Federal Court Decision: Flight training is carrying passengers for hire

An actual example: I've got a TW student (private cert and instrument rating, but relatively low time) in the process of buying an RV-4. He got a deposit in before the June 4 letter. So now he's looking at 3 choices:
  1. Fly his new-to-him airplane with no instruction in RVs. (A bad idea, and he's not likely to do this.)
  2. Find an operation with an existing LODA that will provide instruction in an RV (he's beating the bushes on this, but even before this letter, the guy that works closely with Van's was booked out to October.)
  3. Apply for a LODA himself. (We'll start working this, but... a: he doesn't own the airplane yet, and b: how long do you think THAT will take? A year? Who knows. The FSDO has been working some very basic paperwork for me, and we're 2 1/2 years in. Doesn't build confidence in "streamlined processes".)
So, too bad for this guy.

But note that it's only his good decisionmaking that deters him from 1) above. The FAA letter of June 4 sure adds pressure in the unsafe direction.

The guys selling the P-40 rides caused a crap-ton of trouble, and IMHO should've been stopped, but the FAA seems to have really "tripped on their own shoelaces", as some earlier poster said. Hard to argue that this TW student isn't an innocent bystander that got red paint splashed all over him....
That’s the difference between living under the regulations and enforcing the regulations. There is zero point in having this discussion with the person enforcing the regulations. They are clueless.
 
An actual example: I've got a TW student (private cert and instrument rating, but relatively low time) in the process of buying an RV-4. He got a deposit in before the June 4 letter. So now he's looking at 3 choices:
  1. Fly his new-to-him airplane with no instruction in RVs. (A bad idea, and he's not likely to do this.)
  2. Find an operation with an existing LODA that will provide instruction in an RV (he's beating the bushes on this, but even before this letter, the guy that works closely with Van's was booked out to October.)
  3. Apply for a LODA himself. (We'll start working this, but... a: he doesn't own the airplane yet, and b: how long do you think THAT will take? A year? Who knows. The FSDO has been working some very basic paperwork for me - just reissuing an airworthiness certificate as the signature is nearly faded - and we're 2 1/2 years in. Doesn't build confidence in "streamlined processes".)
So, too bad for this guy.

But note that it's only his good decisionmaking that deters him from 1) above. The FAA letter of June 4 sure adds pressure in the unsafe direction.

The guys selling the P-40 rides caused a crap-ton of trouble, and IMHO should've been stopped, but the FAA seems to have really "tripped on their own shoelaces", as some earlier poster said. Hard to argue that this TW student isn't an innocent bystander that got red paint splashed all over him....
I'm going to channel Doc. H. and say "the FAA always does what's right and everything will be fine. You're overreacting." or maybe simply "what's the problem? There's a process, and it'll be streamlined."
 
I don’t think anyone is arguing the main issue as to how it arrived at this point, and streamlining the process will be necessary, as now a large percentage of experimental category aircraft owners will need a LODA.

As the alphabets pointed out initially, this court decision goes far beyond the actual main issue. Besides changing the things in my previous post, it also prohibits any Sport Pilot instructor who does not hold at least a commercial certificate from giving instruction.

So I read this:
faa letter 1.JPG

So that tells me a follow up is coming behind this to clarify the decision. Should we wait to see that or just declare the sky is indeed falling?

Also I read this:

faa letter 2.JPG
faa letter 3.JPG

So it appears to me the FAA is not shutting down anything, but once again being forced to go back and clarify a position in the regulations.

Furthermore, it was these groups that wanted clarification from the FAA on the experimental side, so they put the FAA is a position to formulate an answer, and as seen numerous times in the past, they don't like the answer they received. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

But I also read where the FAA wants to make sure the flight training is being provided.

Perhaps we should do a wait and see, and perhaps for those paying the various organizations for representation let them work it out and find a solution.

YMMV, and all other disclaimers.
 
