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

MauleSkinner said:
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.
Click to expand...


There was another thread discussing the warbird lawsuit, which led to the FAA clarifying the guidance to the regulations. I found the recent policy letter interesting, and (IMO) the policy letter follows what has been written in the regs for a long time. It's too bad the warbird guy was trying to backdoor passenger rides using the guise of "flight training" which in turn caused the FAA to realize they had inadequate oversight of the applicable regulations. But stuff happens, as they say.

Not sure why it upsets you I am participating in this thread, but that's not my problem. ;)
 
Doc Holliday said:
There was another thread discussing the warbird lawsuit, which led to the FAA clarifying the guidance to the regulations. I found the recent policy letter interesting, and (IMO) the policy letter follows what has been written in the regs for a long time. It's too bad the warbird guy was trying to backdoor passenger rides using the guise of "flight training" which in turn caused the FAA to realize they had inadequate oversight of the applicable regulations. But stuff happens, as they say.

Not sure why it upsets you I am participating in this thread, but that's not my problem. ;)
Click to expand...
It doesn’t upset me that you’re participating in this thread. I just don’t see where the court ruling is totally irrelevant.
 
I’ve never understood how some guys offer nothing to the conversation other than disagreeing with somebody else and believe their contributions are important. If you have a better explanation than what’s been offered? Post it. Educate us with information.
 
Here’s the true irony of this situation. Doc and the other Faa apologists consistently claim the Faa is a benevolent dictator and is not out to screw anyone. Yet this situation proves them wrong. The Faa was willing to go to these lengths just so that they could put the screws to one party that they decided deserved it. Seriously, it’s not as if they were going after a big group of transgressors here that we’re creating a serious safety issue, it was ONE operator. So now, tens of thousands of people are inconvenienced because they couldn’t figure out how to deal with one guy.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The court ruling says a flight instructor is carrying persons for hire.
Click to expand...
The court ruling doesn't say that. The FAA guidance doesn't say that; it says this:

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 interpretation 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.
Click to expand...

The instructor isn't "carrying" anyone. The aircraft is. The instructor is using the aircraft, and FAR 1.1 says using is operating.
 
Lindberg said:
The court ruling doesn't say that. The FAA guidance doesn't say that; it says this:



The instructor isn't "carrying" anyone. The aircraft is. The instructor is using the aircraft, and FAR 1.1 says using is operating.
Click to expand...
Ok…so a SP instructor isn’t using an aircraft that is carrying a person for hire?
 
Lindberg said:
If he's instructing in an aircraft for hire, he is.
Click to expand...
Then, logically, a sport pilot instructor cannot train in the air. And a CFI can’t train with basic med or a class 3 if the plane is for hire.

Take off the blinders. The Faa screwed the pooch on this one.
 
Salty said:
Here’s the true irony of this situation. Doc and the other Faa apologists consistently claim the Faa is a benevolent dictator and is not out to screw anyone. Yet this situation proves them wrong. The Faa was willing to go to these lengths just so that they could put the screws to one party that they decided deserved it. So now, tens of thousands of people are inconvenienced because they couldn’t figure out how to deal with one guy.
Click to expand...


Sort of like they tried to fix a leaky roof by burning down the building.
 
Lindberg said:
The reg in question doesn't apply to the situation you mentioned. What's prohibited or allowed is not determined by your logic; it is determined by regulations.
Click to expand...

We shall see. I don’t see how you anyone can not see it.
 
He was referencing the general statement by the court that an instructor is carrying a passenger for compensation. This is why there were earlier question raised about whether or not the instructor was required to operate under part 135, because he's carrying a passenger for compensation.

Now the additional question has been raised, but I'll ask it in reverse - how can a flight instructor whose medical is BasicMed or 3rd class be permitted to carry a person for compensation? I've always understood the "passenger or cargo for compensation" rules to be with regards to commercial operation, that they were things that said you needed to be a commercial rated pilot operating in a commercial operation, but this is an exception.

The FAA has made a very broad statement of policy They now have to explain why there are exceptions in the broadness of their statement.
 
This whole thread reminds me of my conclusion about lawyers.

They will spend all the money you send them in an attempt to prove what you believe is correct and the other party in a lawsuit is wrong, just like the other lawyer will spend all the money they get from the other party in attempting to prove you are wrong and the other party is correct. In the end its what the court says is correct is all that matters except both parties spent a lot of money.

