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

The preamble to the major 1997 Part 61 update explains the FAA's position that a CFI is paid for instruction, and is not flying for compensation or hire. The updated regs explicitly say a CFI requires only 3rd class.

Murphy 2008 LOI: a CFI is paid for instruction, and is not flying for compensation or hire -- cites the 1997 preamble -- notes that earlier LOIs Gandy 1991 (flying for hire, needs 2nd class) and Rubin 1991 (not flying for hire, needs only 3rd class) are in conflict, and have been removed from the Chief Counsel's website.

I don't have the links handy, but these can be found online.
 
But now has the FAA reversed its policy/interpretation/belief/whatever that if instructing in an experimental, that CFI now needs a 2nd class? I’m getting lost in all the letters and interpretations.

If true, ignoring the LODA for a second, -that- has some pretty big impacts as well.

I could give my buddy a flight review in his 172 using my BasicMed but not my other buddy in his RV-10?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
crash7 said:
But now has the FAA reversed its policy/interpretation/belief/whatever that if instructing in an experimental, that CFI now needs a 2nd class? I’m getting lost in all the letters and interpretations.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing that differentiates experimental/limited/standard category aircraft…the interpretation says an instructor is carrying persons for hire.
 
One of the problems with having a discussion about topics like this is that not everyone is as informed as others, because there are so many angles to look at, and it's impossible to tell who has paid attention to what when they respond.
 
Given that the regulations have not changed at all, is my flight review (from last May) in my E-AB any good?
 
idahoflier said:
The FAA promulgated the current regulations. This issue is squarely on them...
Click to expand...
But they can point to the comment periods that are required for rule makings and say that since no one broughtt it up then, it's not incumbent on the agency to alter their proposal. In other words, raise an objection or forever hold your peace.
 
wsuffa said:
But they can point to the comment periods that are required for rule makings and say that since no one broughtt it up then, it's not incumbent on the agency to alter their proposal. In other words, raise an objection or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...

91.319 was the last thing on my mind 32 years ago...
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, I understand the issue. The judge apparently believed the interpretation only impacted warbird operations like the one he was presented with. I doubt whether he understood the further, probably unintended, consequences for experimental aircraft and for instructors.
Click to expand...

What consequences?

91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate -

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority. (LODA)

That's the regulation, and has been for quite some time. In the latest policy letter the FAA is now allowing LODA's to be issued via email, with minimal information required.

To obtain a LODA, owners of experimental aircraft and flight instructors providing flight training in experimental aircraft may submit a request to the following email address: 9-AVSAFG-LODA@faa.gov. Applicants seeking a LODA through this process must provide the following information:  Name  Address  E-mail address  Pilot Certificate Number  Flight instructor certificate number (if applying as a Certificated Flight Instructor (CFI))  Aircraft Registration Number (if applying as an owner)  Aircraft make/model in which you will receive or provide instruction  Aircraft home base airport (if applying as an owner) The FAA will review the information submitted and issue a LODA (via e-mail) that reflects the conditions and limitations contained in this notification, as well any additional limitations required in accordance with § 91.319(h) and (i).

Very simple process, maybe 5 minutes?


For those who rent out their experimental and their services (CFI) the letter states that those still must apply for their LODA at the FSDO.

Individuals seeking to provide flight training and receive compensation for both the flight training and the use of the aircraft must continue to apply for LODAs through their local FSDOs.


Half Fast said:
Glad you're thankful to have a "simple" fix for experimentals. But that ain't the whole world.

So far I haven't heard the FAA address the question of how this interpretation will impact instructor medicals, Sport CFIs, or LSAs. I know AOPA legal is seeking some clarification there.
Click to expand...

What has instructor medicals have to do with this? Can you point out in the policy letter where you are reading this?

Also, where in the letter are you reading anything about Sport CFI's and LSA's?


Have you even read the letter?
 
There might be several problem regs. This court ruling seems to be the first time that instructing has been considered "carrying persons for hire." I can't find anything in 61.2 that authorizes instructors to carry persons for hire, so it seems like that privilege would have to be granted by their pilot's certificate. That would need to be at least a Commercial ticket. Not an issue for CFIs other that Sport CFIs, as they're already required by 61.183 to hold a Commercial or ATP certificate.