I'm going to channel Doc. H. and say "the FAA always does what's right and everything will be fine. You're overreacting." or maybe simply "what's the problem? There's a process, and it'll be streamlined."

How about I channel Salty and say "No need to read the documents, it's all a huge conspiracy!" or maybe "Where's my tinfoil hat dammit!" ;)
 
The FAA letter of June 4 sure adds pressure in the unsafe direction.

Go back and reread the letter.

The guys selling the P-40 rides caused a crap-ton of trouble, and IMHO should've been stopped, but the FAA seems to have really "tripped on their own shoelaces", as some earlier poster said. Hard to argue that this TW student isn't an innocent bystander that got red paint splashed all over him....

No doubt. And as long as there will be regulations and laws, there will be those who try to circumvent them, making life harder on those who don't.

But IMO this is far from over, and is not in concrete.
 
So I read this:
View attachment 97246

So that tells me a follow up is coming behind this to clarify the decision. Should we wait to see that or just declare the sky is indeed falling?

Also I read this:

View attachment 97247
View attachment 97248

So it appears to me the FAA is not shutting down anything, but once again being forced to go back and clarify a position in the regulations.

Furthermore, it was these groups that wanted clarification from the FAA on the experimental side, so they put the FAA is a position to formulate an answer, and as seen numerous times in the past, they don't like the answer they received. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

But I also read where the FAA wants to make sure the flight training is being provided.

Perhaps we should do a wait and see, and perhaps for those paying the various organizations for representation let them work it out and find a solution.

YMMV, and all other disclaimers.
You seem to have missed the point that the sky has already fallen. You only point out promises to lift it back up again. :rolleyes:
 
So I read this:
View attachment 97246

So that tells me a follow up is coming behind this to clarify the decision. Should we wait to see that or just declare the sky is indeed falling?

Also I read this:

View attachment 97247
View attachment 97248

So it appears to me the FAA is not shutting down anything, but once again being forced to go back and clarify a position in the regulations.

Furthermore, it was these groups that wanted clarification from the FAA on the experimental side, so they put the FAA is a position to formulate an answer, and as seen numerous times in the past, they don't like the answer they received. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

But I also read where the FAA wants to make sure the flight training is being provided.

Perhaps we should do a wait and see, and perhaps for those paying the various organizations for representation let them work it out and find a solution.

YMMV, and all other disclaimers.
Waiting for the official proclamation is obviously what’s necessary, but the response letter sounds a lot more like, “you’re right, and well have official documentation of the policy changes at some future date,” than “no, this only applies to those operations to which we have previously issued LODAs, and well clarify that at some future date.”

But IMO this is far from over, and is not in concrete.
Unfortunately this is nowhere indicated to the general flying public.
 
Waiting for the official proclamation is obviously what’s necessary, but the response letter sounds a lot more like, “you’re right, and well have official documentation of the policy changes at some future date,” than “no, this only applies to those operations to which we have previously issued LODAs, and well clarify that at some future date.”

I don't see it as a big deal, but it does give many something to clutch their pearls over and fret about.
 
An actual example: I've got a TW student (private cert and instrument rating, but relatively low time) in the process of buying an RV-4. He got a deposit in before the June 4 letter. So now he's looking at 3 choices:
  1. Fly his new-to-him airplane with no instruction in RVs. (A bad idea, and he's not likely to do this.)
  2. Find an operation with an existing LODA that will provide instruction in an RV (he's beating the bushes on this, but even before this letter, the guy that works closely with Van's was booked out to October.)
  3. Apply for a LODA himself. (We'll start working this, but... a: he doesn't own the airplane yet, and b: how long do you think THAT will take? A year? Who knows. The FSDO has been working some very basic paperwork for me - just reissuing an airworthiness certificate as the signature is nearly faded - and we're 2 1/2 years in. Doesn't build confidence in "streamlined processes".)
So, too bad for this guy.

There are folks who do this, I know people who have bought Vans and gotten instruction. I think the TW student should maybe beat the bushes a bit harder.
 