Since in this whole fiasco, the difference is the FAA is the "judge", they have decided what are the "facts", issued a decision on what's going to happen, but no money is being spent in this "court", just electrons which are semi free, so I expect the "lawyers" will continue to argue the FAA has changed the world so that the sky is falling and the other "lawyers" will say nothing new here, move along. In the meantime, anybody who thinks they are affected, spends 5 minutes sending an email and a week later, the problem vanishes for them.

Sort of fun to watch.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
This whole thread reminds me of my conclusion about lawyers.

They will spend all the money you send them in an attempt to prove what you believe is correct and the other party in a lawsuit is wrong, just like the other lawyer will spend all the money they get from the other party in attempting to prove you are wrong and the other party is correct. In the end its what the court says is correct is all that matters except both parties spent a lot of money.

Since in this whole fiasco, the difference is the FAA is the "judge", they have decided what are the "facts", issued a decision on what's going to happen, but no money is being spent in this "court", just electrons which are semi free, so I expect the "lawyers" will continue to argue the FAA has changed the world so that the sky is falling and the other "lawyers" will say nothing new here, move along. In the meantime, anybody who thinks they are affected, spends 5 minutes sending an email and a week later, the problem vanishes for them.

Sort of fun to watch.

Cheers
Click to expand...
What email can you send to do instruction as a sport CFI, with no commercial license?
 
Salty said:
What email can you send to do instruction as a sport CFI, with no commercial license?
Click to expand...

I'm not a party to this "Litigation". But there's two opinions so if someone like you described thinks they are affected, they can send the email to the FAA asking for a LODA. If they don't get one, more fuel for discussion.

Cheers
 
Lindberg said:
The court didn't say that. Did you read the order?
Click to expand...


Here is exactly what the court wrote:

“A flight student is a “person.” Id. § 91.315; see also id. § 1.1. When a student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student is “carr[ied].” Id. § 91.315. And when the student is paying for the instruction, the student is being carried “for compensation.” Id.

“Of course, the FAA could have chosen to make an exception to this rule for flight instruction. In fact, for other regulations, that’s exactly what it did. See id. § 91.313. But it made no such exception for § 91.315. And the contrast between the two regulatory schemes reinforces what the plain language suggests: § 91.315’s broad text includes no exception for a flight student who is “carr[ied] . . . for compensation.”

A student is a person being carried for compensation and the instructor is the one being compensated, so clearly the instructor is being compensated for carrying a person for hire. Carrying people for hired requires at least a CPL and a 2nd class medical.
 
Half Fast said:
Here is exactly what the court wrote:

“A flight student is a “person.” Id. § 91.315; see also id. § 1.1. When a student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student is “carr[ied].” Id. § 91.315. And when the student is paying for the instruction, the student is being carried “for compensation.” Id.

“Of course, the FAA could have chosen to make an exception to this rule for flight instruction. In fact, for other regulations, that’s exactly what it did. See id. § 91.313. But it made no such exception for § 91.315. And the contrast between the two regulatory schemes reinforces what the plain language suggests: § 91.315’s broad text includes no exception for a flight student who is “carr[ied] . . . for compensation.”

A student is a person being carried for compensation and the instructor is the one being compensated, so clearly the instructor is being compensated for carrying a person for hire. Carrying people for hired requires at least a CPL and a 2nd class medical.
Click to expand...

The court specifies 14 CFR Part 91.315, which plainly states "No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire."

If you notice for other aircraft (experimental, restricted, light sport) the FAA clearly states that flight training may be conducted, that is not being questioned.

Again, people are trying to read into the regulations (91.313, 91.319, 91.327) something that isn't there.
 
Lindberg said:
The court didn't say that. Did you read the order?
Click to expand...

I did read it. Did you read it and understand it?

If I misquoted it, then how about correcting my quote. What HalfFast said is accurate. If you can read the words, they say that a student is being carried for compensation.

Doc Holliday said:
Again, people are trying to read into the regulations (91.313, 91.319, 91.327) something that isn't there.
Click to expand...

If the something isn't there, then why do we suddenly have to have LODAs for experimental aircraft? If something isn't there, why the significant FAA policy change?
 
bflynn said:
If the something isn't there, then why do we suddenly have to have LODAs for experimental aircraft? If something isn't there, why the significant FAA policy change?
Click to expand...

Suddenly? Go read 91.319, it's been that way for a couple of decades at least (I haven't gone back to read the historical changes). The FAA admitted they lacked oversight on 91.319, and admitted their guidance (8900.1) was also incorrect. So in light of this they said they would show oversight of the regulation as written. Nothing has changed regulatory.
 