BUT, it is an issue for Sport CFIs who only hold a Sport Pilot or a Private Pilot certificate.

§ 61.315 What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.


(b) You may share the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees. You must pay at least half the operating expenses of the flight.


(c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:


(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire. ​

Sport CFIs who hold a Private certificate would fall under under 61.113.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. ​
 
Doc Holliday said:
What has instructor medicals have to do with this? Can you point out in the policy letter where you are reading this?

Also, where in the letter are you reading anything about Sport CFI's and LSA's?


Have you even read the letter?
Click to expand...


Yes, I've read the letter, the judge's ruling, and several articles on the subject. There are many limitations in other regs regarding carrying people for hire, and we now have a court ruling that says instructing is carrying people for hire.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, I've read the letter, the judge's ruling, and several articles on the subject. There are many limitations in other regs regarding carrying people for hire, and we now have a court ruling that says instructing is carrying people for hire.
Click to expand...

I really suggest you go back and carefully reread the latest policy letter. The regulations are controlling, and the FAA has reiterated what the regulations state as well as providing a process to accommodate owners and CFI's with regards to what is stated in the regulations.
 
Doc Holliday said:
I really suggest you go back and carefully reread the latest policy letter. The regulations are controlling, and the FAA has reiterated what the regulations state as well as providing a process to accommodate owners and CFI's with regards to what is stated in the regulations.
Click to expand...


Think a little bit about the implications of the FAA's position beyond just what's stated explicitly in the letter.

From the letter:

As noted, under § 91.315, no person may operate a limited category aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Based on the plain language of the regulation, the FAA’s position as represented in a 2014 legal interpretation3 and restated in the Warbirds case is that a flight instructor who is operating (i.e. “using”) a limited category aircraft that is carrying a person (e.g. the person receiving instruction) for compensation (e.g. monetary payment) is acting contrary to the regulation.4​

The FAA only addressed the restrictions on the aircraft and has not yet considered the fact that not all CFIs are authorized to "carry persons for compensation." Prior to this, CFIs were being compensated for instruction, not carriage, of persons. What's new here is that instruction and carriage are being equated, but other regs still make a distinction.
 
Lindberg said:
Did you read the new guidance? There's one little word that this all hinges on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read it and 91.319 seems very prominent in it. But I'm not a lawyer or bureaucrat that enjoys regulatory gymnastics so I'm obviously missing your point. The suspense is killing me. Why don't you just cite the "little word"? Or which reg the issue lies in?
 
Confucious say “if enough half-informed guys blow enough hot air on the internet they can make their own weather.”

Ok, no he didn’t, but he would have said it if he was around to read threads like this!
 
Half Fast said:
Think a little bit about the implications of the FAA's position beyond just what's stated explicitly in the letter.

From the letter:

As noted, under § 91.315, no person may operate a limited category aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Based on the plain language of the regulation, the FAA’s position as represented in a 2014 legal interpretation3 and restated in the Warbirds case is that a flight instructor who is operating (i.e. “using”) a limited category aircraft that is carrying a person (e.g. the person receiving instruction) for compensation (e.g. monetary payment) is acting contrary to the regulation.4​

The FAA only addressed the restrictions on the aircraft and has not yet considered the fact that not all CFIs are authorized to "carry persons for compensation." Prior to this, CFIs were being compensated for instruction, not carriage, of persons. What's new here is that instruction and carriage are being equated, but other regs still make a distinction.
Click to expand...


You need to read the references for that paragraph.

3. FAA Legal Interpretation to Gregory Morris (October 7, 2014). The Morris Interpretation concluded, inter alia, that § 91.315 “does not set forth any exceptions for providing flight training for hire in a limited category aircraft” and that “the only way to provide such training is pursuant to an exemption from this section of the regulations” following the procedures of 14 CFR part 11.


4. Given the broad definition of “operate” in § 1.1, both the owner of a limited category aircraft seeking flight training and the flight instructor providing the training are considered to be operating the aircraft. The FAA notes that the term “operate” has a different meaning from the term “operational control,” which is defined in § 1.1 as “the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.”
 
Doc Holliday said:
You need to read the references for that paragraph.