You seem to have missed the point that the sky has already fallen. You only point out promises to lift it back up again. :rolleyes:

In your world I'm sure it's fallen and the world is burning around you. I'm also pretty sure in your world those chem trails are doing evil things as well. :eek:o_O
 
How about I channel Salty and say "No need to read the documents, it's all a huge conspiracy!" or maybe "Where's my tinfoil hat dammit!" ;)
And Doc H. says "People don't need to train in their own planes. They can just go find someone that already has a LODA. This is not a problem. Stop making a big deal out of nothing. Making it harder to get training doesn't make people less safe."
 
Go back and reread the letter.

I have.

When you read the FAA stating that their own guidance to inspectors is inconsistent with their (new) interpretation of the regulations (see footnote 5), you gotta believe they've screwed up. Whether they've just tumbled to it now, or their new interpretation of instructing as carrying persons for hire bit them, it doesn't matter. They've now established a framework where avenues to instruction in a new-to-the-pilot aircraft type are impeded.
 
I have.

When you read the FAA stating that their own guidance to inspectors is inconsistent with their (new) interpretation of the regulations (see footnote 5), you gotta believe they've screwed up. Whether they've just tumbled to it now, or their new interpretation of instructing as carrying persons for hire bit them, it doesn't matter. They've now established a framework where avenues to instruction in a new-to-the-pilot aircraft type are impeded.

Again, we're looking at it differently. I think this will get clarified as the different organizations are involved and will lobby for an equitable solution. The FAA looks for "equivalency of safety" and if the AOPA and EAA and GAMA can offer a solution that shows just that, then I think they will have common ground.

We'll see.
 
There are folks who do this, I know people who have bought Vans and gotten instruction. I think the TW student should maybe beat the bushes a bit harder.

Sure there are. And some even do this instruction consistent with the regulations.

In the US, there are 13 people that actually hold letters of deviation authority (LODAs) for relevant airplanes (in my view, RVs that aren't RV10s or 12s). He's calling all of them.

Prior to the June 4 letter, he could've received instruction in his own airplane. Now he has to find one of these 13, or get his own LODA, at least per this letter.
 
Which is less safe?

1. Taking a couple hundred people a year on a joy ride in a two seat P-40
2. Making it impossible for owners to get training in 26,000 experimental aircraft without lengthy paperwork that most do not know how to get
 
Which is less safe?

1. Taking a couple hundred people a year on a joy ride in a two seat P-40
2. Making it impossible for owners to get training in 26,000 experimental aircraft without lengthy paperwork that most do not know how to get
Which would be a relevant question if “safe or legal, pick one” was acceptable.
 
Which would be a relevant question if “safe or legal, pick one” was acceptable.
It’s a relevant question because the Faa decided the second one is preferred. But I agree they should have dealt with the legality issue of the first one rather than making the second illegal. It’ll relevant, because it made things overall less safe, not more safe than before this action.
 
It’s a relevant question because the Faa decided the second one is preferred.
It’s still up to the pilot to be safe...the FAA may not be making it easy to be safe, but they are not demanding unsafe operation.
 
It’s still up to the pilot to be safe...the FAA may not be making it easy to be safe, but they are not demanding unsafe operation.
So you don’t think making instruction more difficult to attain makes things less safe overall?

Let’s back up here. Do you think it’s unsafe to train in an experimental without a LODA? That’s a reasonable position I suppose, but I want to clarify.
 
I don't see it as a big deal, but it does give many something to clutch their pearls over and fret about.
Kinda like FAA clutching pearls that the operation was unsafe without a piece of paper, but magically becomes safer with it? Ha.

Let's be honest here, I'm fine with them shutting the thing down, but they never made a numbers based safety case that this particular joyride facility was any less safe that all the other joyride groups they've approved are.

Even let a kid crash a bomber.

But I'm suuuuuuure that little screwup had nothing to do with the sudden increase of scrutiny... Haha. Right.

