FAA guidance on Flight instruction LODA in category aircraft. . . update July 8th

You know there’s something wrong when getting training is considered a deviation.


You know there’s something wrong when a deviation becomes the normal mode of operation.
 
Salty said:
You know there’s something wrong when getting training is considered a deviation.


You know there’s something wrong when a deviation becomes the normal mode of operation.
Click to expand...


iu
 
TCABM said:
About the author:

Justine Harrison joined AOPA in 2019 and serves as AOPA’s general counsel and corporate secretary, leading the Legal Department and overseeing AOPA’s Legal Services Plan.

Drumming up business for the legal services plan.
Click to expand...

That’s what I thought when I posted the article. No reference to the alleged prosecutions but a link to AOPA Legal Sevices.

Cheers
 
Salty said:
So you don’t see a problem with training being considered a deviation or deviation being the new normal way of operating?
Click to expand...

That regulation was written decades ago. Nothing changed except the FAA was caught not providing the oversight of the regulation. So they admitted it, and provided a fairly simple fix that doesn’t burden the public, unless you consider spending 5 minutes sending an email as a burden.
 
Doc Holliday said:
That regulation was written decades ago. Nothing changed except the FAA was caught not providing the oversight of the regulation. So they admitted it, and provided a fairly simple fix that doesn’t burden the public, unless you consider spending 5 minutes sending an email as a burden.
Click to expand...
I’ll take that as a no, even though you refuse to actually answer a question.
 
Salty said:
I’ll take that as a no, even though you refuse to actually answer a question.
Click to expand...

Take it anyway you want sodium boy. I answered your question, your inability to comprehend isn’t my problem.

You can now return back to your regularly scheduled hysteria now.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Take it anyway you want sodium boy. I answered your question, your inability to comprehend isn’t my problem.

You can now return back to your regularly scheduled hysteria now.
Click to expand...
A juvenile attempt to Insult me is not an answer to a yes or no question, but nice job sinking even lower.
 
Salty said:
So you don’t see a problem with training being considered a deviation or deviation being the new normal way of operating?
Click to expand...
This only applies to aircraft with special airworthiness certificates. Most training is conducted in aircraft with standard airworthiness certs. So I wouldn't really call this the new normal, but YMMV.
 
X3 Skier said:
If anybody can figure out why AOPA now has their underwear in a bigger twist in this article, let me know. All I can deduce it’s a scare tactic to drum up business for the lawsuit insurance since getting the LODA seems to be painless.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...is-at-risk?utm_source=epilot&utm_medium=email
Click to expand...
I've learned a little more about the airmen in question, and based on that information, I don't have an issue with the FAA's argument in the case. The pilots were "volunteers" to fly aircraft that most of us mere mortals dream of. I agree with the FAA that they were compensated merely by being allowed to fly them. And the "students" were paying gobs of money for the "instruction." This is NOT, imho, something I would worry about if I was a CFI just giving my buddy a free BFR in his RV.
 
Lindberg said:
This only applies to aircraft with special airworthiness certificates. Most training is conducted in aircraft with standard airworthiness certs. So I wouldn't really call this the new normal, but YMMV.
Click to expand...
It “only” applies to aircraft with special airworthiness certificates, of which I’m probably safe saying are the majority of new piston aircraft entering the fleet today.

Regardless of that, it’s still insane to say that training in tens of thousands of aircraft in the fleet should be considered a deviation. In reality, NOT training in them is the deviation.

It is also crazy to say issuing deviation authorization by the hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands based on nothing more than an email is a good thing. Deviation by definition should not be the defacto standard.

You guys are literally praising the Faa for doing such a good job of making a deviation the new standard.
 
Just in case you forgot what it means

the action of departing from an established course or accepted standard.
Click to expand...

An owner training in his experimental aircraft is now a departure from the accepted standard. And you think that’s a good thing.
 
Salty said:
Regardless of that, it’s still insane to say that training in tens of thousands of aircraft in the fleet should be considered a deviation. In reality, NOT training in them is the deviation.

