So reading this raises some questions on understanding the FARs. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...lds-faa-order-in-warbird-flight-training-case The court wrote, "We deny the petition because the aircraft is not certified for paid flight instruction and substantial evidence supports the order." So if you read §91.319 for experimental aircraft, the wording to 91.315 is the same restriction. 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. <==== How does a PIC or operator show explicitly "the aircraft is certified for flight instruction"? Is the FAA now making an implicit rule that an explicit statement of "certified for paid flight instruction" must be part of the airworthiness basis?
Just read through 91.3xx And from what I can tell it looks like this: Person A owns a restricted/limited/experimental. Person A CAN RECEIVE instruction from person B and pay B for said instruction. Person A CANNOT GIVE instruction to person B and get paid by person B.
I don’t see anything that ties this in with owners receiving instruction other than what appears to be an overly-broad interpretation of the court statement by the alphabet groups. Is there actually anything there beyond Chicken Little?
Why would person B (the CFI) pay person A (the student) ? And a CFI cannot self instruct. Are you drunk?
It was an attempt at absurd humor to illustrate how flustered people can get and how much these rules can be twisted up. Thought it might have been obvious.
I've seen serious posts with more confusion in them, so I didn't know whether you were being serious or funny!
I flew with Thom in his P-40 and got the P-40 added to my license about a year ago. I can't say enough good things about Thom. Not only did he get everything required done in one 1.3 hour flight but he really seemed to care to not to run up the bill. However this turns out, if he is not allowed to continue there will be more accidents. Before Crazy Horse, the accident rate in the P-51 was atrocious. I counted 14 accidents out of 64 flying Mustangs in 1990 or 91, many were fatal, some were just nose overs. The trend has been for the FAA to ease up on instruction (for pay) in experimental aircraft and I know it has greatly helped the safety record of these aircraft. I am not technically versed on the rules on his operation verses Crazy Horse (both limited category) but I think he was lacking a special authorization to charge for his instruction that Crazy horse does have. There was a very famous report in the 60's on P-51 accidents. I have it somewhere on my computer. The one I remember the most is a very low time pilot putting a bench seat where the fuel tank was. if I remember correctly he had 5 family members on the seat. He kept climbing to get above a thunderstorm, over 40,000 feet with either no oxygen or at least none for the family. The biggest piece they found was a small swatch of his shorts when it broke up on the way down.
