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

I know exactly how this came up. My question is intended to cut away all that extraneous crap and get to the heart of the issue. What purpose does the rule serve? It might serve a purpose that is not obvious because the regulations are complex and are interwoven.

 

To be honest ... this thing is hosed up pretty well and someone should have to take a flogging over it. But we have the government we deserve so nobody is being put on the rack over this.

Seems the warbird guys that got us into this mess would be the ones getting the beating but as we've discussed before our government treats us like school children ... i.e. little Johnny can't shut up when told to so everyone stays after class!

At the end of the day I don't really care who's right and wrong and my power to do something about this is next to naught if not less than that ...

 

Apperently the only solution other than the existing one you can offer involves a Time Machine? Good to know. I’ll be on the lookout for one at the Fly Market at Oshkosh next year.

In the event you do discover another solution not involving a Time Machine, please post it.

Whining about the incompetence of the FAA in this thread accomplishes zero except assuaging your indignation over said incompetence. Have at it and relax.

Cheers.

 

I'm sorry you are offended by my not giving the FAA a pass on this monumental blunder. And no, it can't be fixed easily now. That doesn't make it less of a blunder, nor something that shouldn't be derided. And it certainly shouldn't be praise worthy.

 

The rule serves the purpose of assuring that you can't charge to carry people and cargo in aircraft with special airworthiness certs, unless you go through an additional level of scrutiny. Same reason why commercial pilots have to have commercial certificates and commercial operators have to have 135 certs, etc.

 

I haven't bothered to read into all the crap that's going on, my question is this:

Someone comes to me with a home built and wants a flight review, do one or both of us need to apply for this LODA?

 

I’m pretty sure it’s the owner of the Experimental aircraft that needs the LODA.

I got one for my Sky Arrow, it was easy and quick, and it’s way down on the list of things I care to get aggravated about. The only time I can see it being necessary is when I get Flight Reviews in my plane.

 

Not offended by anything you have posted. I just find it amusing.

It has been fixed temporarily for all practical purposes wether or not you think so.

And I see no praises for the initial foul up anywhere, just a recognition that people can now train in E-AB as before.

Cheers

 

Assuming you are a CFI, either one of you needs the LODA. EASY PEASY.

This of course causes wailing and gnashing of teeth to some but that’s all that is necessary.

Cheers

 

As I am am CFI does one letter cover me for every EXP out there I'm qualified to instruct in, or do I need one for an RV6, and a 10, and a 14, and...

 

Just one. Just like the E-AB owner needs just one to cover any number of CFI”s they might hire.

Cheers

 

I thought it was issued to the aircraft owner. Can a CFI get one for an aircraft not his own?

 

It isn't clear based on what was published in the Federal Register. Perhaps the language in the LODA, once issued, would be clear.

 

I got one as a cfi. It says I can instruct in any experimental aircraft. 5 minutes to file online. Received loda 5 days later.

 

So have the Warbird folks applied for a LODA yet, and did they get it?

 

What category? Limited?

 

The thing I don’t understand is how a human being can be such an obtuse statist that they can say with a straight face that this is not a mistake and the courts ruling along with the FAA argument in the warbird case do not comply with the words , intent or past FAA interpretation of the regulations being discussed.

 

I don't think name-calling is a persuasive debate technique.

 

Yes, for the P-40 that started all this ruckus.

 

§ 91.315 Limited category civil aircraft: Operating limitations.

No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

The regulation makes no mention of a LODA.

 

I’m not debating…

I’m observing

 

Sorry, my mistake. Should have said “exemption,” not LODA. The FAA said they would also fast-track exemptions:

As with the process for issuing LODAs to owners and flight instructors, the FAA will consider adopting a fast-track exemption process for owners of limited category and primary category aircraft seeking to conduct flight training for compensation in these aircraft. As with experimental category aircraft, the FAA will consider granting relief for flight training operations when compensation is provided solely for the flight training and not the use of the aircraft.

So have they issued any fast-track exemptions, and did Warbird Adventures, Inc. get theirs?

 

What purpose is served by name-calling?

 

Warbird got an emergency c&d order and probably a bunch of people going to lose certs. Why would the FAA be expected to grant it an exemption?

 

The c&d, etc., was presumably because they didn’t have an exemption. So why wouldn’t the FAA be happy to have convinced them to apply for one?

 

Aah - sorry. The “Honest question…” part fooled me.

 

I think you have cause and effect backwards.

 

wrt Warbird asking for the LODA, 100% chance of not getting what you don't ask for. I'd do it just for the troll points. #YOLO

 

I didn’t call out any individual post.

The purpose was to share my opinion of the situation in a general way without speaking to any one person.

 

As far as I can tell, the order is completely consistent with the words in the regulations. It's just that the words don't really make practical sense, which is why the FAA has ignored them for so long. This is not an area I claim any particular expertise, so others can point out where I have this wrong.

 

I got mine as a CFI. Under aircraft make and model, it says "N/A". I received it within 2 hours of sending the request. I can't imagine there was much scrutiny other than looking up that I actually exist.

 

Cool. I’ll apply for mine today.

Question: I have a friend with an E-LSA Remos. I’ve given him a Flight Review in his plane in the past. Going forward, suppose I have the generic CFI LODA which allegedly covers me. Is he as an owner committing a violation if he doesn’t have one? Or am I? Either way, I’m going to talk with him today to see if he’s aware of this whole fiasco and encourage him to get one if he hasn’t already.

 

I feel safer. You?

 

Now you’re just trolling.

 

If making a point using sarcasm is trolling, then yes.

 

<sarcasm>
Wow. Glad we’re all so much safer now. Just think how dramatic the reduction in accidents will be now that we have this extra bureaucratic hoop.
</sarcasm>

 

It's like having a 4th class medical!

 

I have one of those. It’s called a driver’s license elsewhere.

Cheers

 

Others refer to it as a "no class medical." Yep ... I have one of those!

 

Not at all! It's the next logical step, now that the FAA has

- Established that flight training requires an exemption or a LODA, and
- Established that getting a LODA or exemption is a mere one or two hour rubber-stamp paper process that doesn't require any evaluation of an instructor, aircraft, or flight operation.​

Warbirds should apply for the exemption, and if they receive more scrutiny than other folks who are being rubber-stamped, they should file a new suit.

Frankly, I think the FAA might have been able to take a different tack with Warbirds in the first place, rather than chasing the exemptions for limited category instruction issue and creating so many unintended consequences. I suspect they might have been able to demonstrate that Warbirds wasn't really providing "instruction" if they could show there was no curriculum, no testing, no stage checks, and no students that had ever been allowed to solo the aircraft.