It is also crazy to say issuing deviation authorization by the hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands based on nothing more than an email is a good thing. Deviation by definition should not be the defacto standard.

You guys are literally praising the Faa for doing such a good job of making a deviation the new standard.
Click to expand...

I think this whole process is the result of the FAA “stepping on their tie”. While the temporary “fix” may be messy, illogical, disturbing and out of the norm to you and others, to wait years for the regulatory, lawmaking or whatever process to come up with a tidy, logical, comforting and normal fix would be dumb since during those years, how would people get transition or periodic trading for experimental aircraft since the number of CFI’s with the proper existing LODA(s) was minimal.

In fact, this is pretty good thing in my opinion since it allows for a vastly larger ability to get important trading in experimental aircraft. Something bad might happen but leaving the status quo after the initial disaster is far worse.

If there’s a better solution for an immediate fix for the problem, I’m clueless. Saying issue changes to the FAR faster is possible is a non sequitur.

Cheers
 
Salty said:
Just in case you forgot what it means



An owner training in his experimental aircraft is now a departure from the accepted standard. And you think that’s a good thing.
Click to expand...
Well that may be appropriate, since if you have a "standard" airworthiness cert, you don't need a LODA. I have no idea whether the majority of new planes have "special" airworthiness certs, but I do think it's safe to assume that wasn't the situation contemplated when the regs were written.
 
Salty said:
Just in case you forgot what it means



An owner training in his experimental aircraft is now a departure from the accepted standard. And you think that’s a good thing.
Click to expand...

Previously an owner trained in his own airplane. He now will train in his own airplane with a piece of paper acquired from the FAA in a simple process that says it is an approved deviation from the accepted standard. A difference without distinction except now the owner would be in violation of the FAR because of a FAA Screw up if he didn’t have said paper.

Cheers
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Hopefully the legislature will rein in the FAA on this.

As von Mises noted, bureaucrats have all their incentives in the wrong places. Let’s create more work so we have a bigger budget and a bigger salary and bigger pension. Sort of wild the FAA fought this one so hard in court.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...s-to-solve-faa-created-flight-training-crisis
Click to expand...


Well, it's a start. Now they also need to clarify that "compensation" means money, services, or tangible goods, not flight hours or "good will."

The FAA's definition of compensation is so broad that it's very hard to fly at all without being compensated. If I fly my wife to a horse show and thereby enjoy a happier home life, the FAA will probably deem that as compensation.
 
Half Fast said:
...If I fly my wife to a horse show and thereby enjoy a happier home life, the FAA will probably deem that as compensation.
Click to expand...
Maybe that would depend on whether you live in a community-property state. ;)
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Hopefully the legislature will rein in the FAA on this.

As von Mises noted, bureaucrats have all their incentives in the wrong places. Let’s create more work so we have a bigger budget and a bigger salary and bigger pension. Sort of wild the FAA fought this one so hard in court.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...s-to-solve-faa-created-flight-training-crisis
Click to expand...
More good fundraising. This is exactly what should happen; the elected legislature correcting what it sees as a misstep by a regulatory agency.
 
Maybe the FAA should have the Chief Counsel's office ratify past practice in contradiction of the language of the regulations, like what was done with the 45-degree entry. They could put it in the AIM and an advisory circular, too.

"Section 9l.l26(b)(1) does not prohibit a 45-degree right turn from the entry leg onto the
downwind leg because we have long considered that this rule does not prohibit maneuvers
necessary to safely enter the flow of traffic at the airport."
​
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...011/Gossman - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdf
 
Last edited:
Been busy (OSH), but I did get my LODA in a semi reasonable amount of time. Trying to email ahead of their procedure did no good. Also, I now have a .png with a FSDO signature. That won't be useful for anyone with low integrity.

As for the whole mess, isn't the FAA familiar with "normalization of deviance" as a safety issue?
 
FWIW ... I applied for and received my free, easy to obtain, LODA from the FAA in a reasonable amount of time.

