Federal Court Decision: Flight training is carrying passengers for hire

keen9 said:
How does the letter's author retiring make any difference at all.
Click to expand...


I suspect that means that whatever tiny bit of "give-a-damn" the FAA might have had just walked out the door. So don't hold your breath waiting for that letter to be rescinded, despite whatever the EAA and AOPA are saying.
 
keen9 said:
Can you get me a LODA in the next couple of weeks?
Click to expand...

So are you trying to rent out your EAB aircraft to give instruction in it? Because 3-292 (a,b,c) is quite clear. The 8900.1 has not been changed, and there are no FAA Notices or Publications that have stated there is an upcoming change.

FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 11, Sec 1

3-292 FLIGHT TRAINING IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
A. Use of Experimental Aircraft for Flight Training. Persons may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training in an aircraft holding an experimental certificate issued for any of the purposes specified in § 21.191. Other than the person receiving flight training, the operation must not involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or be prohibited by the aircraft’s operating limitations.
B. Flight Instructors. Flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft, but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and as described in paragraph 3-293. An experimental aircraft owner may not rent an experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flight.
C. Experimental Aircraft Owners. Owners of experimental aircraft may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training received in their aircraft. An owner of an experimental aircraft may not receive compensation for the use of their aircraft to provide flight training except in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and described in paragraph 3-293. An owner of an experimental LSA may not rent the experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flights.
D. Flight in Experimental Aircraft. The FAA does not require flight instructors, pilot examiners, and aviation safety inspectors (ASI) to fly in experimental aircraft. The decision whether or not to provide flight training or conduct a check in an experimental aircraft is left to the discretion and judgment of the individual.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So are you trying to rent out your EAB aircraft to give instruction in it? Because 3-292 (a,b,c) is quite clear. The 8900.1 has not been changed, and there are no FAA Notices or Publications that have stated there is an upcoming change.

FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 11, Sec 1

3-292 FLIGHT TRAINING IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
A. Use of Experimental Aircraft for Flight Training. Persons may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training in an aircraft holding an experimental certificate issued for any of the purposes specified in § 21.191. Other than the person receiving flight training, the operation must not involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or be prohibited by the aircraft’s operating limitations.
B. Flight Instructors. Flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft, but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and as described in paragraph 3-293. An experimental aircraft owner may not rent an experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flight.
C. Experimental Aircraft Owners. Owners of experimental aircraft may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training received in their aircraft. An owner of an experimental aircraft may not receive compensation for the use of their aircraft to provide flight training except in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and described in paragraph 3-293. An owner of an experimental LSA may not rent the experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flights.
D. Flight in Experimental Aircraft. The FAA does not require flight instructors, pilot examiners, and aviation safety inspectors (ASI) to fly in experimental aircraft. The decision whether or not to provide flight training or conduct a check in an experimental aircraft is left to the discretion and judgment of the individual.
Click to expand...
But AOPA said.....
 
Doc Holliday said:
I know.......:rolleyes:

Everyone keeps missing this

View attachment 97854


So far none of this has happened, thus why the FSDO level personnel are not aware of it.
Click to expand...
No, you seem to be missing the fact that they are CONSIDERING ways to fix the problem. Right now, it's still a problem. You can't ignore it just because they promise to fix it one day. You still can't train without a LODA (which you can't get) because of this nonsense.
 
Salty said:
No, you seem to be missing the fact that they are CONSIDERING ways to fix the problem. Right now, it's still a problem. You can't ignore it just because they promise to fix it one day. You still can't train without a LODA (which you can't get) because of this nonsense.
Click to expand...
You still seem to be operating under the impression that something's changed. Nothing's changed. So if you need a LODA today to do what you want to do, you would have needed one six months ago.
 
If you choose you may

head-here.jpg
 
Doc, your point is clearly to defend the FAA at all costs. No one is talking about FAA Order 8900.1, or any wording change to any regulation. The FAA went to court to change the interpretation of the meaning of the words that are already there. The court sided with the FAA, and the FAA reiterated the court interpretation in the letter.
 
keen9 said:
Doc, your point is clearly to defend the FAA at all costs.
Click to expand...

No, my point is to use facts. Try it sometime, it's highly effective.

keen9 said:
No one is talking about FAA Order 8900.1, or any wording change to any regulation.
Click to expand...

But the regulations spell exactly what is required, and the 8900.1 is how the FSDO's deal with it. You claim (wildly) that you are unable to get a LODA, and that somehow this will prevent you from getting a BFR.

keen9 said:
The FAA went to court to change the interpretation of the meaning of the words that are already there. The court sided with the FAA, and the FAA reiterated the court interpretation in the letter.
Click to expand...