3. FAA Legal Interpretation to Gregory Morris (October 7, 2014). The Morris Interpretation concluded, inter alia, that § 91.315 “does not set forth any exceptions for providing flight training for hire in a limited category aircraft” and that “the only way to provide such training is pursuant to an exemption from this section of the regulations” following the procedures of 14 CFR part 11.


4. Given the broad definition of “operate” in § 1.1, both the owner of a limited category aircraft seeking flight training and the flight instructor providing the training are considered to be operating the aircraft. The FAA notes that the term “operate” has a different meaning from the term “operational control,” which is defined in § 1.1 as “the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.”
Click to expand...


I read those. They don’t address the question I’m raising. Equating instruction and carriage is not just an aircraft concern but may also reach to the privileges of the operators themselves.

Not all instructors are authorized to carry persons for hire, regardless of aircraft category.
 
Half Fast said:
I read those. They don’t address the question I’m raising. Equating instruction and carriage is not just an aircraft concern but may also reach to the privileges of the operators themselves.

Not all instructors are authorized to carry persons for hire, regardless of aircraft category.
Click to expand...


You are really twisting and contorting this. No wonder you are so confused.
 
Doc Holliday said:
You are really twisting and contorting this. No wonder you are so confused.
Click to expand...
So could you explain to us the difference between “passengers” and “persons” in the context of this discussion? That might clarify it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So could you explain to us the difference between “passengers” and “persons” in the context of this discussion? That might clarify it.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the discussion. Too much speculation is being read into this latest policy letter.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It has nothing to do with the discussion. Too much speculation is being read into this latest policy letter.
Click to expand...
That IS the discussion that you’re currently responding to. The court ruling says a flight instructor is carrying persons for hire. Neither 61.113 nor 61.315 make an exception for flight instruction when limiting carrying of passengers for hire. If they’re actually different, great. What’s the difference?

If they’re the same, the court ruling eliminates instructors without a Commercial certificate and a 2nd class medical.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That IS the discussion that you’re currently responding to. The court ruling says a flight instructor is carrying persons for hire. Neither 61.113 nor 61.315 make an exception for flight instruction when limiting carrying of passengers for hire. If they’re actually different, great. What’s the difference?

If they’re the same, the court ruling eliminates instructors without a Commercial certificate and a 2nd class medical.
Click to expand...

This thread is discussing the FAA policy letter that deals with issuing LODA's for owners and CFI's.

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/1091C7E251904915BBF431FC3EB9B628.ashx

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...imental-primary-and-limited-category-aircraft
 
Man, you are really determined to ignore the reality on this one doc.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It's called reading comprehension. Give it a try sometime. ;)
Click to expand...
Seems to me he’s comprehending your responses pretty well. There’s a legitimate question that you absolutely refuse to address in any way, shape, or form. Not even a “be patient, something is in the works that will clarify it” like you did previously. Sounds suspiciously like the FAA is killing flight instruction.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Seems to me he’s comprehending your responses pretty well. There’s a legitimate question that you absolutely refuse to address in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

I've stayed on topic with the subject of the thread. We've seen, in typical PoA fashion, a few (including you) want to go into thread drift or just outright change the subject to make some inane point.
 
Doc Holliday said:
I've stayed on topic with the subject of the thread. We've seen, in typical PoA fashion, a few (including you) want to go into thread drift or just outright change the subject to make some inane point.
Click to expand...
You consider attempts at compliance with regulations to be an inane point?
 
MauleSkinner said:
You consider attempts at compliance with regulations to be an inane point?
Click to expand...

Regulatory compliance was addressed in the policy letter under discussion. You seem to want to derail the thread back to what a judge wrote about the guy with the warbird rides.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Regulatory compliance was addressed in the policy letter under discussion. You seem to want to derail the thread back to what a judge wrote about the guy with the warbird rides.
Click to expand...
The letter under discussion was only written because of what the judge wrote. You can’t ignore that.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Regulatory compliance was addressed in the policy letter under discussion. You seem to want to derail the thread back to what a judge wrote about the guy with the warbird rides.
Click to expand...
So what the judge wrote has nothing to do with any of this?

I also tried to take the discussion to a more appropriate thread, but you refused that as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top