What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Looking to rent in New York

This request for an illegal use of an RV has been deleted once already but I'm gonna leave this one up to see what kind of response it gets. ;)
 
I don't plan to train....so renting experimental aircraft are COMPLETELY LEGAL TO RENT.
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) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191 (i) of this chapter for compensation or hire, except a person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191 (i)(1) for compensation or hire to-
(1) Tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with ?91.309; or
(2) Conduct flight training in an aircraft which that person provides prior to January 31, 2010.
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191 (i) of this chapter, except in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(g) No person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191 (i)(1) of this chapter to tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle for compensation or hire or to conduct flight training for compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has-
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA; or
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority.
(1) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at any time.
(2) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority to the FAA at least 60 days before the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the regulations for the deviation requested.
(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.]

Here's your answer
 
Interesting discussion.

Just a data point------ when I did my transition training with Mike Seager, the plane was rented from Vans.
 
Interesting discussion.

Just a data point------ when I did my transition training with Mike Seager, the plane was rented from Vans.

EAB owners can get a waiver (?LODA?) of this rule to rent their airplanes, but it is limited to transition training only.

Vans? factory demo planes are certified under some special catagory, I forget the FAA name.
 
EAB owners can get a waiver (“LODA”) of this rule to rent their airplanes, but it is limited to transition training only.
Vans’ factory demo planes are certified under some special catagory, I forget the FAA name.

That would be "Crew Training/Market Survey"
 
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate under ?21.191 (i) of this chapter, except in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

PLEASE READ AGAIN, this specifcally talks about "light sport". There is nothing to interpret it's clear as day.

The Limitation has nothing to do with the FAR's.

It is because of the operating limitations issued to all Experimental Amateur Built aircraft as part of their airworthiness certificate.

One of those limitations is "This aircraft can not be used for compensation or hire"

You can try and twist the definition of compensation or hire to what ever you want, but the FAA has clearly defined it already..... if you receive anything (case of beer, NBA tickets, etc.) in exchange for the use of your E-AB airplane, you have been compensated.

This is why a LODA has to be granted for an E-AB aircraft to be used for transition training if the CFI/owner is being compensated for use of their aircraft.
 
Hmm,

The term "cannot be used for compensation or hire" is intended to prevent people from using experimentals to haul cargo or charter the airplane. Can you hire a car? Yes but it comes with a driver, but if you wanted just the car you would rent or lease it. Hope that helps your understanding.

That is why it says compensation or hire
Compensation applies to it's use (renting it to someone), hire applies to the airplane and a pilot being paid to haul passengers or cargo.


It appears you have your mind made up.

My suggestion would be that you inject some logic into the subject.

As popular as RV's are, and being that there are thousands of them in the U.S. alone, why is it that you can't find any FBO or private owner advertising to offer there RV for rent. If it was possible to make a $ doing it, you can be sure that it would be happening.
It is not allowed. Period
 
Good Luck with your venture!

I've been an FAA Designee since the last century and our instructors in Oklahoma City give FAA's interpretation of the rule as renting of an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft is not allowed.
It is their rule, so they are the ones that get to interpret it.

Also when you find a renter, have them talk with their insurance company.
I'm sure they will be very interested.
 
It’s clear that MyCool is interpreting the law the way he likes; here’s how the FAA interprets it:
91.319(a) talks about the OPERATOR. In plain language, that is the owner.
91.319(2) says the owner may not be paid for having his airplane used to fly people or cargo.
If you rent an EAB, you are paying the operator (owner) to fly people (yourself). This is expressly forbidden.
 
Last edited:
Hi Bob, then would that apply to certified as well. You can't have one without the other.

LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE/COPIED! Sorry for the shouting.
“91.319. Aircraft having experimental certificates....”
 
Last edited:
When this thread winds down I'm gonna move it to General for safe keeping, this is too good to lose. :p

[thread moved; S. Buchanan]
 
Last edited:
It is helping... By trying to avoid what it clearly stated as not being allowed.

FAR 91.319(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental certificate under ? 21.191(i) of this chapter, except in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
 
It?s clear that MyCool is interpreting the law the way he likes; here?s how the FAA interprets it:
91.319(a) talks about the OPERATOR. In plain language, that is the owner.
91.319(2) says the owner may not be paid for having his airplane used to fly people or cargo.
If you rent an EAB, you are paying the operator (owner) to fly people (yourself). This is expressly forbidden.


First, I'd like to thank Sam for not killing this thread. I've found that when opinions get thrown around, even about stuff that should already be clear, I can often learn something new about a tangent that pops up during the discussion.

Now, to the splitting of hairs.