Enforcement change due to the court ruling regarding flight instruction being a commercial op. The regs always had the LODA provision but the FAA didn’t enforce it, and they still won’t. The LODA makes it legal by the letter of the regs.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Suddenly? Go read 91.319, it's been that way for a couple of decades at least (I haven't gone back to read the historical changes). The FAA admitted they lacked oversight on 91.319, and admitted their guidance (8900.1) was also incorrect. So in light of this they said they would show oversight of the regulation as written. Nothing has changed regulatory.
Click to expand...

I agree no words of any regulation have changed. I disagree that nothing has changed from a regulatory standpoint.

What has changed is how those regulations are read, BECAUSE the court called out instruction as carriage for compensation. Before it was understood that the CFI was not the operator of the flight, they were there to provide instruction. After the court ruling, the FAA changed policy to explicitly state the CFIs are the operators of all training flights they conduct and that change is the cause of the cascading impacts to things well beyond 91.315. Now there are additional questions about where this ends. Insurance impacts? Commercial status? How long before they decide that because it's a commercial operation of carriage for compensation that it really ought to be within a 135 operation?

The idiocy here is that the new policy makes aviation less safe because it restricts eliminates flight training in significant categories of aircraft without additional paperwork. Someone flying an experimental should have instruction in their own aircraft, but the policy encourages them not to.

Is the paperwork burdensome? Not yet, but there will be 10,000 applications coming in the next few months. Can the FAA really evaluate and process that many efficiently? And then once it's done, what was accomplished except to require another piece of paper to be carried around. It is entirely a paperwork drill for the FSDOs
 
bflynn said:
And then once it's done, what was accomplished except to require another piece of paper to be carried around. It is entirely a paperwork drill for the FSDOs
Click to expand...


What was accomplished was that the FAA shut down one schmuck who was abusing the system. The FAA would treat a nosebleed with a tourniquet around the throat.
 
bflynn said:
I did read it. Did you read it and understand it?
Click to expand...
I did read it. It doesn't contain the word "instructor" or the word "passenger," so it certainly contains no general statements about them.
bflynn said:
He was referencing the general statement by the court that an instructor is carrying a passenger for compensation.
Click to expand...

It's pointless discussing laws, regulations, court decisions, and their interpretation with imprecise language and without referring to the specific laws, regulations, and language of decisions at issue.
 
Half Fast said:
What was accomplished was that the FAA shut down one schmuck who was abusing the system. The FAA would treat a nosebleed with a tourniquet around the throat.
Click to expand...

From the FAA:

In this case, Warbirds maintained a publicly available website that advertised opportunities to fly in Warbirds’ limited category aircraft at upcoming airshows and allowed members of the public to book flights in exchange for substantial amounts of money. Section 91.315 states that no person may operate a limited category aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

Before the Court, Warbirds argued that it was conducting flight training for compensation in its limited category aircraft, which it claimed is not prohibited under § 91.315. The FAA responded that, under the plain language of § 91.315, flight training for compensation constitutes operating a limited category aircraft carrying a person for compensation or hire and, therefore, is a violation of the regulation. After the Court dismissed the petition for review, several industry groups requested that the FAA publish a statement explaining the impact of the decision and providing clarification regarding flight training in general and flight training for compensation in certain aircraft that hold special airworthiness certificates. The FAA is issuing this notification in response to the request from industry.
Click to expand...

Do you dispute that Warbirds was violating the regulation?
Do you dispute the FAA's statement that it issued this notification in response to EAA and AOPA's request?
Is there any evidence that the FAA had any intention to take enforcement action against anyone else based on this interpretation (because there's plenty of contrary evidence) prior to EAA and AOPA backing it into a corner?
 
Lindberg said:
I did read it. It doesn't contain the word "instructor" or the word "passenger," so it certainly contains no general statements about them.
Click to expand...

So your objection is that I used an imprecise word and therefore you cannot have a discussion about the topic? Wow, how do you have a discussion with anyone here?

A shift has happened and people are trying to figure out what it means. One of the shifts states the CFI has become the operator of every training flight and they are conducting carriage for compensation. The term carriage implies the pilot must become a passenger of the instructor.

What else does this impact that nobody, including the FAA, has considered yet?
 
bflynn said:
I agree no words of any regulation have changed. I disagree that nothing has changed from a regulatory standpoint.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting that.

bflynn said:
What has changed is how those regulations are read, BECAUSE the court called out instruction as carriage for compensation.
Click to expand...