I'm a "deviant" now but at least I'm a legal deviant. o_O
 
keen9 said:
Been busy (OSH), but I did get my LODA in a semi reasonable amount of time. Trying to email ahead of their procedure did no good. Also, I now have a .png with a FSDO signature. That won't be useful for anyone with low integrity.

As for the whole mess, isn't the FAA familiar with "normalization of deviance" as a safety issue?
Click to expand...


Maybe they should have hand delivered it with a blue ink signature of the Administrator, and a raised seal? :rolleyes:

Of course, you would still complain.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Maybe they should have hand delivered it with a blue ink signature of the Administrator, and a raised seal? :rolleyes:

Of course, you would still complain.
Click to expand...
Yes, he should complain about normalization of deviance, even if you won’t.
 
Salty said:
Yes, he should complain about normalization of deviance, even if you won’t.
Click to expand...

It's not.

The regulation in question has been around for decades. The FAA, for whatever reason, didn't provide adequate oversight and this was pointed out in a lawsuit. So the FAA acted by enforcing the regulation with a simple process that only takes a few days, and is good for 4 years.
 
Doc is back to inject uselessness. Yah!
 
From the few anecdotes I've heard it doesn't sound in any way bad. Yeah, a paperwork exercise, but it could be lots worse. The FAA tripped over themselves trying to spank some bad actors. New rules take time, so this is what it is. Should probably blame the Warbird guys rather than the FAA, they were warned. At the least the LODAs are coming quickly, for now.
 
Normalizing deviations is a normalization of deviance and that is a bad thing. If you want to blame decisions made decades ago, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a bad thing.
 
Salty said:
Normalizing deviations is a normalization of deviance and that is a bad thing. If you want to blame decisions made decades ago, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
So you'd prefer that the FAA *not* issue any LODAs and enforce the regulations as written because deviance is a bad thing.
 
Lindberg said:
So you'd prefer that the FAA *not* issue any LODAs and enforce the regulations as written because deviance is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer that training in your personally owned, airworthy aircraft to not be considered a deviation. It's pretty simple, and it's frightening that anyone would disagree with that.

To remove all the double negatives forced in because of the incompetence of someone at the FAA:

It should be considered normal to train in an airworthy aircraft that you own. It should not require special permission to train under these circumstances. The FAA's duty is to assure that training is considered a normal thing. NOT a deviant thing.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I'd prefer that training in your personally owned, airworthy aircraft to not be considered a deviation. It's pretty simple, and it's frightening that anyone would disagree with that.
Click to expand...

You simply don’t understand the difference between a standard category aircraft and an experimental aircraft.
 
Doc Holliday said:
You simply don’t understand the difference between a standard category aircraft and an experimental aircraft.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's go with your naive logic.

So, you're ok with people flying these scary experimental aircraft without any training at all. Something that is totally legal to do without a request for deviation.

But you're not ok with people actually getting trained in them first, without permission via a deviation.

Great logic. Logic clearly not driven by a focus on safety.
 
Salty said:
Ok, let's go with your naive logic.

So, you're ok with people flying these scary experimental aircraft without any training at all. Something that is totally legal to do without a request for deviation.

But you're not ok with people actually getting trained in them first, without permission via a deviation.

Great logic. Logic clearly not driven by a focus on safety.
Click to expand...

Now you are attempting to twist this and insert things I haven’t stated.

Again, you clearly have never read the regulation in question, and you clearly don’t understand the difference between standard category and experimental.

You have nothing, other than butthurt over something you don’t understand.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Now you are attempting to twist this and insert things I haven’t stated.

Again, you clearly have never read the regulation in question, and you clearly don’t understand the difference between standard category and experimental.

You have nothing, other than butthurt over something you don’t understand.
Click to expand...
Nice try avoiding the trap your logic laid for you. But the error in your thinking is there for all to see. This IS a huge screwup. Nobody should be happy about it until it gets resolved properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top