CFI without commercial?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Its not considerd flying for hire.


It is if you're being paid.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

It wasn't meant to be a serious comment Steven :-)


So responses are not allowed?

Sure. Responses are welcome all the time. Not meaning to be overly critical
as evidenced by the following smiley type thing :-) but It's just that with
you, I never quite know how to take the response. It could be a general
comment. It could be a crack. It's seldom more than one line, and more often
than not can be taken several ways by the reader.
Over the years, I've come to believe you and I don't understand each other
all that well, and you seldom post under me anyway, so when I post a general
comment to someone other than you meant to be "inside humor" on the pay
issues for CFI's, which most of us should already know isn't all that great
a proposition, and you answer that with a typical one liner that diverts
from the humorous intent of the post you are answering, I'm naturally a bit
gun shy with you that's all.
Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to indicate you
mean humor. It's allowed in the response you know......Usenet protocol and
all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a bit!!
Dudley

Its not considerd flying for hire.

It is if you're being paid.

Not the situation originally discussed, but suppose a non-pilot (who
perhaps reads a lot and plays flight sim) acts as an instructor for a
pilot who wants to learn something about flying from him. What that
might be I will leave to your imagination. The pilot is current and
rated in the aircraft, and acts as PIC. The passenger is being paid to
instruct, the instruction is not logged.

Is the non-pilot paid instructor "flying for hire"?

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:

You are if you're being compensated for it.

Wrong again. You're being paid to instruct; not to fly.

You don't even need a current medical unless you're acting as a
required crewmember.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it is. FAR 61.23 states that you must must hold at least a
second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a
commercial pilot certificate. The FAA had to make a special case in
FAR 61.23 in order to state that you don't need a medical unless the
instructor is a required crewmember (i.e., you're not being paid to
fly).

--

you are only a required crew member if the student does not have the
rating for the category and class being flown.
Michelle

John Godwin wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:



You are if you're being compensated for it.



Wrong again. You're being paid to instruct; not to fly.



You don't even need a current medical unless you're acting as a
required crewmember.


Irrelevant.



Actually, it is. FAR 61.23 states that you must must hold at least a
second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a
commercial pilot certificate. The FAA had to make a special case in
FAR 61.23 in order to state that you don't need a medical unless the
instructor is a required crewmember (i.e., you're not being paid to
fly).

you are only a required crew member if the student does not have the rating for the category and class being flown.

....or for the mission. For example, a safety pilot is a required
crewmember for hood practice.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Even when I am being paid, its not commercial. At least in the sense
the the FAA does not require me to told a class 2 medical. The FAA FAQ
said that they consider CFIs as being paid to teach not to fly. Perhaps
we're talking semantics.

-Robert

Jose wrote in
om:

...or for the mission. For example, a safety pilot is a required
crewmember for hood practice.

Exactly, which is why I used Required Crewmember.

--

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
oups.com:

Even when I am being paid, its not commercial. At least in the
sense the the FAA does not require me to told a class 2 medical.
The FAA FAQ said that they consider CFIs as being paid to teach
not to fly. Perhaps we're talking semantics.

Actually no. Although the "fly for hire" has clouded the issue
somewhat, one reason that a commercial is required has nothing to do
with compensation.

--

"John Godwin" wrote in message
. 3.44...

Wrong again. You're being paid to instruct; not to fly.


Review my previous message. Keep doing so until it sinks in.



Actually, it is. FAR 61.23 states that you must must hold at least a
second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a
commercial pilot certificate. The FAA had to make a special case in
FAR 61.23 in order to state that you don't need a medical unless the
instructor is a required crewmember (i.e., you're not being paid to
fly).


Find a dictionary, look up the words.