Wow. You really need to go back and slow down, and read what was actually written.

Otherwise

iu
 
I think it is pretty clear the FAA has for decades taken the position that flight instruction is not "for hire operations." They are not changing their position on this. This case was a very unique situation and the possibly poor wording by a judge who knows nothing about aviation is not going to uniquely cause the FAA to change its long standing position on the regulatory nature of flight instruction.
 
smlsml said:
I think it is pretty clear the FAA has for decades taken the position that flight instruction is not "for hire operations." They are not changing their position on this. This case was a very unique situation and the possibly poor wording by a judge who knows nothing about aviation is not going to uniquely cause the FAA to change its long standing position on the regulatory nature of flight instruction.
Click to expand...
I sure hope not but the first item on the list of things the government never does is admit they made a mistake. This ruling was a mistake.

There is no guarantee it will be resolved reasonably.
 
I’m unclear on what the bill actually does.
 
Salty said:
I’m unclear on what the bill actually does.
Click to expand...
Same here. It seems to only apply to instructing in experimentals. There is much work to do to get CFI training back to the Status Quo.
 
midlifeflyer said:
does anyone have the actual language of the bill?
Click to expand...
The actual bill is, I believe, around 4000 pages, but the relevant text is:

19 SEC. 5604. LETTER OF DEVIATION AUTHORITY.
A flight instructor, registered owner, lessor, or lessee of an aircraft shall not be required to obtain a letter of deviation authority from the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to allow, conduct or receive flight training, checking, and testing in an experimental aircraft if— (1) the flight instructor is not providing both the training and the aircraft; (2) no person advertises or broadly offers the aircraft as available for flight training, checking, or testing; and (3) no person receives compensation for use of the aircraft for a specific flight during which flight training, checking, or testing was received, other than expenses for owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft.
 
Dana said:
The actual bill is, I believe, around 4000 pages, but the relevant text is:

19 SEC. 5604. LETTER OF DEVIATION AUTHORITY.
A flight instructor, registered owner, lessor, or lessee of an aircraft shall not be required to obtain a letter of deviation authority from the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to allow, conduct or receive flight training, checking, and testing in an experimental aircraft if— (1) the flight instructor is not providing both the training and the aircraft; (2) no person advertises or broadly offers the aircraft as available for flight training, checking, or testing; and (3) no person receives compensation for use of the aircraft for a specific flight during which flight training, checking, or testing was received, other than expenses for owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Pretty limited and doesn't really do anything substantial.
 
The LODA for my RV-10 came via email at 8:08 this morning. I’ll never get the 20 minutes back that it took to apply for it….
 
Last edited:
Why should anyone care if they're doing actual instructing or just sightseeing. I can't see how it hurts anyone except commercial sightseeing outfits wanting the government to protect them from competition. The FAA just has way, way too many rules. Fundamentally this issue comes down to liberty vs violence.
 
E.W. said:
Why should anyone care if they're doing actual instructing or just sightseeing. I can't see how it hurts anyone except commercial sightseeing outfits wanting the government to protect them from competition. The FAA just has way, way too many rules. Fundamentally this issue comes down to liberty vs violence.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with the idea of the FAA having sightseeing and Part 135 and 121 rules to protect the public which has very little knowledge of aviation. I also don't have a big problem with the idea that the FAA is going to look at something that paints itself as instruction but is really doing air tours and charter, not, for that matter, requiring a company to go through the waiver process to permit public restricted category warbird joyrides.

My problem with this case has always been the FAA avoiding the difficulty of proving that the instruction was a sham by the expediency of creating a novel interpretation (which was no surprise) followed by the alphabet groups virtually guaranteeing it would be expanded to experimental being used for legitimate instruction of no ones except their owners.
 
E.W. said:
Why should anyone care if they're doing actual instructing or just sightseeing. I can't see how it hurts anyone except commercial sightseeing outfits wanting the government to protect them from competition. The FAA just has way, way too many rules. Fundamentally this issue comes down to liberty vs violence.
Click to expand...

You just have to look at the accident that triggered this whole problem in the first place. A warbird operator offering "warbird experience" flights in an experimental registered aircraft to the public under the guise of Part 61 instruction with no federal oversight or safety standards above that Part 61 flight instruction required. It was a very fringe case, that a court ruling by the words of the regulation created a much further reaching impact.

