Flight instruction out of own aircraft

[bmatch]

Hello, I'm a class 3 flight instructor and own a C-150. I would like to teach out of my own aircraft. Wondering if it possible for an instructor to teach out of a group owned aircraft when the instructor is one of the owners.

Thanks

[lownslow]

IIRC there's somebody somewhere doing just that. Near Calgary, maybe?

LnS.

[Colonel Sanders]

CAR 406 applies - go read it.

As long as the student is one of the
Owners, you are golden.

I see no requirement in CAR 406 for the
Instructor to NOT be one of the owners.

[Rudderless]

The "owner" is the person who has legal custody and control of the aircraft, so if that's you, you can't do it.

[tonyhunt]

The "owner" is the person who has legal custody and control of the aircraft, so if that's you, you can't do it.

Check the reference - CAR 406.03(2)(b)(i) or (ii) - the issue is the ownership position of the trainee, not the instructor. There are limits under (ii), no RPP or PPL training.

I teach my kids in "our" aeroplane under (i), even though I have custody and control of both the kids and the aeroplane.

406.03 (2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if

(a) the person holds a private operator certificate or an air operator certificate, the aircraft used for training is specified in the private operator certificate or air operator certificate, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational, a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating; or

(b) the trainee is

(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,

(ii) a director of a corporation that owns the aircraft used for training, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational or a private pilot licence, or

(iii) using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational or a private pilot licence.

[Rudderless]

tonyhunt - "406.03 (2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if (b) the trainee is (i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training"

This does not seem to apply in the OP's case. The instructor has legal custody and control, not the prospective student. Check the definition in the Aeronautics Act for "owner".

[GTAFI]

I don't know the answer, but check this scenerio out. Imagine you buy an aircraft, sell "Fractional Ownership" to your students for the duration of their training so they can be legal owners, make money off them and then buy your share back when they are done training. All this magic and you bypassed the FTU OC. TC would FREAK! I'm sure there is no problem in the USA, but here, come on!!!

Just a thought.

[tonyhunt]

This does not seem to apply in the OP's case. The instructor has legal custody and control, not the prospective student. Check the definition in the Aeronautics Act for "owner".

He is looking for a path to make it legal, not simply be told his present ownership structure is not legal. If he can legally re-structure the ownership to include the trainees, he has a way ahead. The answer is in that CAR 406.

There is an "or" implied between (i) and (ii).

[stopbar]

If the current batch of pilots/instructors would spend half the time, they spend on trying to get around the regulations (CAR's), on learning the regs and how they work and developing professionally the industry would be a lot better off.

slag away.

[kamikaze]

If the question is:

"Wondering if it possible for an instructor to teach out of a group owned aircraft when the instructor is one of the owners."

The then answers are:

- Yes if the student is a member of your family.

- Yes if the student is one of the other owners, and you are NOT training for RPP or PPL.

- Otherwise: No.

You cannot teach regular joe off the street unless you marry or adopt him/her (or find some other way to make him/her a member of your family!), or sell him/her a share.

" I don't know the answer, but check this scenerio out. Imagine you buy an aircraft, sell "Fractional Ownership" to your students for the duration of their training so they can be legal owners, make money off them and then buy your share back when they are done training. All this magic and you bypassed the FTU OC. TC would FREAK! I'm sure there is no problem in the USA, but here, come on!!!

Just a thought. "

I see no problem with this ... in fact it's a pretty good idea. Sell a share, get paid for your time, buy the share back. so long as you can make the numbers work, and can get some sorts of proper agreement in place ... why not? Thing is you couldn't use it for ab-inito training, only CPL, IFR ratings and such ...

[Colonel Sanders]

There was a guy in Kingston that soid shares in his
C150 about 20 years ago to get around the FTU OC
Requirement. Obeyed all the regs but TC made his
Life difficult enough that it was easier for him to
Get an OC.

TC gets what TC wants - no fear.

[Colonel Sanders]

Stopbar - when was the last time you personally tried
To obtain an FTU OC?

It took me SIX F__KING YEARS to get an MCM approved
For an FTU that did NOT have an AMO and thus did NO
MAINTENANCE.

[trampbike]

Hello, I'm a class 3 flight instructor and own a C-150. I would like to teach out of my own aircraft. Wondering if it possible for an instructor to teach out of a group owned aircraft when the instructor is one of the owners.

Thanks

I think that this is the kind of thing a student pilot expects his instructor to know, or at least to know where the information can be found (hint: not on an internet forum).

[bmatch]

Actually I phoned TC before I posted this topic (no call back yet) as I interpret this to be a bit of a grey area in CARs. Just spit balling that is what forums are for.

[Colonel Sanders]

There are no grey areas of the CARs

The CARs say what you cannot do.

If you are doing something which is not specifically
Prohibited by the CARs it is therefore legal
Modulo CAR 602.01.

[AOW]

- Yes if the student is one of the other owners, and you are NOT training for RPP or PPL.

Have a look again at 406.03(2).... there is no restriction if the trainee is an owner or a member of an owner's family. The NOT PPL or RPP restriction only applies to the arms length clause, or the director of a corporation that owns the aircraft.

This would be a legal setup, although TC may make your life "difficult".

