Court rules in instruction case, could affect many?

If you read it only from the warbird status, it is rather "meh."

But the court ruling says a student in an aircraft is being "carried for hire."

Creating the possibility that FAA could use the ruling as precedent, even though the court did not publish it.

Of course, the FAA would be stepping on their own previous rulings... But in this current political environment, I worry about potential overreach by any bureaucracy...
 
CharlieD3 said:
If you read it only from the warbird status, it is rather "meh."

But the court ruling says a student in an aircraft is being "carried for hire."

Creating the possibility that FAA could use the ruling as precedent, even though the court did not publish it.

Of course, the FAA would be stepping on their own previous rulings... But in this current political environment, I worry about potential overreach by any bureaucracy...
Click to expand...
Having read most of the actual court documents, I'm not as worried about its reach as the folks who advocated for the warbird side of the case. I don't really see much conflict with the FAA's prior rulings and interpretations about flight training and the special role of flight instructors. The FAA has been pretty consistent that trainees on an instructional flight are not "passengers." I did not read anything in either the FAA's position or the decision which changes that.

YMMV.
 
CharlieD3 said:
Creating the possibility that FAA could use the ruling as precedent, even though the court did not publish it.
Click to expand...
The FAA is an administrative agency; it doesn't need court precedent to interpret its own rules. In fact, all the court here did was say that the FAA's interpretation is reasonable. In other words, if the FAA wanted to do whatever it is you are afraid of happening based on this ruling, it would already be doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top