Of course if we all point it out too loudly they'll just stop all of it. Why not? It's all for the nuns and kids in the schoolbus...

I can't decide if joyride groups are truly worth it or not, and neither can FAA... But in general if anyone climbs aboard something that old they know it doesn't come with an airframe parachute...

Whatcha gonna do? Waffle a lot, probably.

The real mistake here was in whoever wrote the initial reply not understanding that they widened the scope of types affected. Slapdash letter.

They'll circle the wagons and get the wording right the second time.
 
So you don’t think making instruction more difficult to attain makes things less safe overall?
If making instruction more difficult to attain makes things less safe, pilots are allowing themselves to fly in a less-safe environment.
 
If making instruction more difficult to attain makes things less safe, pilots are allowing themselves to fly in a less-safe environment.
Moving goalposts.

if We go down that train of thought, then you are saying flying experimental aircraft shouldn’t be allowed due to safety concerns. I can’t get training, so I shouldn’t fly.
 
No, it always was, is now, and always will be the responsibility of the PIC to ensure that the flight is safe.
It is and was, but the discussion is not about the PICs responsibility, the discussion is about the FAAs responsibility.
 
The trouble in this case did not come from Warbird Adventures. They clearly had a limited category airplane and they clearly did not have a LODA to give flight training it. They persisted in selling rides in it, which clearly is "for compensation". There's no room to imagine that they were in the right.

The problem is the judge's overly broad language which defines flight instruction as carriage for compensation. That triggers all kinds of things in the FARs, well beyond 91.315. For example, does a CFI need a Part 135 certification now to carry a passenger for compensation? By one reading of the judge's order, yes.

The FAA is working on a statement. That statement might come in a week, it might come in a year. Either way, I'd just keep on doing what we've been doing, other than the "selling a warbird experience in a limited category airplane" thing.
 
Is it their responsibility to make it harder as they did here?
No, but if this continues to be the cluster**** that it looks like, it’s still the pilot’s responsibility to ensure safet flight.
 
Their responsibility is to encourage safety. When compliance becomes harder, fewer people will comply and they are not equipped to catch everyone.
Either it stays that way, which is the only indication the general public has; or cooler heads may prevail as Doc thinks will happen. Either way, compliance isn’t optional, it’s required.

Adding irrelevant information to the argument is exactly what the court did, and adding more isn’t going to fix it.
 
As the alphabets pointed out initially, this court decision goes far beyond the actual main issue. Besides changing the things in my previous post, it also prohibits any Sport Pilot instructor who does not hold at least a commercial certificate from giving instruction.
And wouldn't it also prohibit a regular CFI who doesn't hold a current second class medical from giving paid instruction?
 
Either it stays that way, which is the only indication the general public has; or cooler heads may prevail as Doc thinks will happen. Either way, compliance isn’t optional, it’s required.

If everyone is required to comply with what the court said, then all training will be done in 135/125 organizations. GA will be dead. Personally, I can see that elimination of an activity gives you a perfect safety record, but I don't think "no operations" achieves the goal of "safe operations".

As I said, just keep doing what we've been doing. The court's decision is unpublished, which means it not setting precedent. I expect the FAA will clarify it all. Probably before Oshkosh so they don't have 1,000 pilots dropping by to ask the same question.
 
If everyone is required to comply with what the court said, then all training will be done in 135/125 organizations. GA will be dead.
True, if you assume normally-certificate airplanes are already a thing of the past.
 
Understood.

But aren't some missing the main issue as to how it has arrived at this point?

Also, again, the letter does give a path for limited and experimental to continue instruction, and even states they are working on a streamlined process.

I don't care how we arrived at this point. The real point is tens of thousands of pilots and owners of experimental and limited category aircraft now can't get training in their aircraft without a LODA.

Everything beyond that is speculation.
 
True, if you assume normally-certificate airplanes are already a thing of the past.

I think what I said was true whether or not I assume certificated airplanes are done...I don't. However requiring us to have professional level training will make it so.
 
Back
Top