Legal Interpretations
Rodriguez 2012
Summary
The Question
Is flight instruction given under part 91 by an independent flight instructor "other commercial flying" for part 121 flight and duty time purposes?
Background
A requester asked about independent flight instruction under 14 CFR part 91 without saying whether it was paid, and argued from a 2008 interpretation to Daniel Murphy that a pilot in command is not a required crewmember.
The FAA’s Interpretation
It depends on compensation. Following the 2009 Martindell interpretation, flight instruction under part 91 for compensation is other commercial flying for tracking flight and duty time in 14 CFR part 121; instruction without compensation is not. The Murphy interpretation does not say a pilot in command is not a required crewmember and does not address flight instruction, so it does not apply.
- Requester
- Rodriguez
- Issued
- February 28, 2012
- Subjects
- General Operating & Flight Rules · Air Carrier & Commercial Operations · Flight & Duty Time
Regulations Cited
- 14 CFR Part 9
- 14 CFR Part 91
- 14 CFR Part 121
- 14 CFR Part 135
Page 1
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Arturo Rodriguez
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
This is in response to your February 28, 2012 letter asking whether flight instruction conducted under part 9 l by an independent flight instructor is considered other commercial flying for purposes of tracking flight and duty time in part 121. Your letter does not specify whether the flight instruction is done for compensation. "Other commercial flying means any nonmilitary flying as a required crewmember, other than in air transportation, for which the crewmember is paid for his or her services."1 In March 2009, the FAA issued an interpretation of an analogous part 135 provision to Richard Martindell, which is attached to this letter, stating that "flight instruction under part 91 for compensation is other commercial flying. " 2 However, flight instruction that is done without compensation is not considered other commercial flying. 3 In your letter, you cite to an interpretation issued iii 2008 to Daniel Murphy, and you argue that, per the Murphy interpretation, someone acting as a pilot in command (PIC) is not a required crewmernber and thus, is not engaged in other commercial flying. 4 However, the Murphy interpretation does not actually state that a PJC is not a required crewmember. In addition, the Murphy interpretation does not address whether acting as a flight instructor constitutes other commercial flying for purposes of the flight, duty, and rest regulations. Accordingly, the Murphy interpretation is not applicable in this case. To sum up, under the FAA' s previously-issued Martindell interpretation, flight instruction that is done for compensation is·considered other commercial flying for purposes of tracking flight and duty time in part 121. However, flight instruction that is done without compensation is not considered other commercial flying. We appreciate your patience and trust that the above responds to your concerns. If you need further assistance, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Alex Zektser, Attorney, Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief 1 Letter to Richard L. Martindell from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Mar. II , 2009).
2 Id.
3 See id; Letter to Ryan Koepp from Rebecca MacPherson (Mar. 6, 2008). 4 See Letter to Daniel Murphy from Rebecca MacPherson (Dec. 22, 2008).
Page 2
Counsel, and coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service.
Sincerely,
P--~-->fJ-
Rebecca B. MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200
Regulations Referenced
Snapshot retrieved August 6, 2026.