IS OVER • Fly a Challenger at North Carolina's beautiful Oak Island. Sport Training, transition time, or Ultralight training by CFI.You'll fly the beach with the sea gulls. Open cockpit, goggles on your head and a stick in your hand. On training completion you can get your checkride here as well. Local beach cottages available for rent and limited camping at the airport. Your family can go to the beach while you fly. We fly 7 days a week. Fly up to 3 times per day. $100 / hr. for ground & flight instruction. No charge for aircraft.[/i] Plane is currently down for maintenance.Training resumes April 1 st. • Contact Gerry Baker - OAK ISLAND SPORT PLANES , Owner - located Oak Island, NC USA • Telephone: 910 - 367-1573 •



No charge for aircraft? This is an E-LSA that was probably run under the old exemption rules and now that the deadline has passed, it seems the owner didn't apply for a new airworthiness cert. with a LODA; the only way you can legally operate an LSA while charging for the aircraft, Or he was refused one; in either case he can now no longer charge for the use of the airplane. I suppose technically he's within his rights to do this, since an instructor gets paid for his time as a teacher; the airplane is a different matter altogether. I guess if a student needs to do his solo time, he gets charged $100, before or after, for "instruction" while he's in the air?

Is this clever thinking or just blatant rule bending?

[FastEddieB]

Is this clever thinking or just blatant rule bending?

At first blush it sure seems like the latter.

It reminds me of the couple that was trying to avoid being a Part 135 Air Taxi. They had two desks. The customer who wanted to go somewhere would walk in and be directed to one desk, where the wife would rent him an airplane - nothing wrong with that by itself. Then the customer would be directed to another desk, where he'd find the husband, who he'd hire, separately, to fly him where he wanted to go - again, nothing wrong with that, either.

The FAA did not agree, and hung them out to dry. The separate desks and charges did not keep it from being, in essence, one enterprise.

If this came to light somehow, I think the outcome might end up being the same.

Caveat: I'm not an attorney, and maybe what he's doing is perfectly OK...

...but I doubt it.

[AZPilot]

Won't pass the "sniff" test.

If I were going to be a student, I would want to see
the insurance policy.

They might try the "club" theory. Buy a "membership" and
get free use of the airplane, but insurance is still the key.

[Jim Stewart]

I'd not purchase a large block of time from these people if you catch my meaning

[tadel001]

Actually, free flight time is a form of compensation. Therefore, you have to have commercial ticket and class 2 medical. So no, this does not work. Blatant violation. I'd be happy to represent the guy when the FAA comes knocking on his door (of course we will need to plead it out).

[AZPilot]

I'd not purchase a large block of time from these people if you catch my meaning

I'd not buy a large block of time from anyone. Having been in the biz too long, I have seen too many flightschools go
under and take large sums of student money with them. Especially back in the day of Key Bank and Sallie Mae. (I know Key gave it up and I assume that due to current credit
underwriting that SLM isn't very aggressive either). That scenario includes some very big names, not just the mom and pop shops.