406.03 (2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if

(a) the person holds a private operator certificate or an air operator certificate, the aircraft used for training is specified in the private operator certificate or air operator certificate, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational, a private pilot licence, a commercial pilot licence or a flight instructor rating; or

(b) the trainee is

(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,

(ii) a director of a corporation that owns the aircraft used for training, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational or a private pilot licence, or

(iii) using an aircraft that has been obtained from a person who is at arm’s length from the flight instructor, and the training is other than toward obtaining a pilot permit - recreational or a private pilot licence.

[tonyhunt]

Have a look again at 406.03(2).... there is no restriction if the trainee is an owner or a member of an owner's family. The NOT PPL or RPP restriction only applies to the arms length clause, or the director of a corporation that owns the aircraft.

In this case - please refer to the original post. The instructor already has an ownership position. He/she seeks a way to legally provide training in that aeroplane. Incorporating and providing shares is perhaps the easiest option, and then it would fall under CAR 406.03(2)(b)(ii).

CAR 406.03(2)(b)(i) refers to "the owner", not "an owner", i.e. the expectation that this aeroplane is owned by an individual.

[AOW]

Have a look again at 406.03(2).... there is no restriction if the trainee is an owner or a member of an owner's family. The NOT PPL or RPP restriction only applies to the arms length clause, or the director of a corporation that owns the aircraft.

In this case - please refer to the original post. The instructor already has an ownership position. He/she seeks a way to legally provide training in that aeroplane. Incorporating and providing shares is perhaps the easiest option, and then it would fall under CAR 406.03(2)(b)(ii).

CAR 406.03(2)(b)(i) refers to "the owner", not "an owner", i.e. the expectation that this aeroplane is owned by an individual.

Fair enough, but does a partnership have to be a legal corporation, or is there some other way to sell fractional ownership without incorporating?

[tonyhunt]

Actually I phoned TC before I posted this topic (no call back yet) as I interpret this to be a bit of a grey area in CARs. Just spit balling that is what forums are for.

If you get an answer from TC similar to the Rudderless "No, can't be done" line without any reference or substantiation, how will you proceed?

As the Colonel pointed out, CARS 406 does not state "it cannot be done".

[Rudderless]

CARS reference - interpretation - "owner" - in respect of an aircraft, means "the person who has legal custody and control of the aircraft."

Simply put, a person who has custody and control of an aircraft cannot use it for commercial/flight training purposes. A person who is the "owner" or family member of the owner of an aircraft, can be trained on the aircraft in question. An instructor who is the "owner" of an aircraft cannot provide flight instruction. Simple.

[tonyhunt]

Fair enough, but does a partnership have to be a legal corporation, or is there some other way to sell fractional ownership without incorporating?

It might be the best defence - providing exactly what the CARs require. It's not expensive if you do the application yourself.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf ... 02717.html - it even tells you how to describe different classes of shares.

Many multiple-owner private aircraft are set up as non-profit corporations. Someone in the local club can probably supply you with sample documentation for your bylaws. Once you have the corporation, you may not have to rewrite partnership documentation every time a member wants to sell his share.

[kamikaze]

Actually, he may have a point :

"406.03 (2) A person who does not hold a flight training unit operator certificate may operate a flight training service if

...

(b) the trainee is

(i) the owner, or a member of the family of the owner, of the aircraft used for training,"

It says nothing of what the *instructor* owns or doesn't own, it only mentions what the trainee owns. I forgot about the fact that indeed, an aircraft can have multiple owners without setting up a legal entity around it, eventhtough I thinkt hat's the prevalent way to do it.

So if you buy a share of an A/C "directly", without setting up a legal entity around it, then you can get ab-initio traiing in it, possibly even from a co-owner (since as mentionned what the instructor may or may not own isn't mentionned at all).

If you buy into a legal entity that owns the aircraft, then it's different, you can't do a RPP/PPL, but you can do training beyond that, again, regardless of what the instructor owns or doesn't own.

The differentiation between "types of ownership" is a little strange ... must have something to do with how liability applies.

So back to the OP, you can train RPP/PPL if the student is a direct owner, but only beyond RPP/PPL if you sell shares in a legal entity that owns the aircraft.

Maybe Col Saunders can put you in touch with the person in Kingston to find how/why TC is giving him a hard time ... or if it's worth it.

[Colonel Sanders]

An instructor who is the "owner" of an aircraft cannot provide flight instruction

Wrong.

Read CAR 406 - that's NOT what it says

That's your interpretation, and it's not correct

You can only be charged with contravening a CAR
And there is no CAR that says what you are asserting.

Have you ever received even ONE registered letter
From Enforcement?!

[Colonel Sanders]

a person who has custody and control of an aircraft cannot use it for commercial/flight training purpose

CAR 406 doesn't say that, either.

I'm really impressed - absolutely everything you've said here is completely wrong.

That's not easy.

Lesson for everyone - don't just repeat what other people have told you.

Read the CARs yourself - they're online!

Remember - if there is no specific CAR that you are contravening, what you are doing is technically legal. TC might not like it very much, though, which is a story for another time.

[Shiny Side Up]

Lesson for everyone - don't just repeat what other people have told you.

Even if (maybe especially if) that person is from TC. What is illegal and what your particluar inspector doesn't agree with are often pretty far apart.