The court kept their comments within the realm of 91.315, and was correct.

bflynn said:
Before it was understood that the CFI was not the operator of the flight, they were there to provide instruction.
Click to expand...

The regulations address this, and the regulations have not changed.

bflynn said:
After the court ruling, the FAA changed policy to explicitly state the CFIs are the operators of all training flights they conduct and that change is the cause of the cascading impacts to things well beyond 91.315. Now there are additional questions about where this ends. Insurance impacts? Commercial status? How long before they decide that because it's a commercial operation of carriage for compensation that it really ought to be within a 135 operation?
Click to expand...

Now you are venturing into hysteria.

bflynn said:
The idiocy here is that the new policy makes aviation less safe because it restricts eliminates flight training in significant categories of aircraft without additional paperwork.
Click to expand...

That "paperwork" that you are hysterical over is an email request that takes less than 5 minutes to complete asking only for basic information.

The FAA will accept requests for a LODA electronically from an owner of an experimental aircraft or flight instructor who chooses to conduct training in experimental aircraft. LODAs, once issued, will define the scope of the flight training activity so that owners of experimental aircraft may receive and provide compensation for flight training in their aircraft, as well as permit flight instructors to receive compensation for flight training in an experimental aircraft. These LODAs will prohibit owners and flight instructors from receiving compensation for any other use of the aircraft in which the flight training is provided. 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: [email protected]. 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). Individuals seeking to provide flight training and receive compensation.

bflynn said:
Someone flying an experimental should have instruction in their own aircraft, but the policy encourages them not to.
Click to expand...

Here's a direct quote from the policy letter:

The FAA finds that, for owners of experimental aircraft seeking flight training in the aircraft they will regularly fly in the national airspace, the standard under § 91.319(h)(2) for granting a LODA has been met. The FAA has long emphasized the importance of pilots being trained and checked in the aircraft they will operate. Specifically, it is critical that pilots understand and are familiar with the particular systems, procedures, operating characteristics, and limitations of the aircraft they will operate. This flight training is distinct from a situation where an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate is “held out” broadly for training to individuals who pay for both the flight training and the use of an aircraft that they will not have further access to upon completion of LODA training. It is also distinct from flight training that can be accomplished effectively and safely in a standard category aircraft.


bflynn said:
Is the paperwork burdensome? Not yet, but there will be 10,000 applications coming in the next few months.
Click to expand...

I'm just doing a WAG here, but I would imagine this takes someone (in the FAA) probably less than a few minutes to accomplish for each submission. It takes the submitter less than 5 minutes to submit.

bflynn said:
Can the FAA really evaluate and process that many efficiently?
Click to expand...

The FAA has a hotline complaint email and number on their website. Why don't you ask them? You can also use a FOIA request for information. I also believe that senior FAA leadership has phone numbers and email addresses that the public can find.

Let us know what you find out.

bflynn said:
And then once it's done, what was accomplished except to require another piece of paper to be carried around. It is entirely a paperwork drill for the FSDOs
Click to expand...

No, it's the FAA conducting oversight of the regulations, as written. They closed a loop hole because some warbird operator was selling rides in his airplane under the guise of "training".[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
The court kept their comments within the realm of 91.315, and was correct.
Click to expand...

Since the court's opinion was unpublished, it was irrelevant anyway, other than stopping a scofflaw from trying to twist the words of a regulation around. WA was clearly in the wrong.

But the FAA did not keep their comments within the realm of 91.315 and that's the problem. We still don't understand all the impact of this change yet and there is significant concern that not all the impacts are positive, especially with regards to safety.
 
bflynn said:
Since the court's opinion was unpublished, it was irrelevant anyway, other than stopping a scofflaw from trying to twist the words of a regulation around. WA was clearly in the wrong.

But the FAA did not keep their comments within the realm of 91.315 and that's the problem. We still don't understand all the impact of this change yet and there is significant concern that not all the impacts are positive, especially with regards to safety.
Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understand what the FAA wrote and how it applies. The policy letter was specific. You and a few others want to engage in hysteria and outrage over something that isn't there.
 
Doc Holliday said:
I don't think you quite understand what the FAA wrote and how it applies. The policy letter was specific. You and a few others want to engage in hysteria and outrage over something that isn't there.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you quite understand how to explain things to those who don’t quite understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top