As to the new legislation, it opens the door to again receive flight instruction in your own experimental, or as a instructor, offer instruction in a person's own experimental. What it does not permit is a company holding out for instruction in their own experimental.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't have a problem with the idea of the FAA having sightseeing and Part 135 and 121 rules to protect the public which has very little knowledge of aviation. I also don't have a big problem with the idea that the FAA is going to look at something that paints itself as instruction but is really doing air tours and charter, not, for that matter, requiring a company to go through the waiver process to permit public restricted category warbird joyrides.

My problem with this case has always been the FAA avoiding the difficulty of proving that the instruction was a sham by the expediency of creating a novel interpretation (which was no surprise) followed by the alphabet groups virtually guaranteeing it would be expanded to experimental being used for legitimate instruction of no ones except their owners.
Click to expand...
I don't think saying that "person" is broader than "passenger" is novel. The enforcement posture may have been. But I also think the FAA had no intention of going further until some "well meaning" organizations forced its hand.
 
Lindberg said:
I don't think saying that "person" is broader than "passenger" is novel. The enforcement posture may have been. But I also think the FAA had no intention of going further until some "well meaning" organizations forced its hand.
Click to expand...
We are in 100% agreement. Especially on the latter point, as I mentioned earlier.
 
midwestpa24 said:
As to the new legislation, it opens the door to again receive flight instruction in your own experimental, or as a instructor, offer instruction in a person's own experimental.
Click to expand...
That door, while technically closed, was quickly reopened by the FAA. I don't know if you have or know someone who went through the LODA process, but the FAA made is very easy and most were issued within 24 hours.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That door, while technically closed, was quickly reopened by the FAA. I don't know if you have or know someone who went through the LODA process, but the FAA made is very easy and most were issued within 24 hours.
Click to expand...

I haven't, but I've heard its painless. But the point of the legislation is to remove the need for the LODA process. One less thing for the FAA to do, maybe they could get back to issuing aircraft registrations.
 
midwestpa24 said:
One less thing for the FAA to do, maybe they could get back to issuing aircraft registrations.
Click to expand...

Perhaps ... or do a bit more work on the gender neutral wording of the massive amount of regs we already have so no feelings get hurt.
 
SEC. 5325. FLIGHT INSTRUCTION OR TESTING.

(a) In General.--An authorized flight instructor providing student
instruction, flight instruction, or flight training shall not be deemed
to be operating an aircraft carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire.
(b) Authorized Additional Pilots.--An individual acting as an
authorized additional pilot during Phase I flight testing of aircraft
holding an experimental airworthiness certificate, in accordance with
section 21.191 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and meeting
the requirements set forth in Federal Aviation Administration
regulations and policy in effect as of the date of enactment of this
section, shall not be deemed to be operating an aircraft carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire.
(c) Use of Aircraft.--An individual who uses, causes to use, or
authorizes to use aircraft for flights conducted under subsection (a)
or (b) shall not be deemed to be operating an aircraft carrying persons
or property for compensation or hire.
(d) Revision of Rules.--The requirements of this section shall
become effective upon the date of enactment. The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall issue, revise, or repeal the
rules, regulations, guidance, or procedures of the Federal Aviation
 
E.W. said:
Why should anyone care if they're doing actual instructing or just sightseeing. I can't see how it hurts anyone except commercial sightseeing outfits wanting the government to protect them from competition. The FAA just has way, way too many rules. Fundamentally this issue comes down to liberty vs violence.
Click to expand...
What violence? :confused2:
 
Maybe I'm confused (probably), but it appears to me that this part:

(a) In General.--An authorized flight instructor providing student
instruction, flight instruction, or flight training shall not be deemed
to be operating an aircraft carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire.​

would allow Warbird Adventures to resume doing what they were doing, since the law fails to define instruction or training. Can't Warbird Adventures go right back to "providing instruction" with it now defined in law that doing so is NOT carrying persons for hire?
 
Palmpilot said:
What violence? :confused2:
Click to expand...

In the end, ALL laws are enforced under the threat of violence.

Half Fast said:
Can't Warbird Adventures go right back to "providing instruction" with it now defined in law that doing so is NOT carrying persons for hire?
Click to expand...

The new rule requires that "no person receives compensation for use of the aircraft for a specific flight during which flight training, checking, or testing was received, other than expenses for owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft."
 
Dana said:
In the end, ALL laws are enforced under the threat of violence.



The new rule requires that "no person receives compensation for use of the aircraft for a specific flight during which flight training, checking, or testing was received, other than expenses for owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft."
Click to expand...
Expenses for owning the aircraft. Pretty wide open if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top