To the quoted passage above: (Note that I'm not claiming it's legal to rent a homebuilt.) The last statement does not parse, from an FARs standpoint. If you substitute 'certificated aircraft' for 'EAB', it would mean that renting a certificated aircraft is also illegal, unless it's being operated under a charter certificate (Part 135?). Now, if I *paid the owner* to fly me, I'd be paying *him* to fly people.

If I pay the owner of an FBO that rents certified aircraft to fly me somewhere in his rental plane, it's illegal (that becomes a part 135 operation, which he isn't set up to do). But if I rent his rental plane to fly myself, it's legal because I'm not paying the owner (operator) to transport me.

I'm not writing this just to stir the pot; I see a significant difference between renting and paying to transport people/cargo. Am I wrong?

Charlie
 
If I illegally rented out my RV would I have to do 100 hour inspections?

In fact, if you legally rent it, under a waiver of the applicable FAR (e.g., LODA for transition training (only)), the answer is essentially yes. My LODA specifically states that the airplane must have had a condition inspection within the previous 12 months or 100 hours, whichever came first.

Now I?m going to give up and join the popcorn crowd.
 
Put me back up!

Sam,
You deleted my response....
Im now convinced I was getting it right.
Please put It back.
Thanks!
Ron Patterson
 
Sam,
You deleted my response....
Im now convinced I was getting it right.
Please put It back.
Thanks!
Ron Patterson

I have not deleted anything in this thread.

Did some checking. Your post was in an earlier thread today that was deleted by a different moderator.
 
Last edited:
Not only is it illegal to rent a homebuilt, it's also impossible. There are no RVs for rent in the New York area nor are there any for rent in the entire country! If the original poster of this thread finds one I would be interested to hear about it.
 
Rent An RV?

Can't be serious with a question like that.

Can't even imagine letting my RV out of my sight, with someone else at the controls. Talk about lose the RV grin! I'd have bad-dreams even during the day.

Hold it, Yes he can rent an RV-go down to the local Class A or C motorhome rental company!

Best regards,
Mike
 
Not only is it illegal to rent a homebuilt, it's also impossible. There are no RVs for rent in the New York area nor are there any for rent in the entire country! If the original poster of this thread finds one I would be interested to hear about it.

Except for the factory built (not EAB) S-LSA RV-12.
 
Not true

It’s clear that MyCool is interpreting the law the way he likes; here’s how the FAA interprets it:
91.319(a) talks about the OPERATOR. In plain language, that is the owner.
91.319(2) says the owner may not be paid for having his airplane used to fly people or cargo.
If you rent an EAB, you are paying the operator (owner) to fly people (yourself). This is expressly forbidden.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 120-12A.pdf

ADVISORY CIRCULAR 120-12a states clearly that "persons" is not a required crew member such as a pilot with proper endorsement.

And so we are clear below is actual verbiage of 91.319...

§ 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.


IN ADDITION TO HELP CLEAR UP THIS ISSUE I HAVE PUT IN A REQUEST TO THE CHIEF COUNSEL AT OKLAHOMA CITY. IM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE HERE ON THIS FORUM, IM TRYING TO INFORM ACCURATELY THE LAW THAT IS INPLACE TODAY.
 
Last edited:
A little light reading for you on the subject...

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...7/Firestone - (2017) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Notice they mention that the company can fly an experimental aircraft as long as the pilot is the sole occupant and an EMPLOYEE of the company.

Came up with this letter with a quick Google search. As well as other people asking the same question about "renting" an aircraft with the same guidance you have been given by multiple people here.

Good luck on your quest for changing the regulation... But renting an aircraft does in fact mean that you have compensated the owner of the aircraft to be able to carry you as the pilot.
 
A little light reading for you on the subject...

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...7/Firestone - (2017) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Notice they mention that the company can fly an experimental aircraft as long as the pilot is the sole occupant and an EMPLOYEE of the company.

Came up with this letter with a quick Google search. As well as other people asking the same question about "renting" an aircraft with the same guidance you have been given by multiple people here.

Good luck on your quest for changing the regulation... But renting an aircraft does in fact mean that you have compensated the owner of the aircraft to be able to carry you as the pilot.

Again, not claiming to support the OP's position.

But the letter you cite is very specific about *primary kit-built* (not the same category as amateur built), and the complete quote is, 'Operation of your aircraft by a single pilot employed by the company carrying property owned by the company, for example, would be permitted.' Only one example of use, and I don't see anything about the pilot being sole occupant; just 'single pilot'.

The FAA's hairs get pretty finely split, and what seems to support an argument, often doesn't.

Primary category:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/21.24#a_1
 
Back
Top