It means the FAA and the courts that confirmed action, would be forced to prove that WA was shamming instruction rather than claiming instruction was carrying passengers for hire.
Federal Court Decision: Flight training is carrying passengers for hire
- Thread starter flyingron
- Start date
It means the FAA and the courts that confirmed action, would be forced to prove that WA was shamming instruction rather than claiming instruction was carrying passengers for hire.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yep. And no limit on the fee for "instruction." It appears to me that Warbird Adventures could go right back to the same thing if they're careful about their bookkeeping.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Which is what should have happened in the first place. But it's a more challenging argument, and easier for the operation to overcome.
Yes, I agree. This also removes a gray interpretation about experimentals not being usable for instruction that predates that. Frankly, if the FAA wants to make a rule, they should make a rule, they have the authority to do that. The rule clearly didn't equate instruction with carrying passengers. If it did, there'd have been no reason why the 100 hour inspection rule didn't have both carrying passengers for hire and an instruction clause.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
They should just make a regulation that limits the HP for instruction given unless the stu-....uh...learner has at least a Private Cert. CFI has to note the learner's certificate number in the CFI's logbook.
Make it high enough HP that you can still do primary training in Cirrus, Bonanzas, et al but put the kibosh on a 1000hp being a "training flight" unless it's legit training.
Make it high enough HP that you can still do primary training in Cirrus, Bonanzas, et al but put the kibosh on a 1000hp being a "training flight" unless it's legit training.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Just require a medical before training begins for any certificate that will require a medical. That way you don't screw up Sport and gliders.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes but likely not any worse than any other flight instruction. Let insurance cost and liability concerns temper the operations willingness to take risk.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Makes sense, but I think training isn't specifically identified for a certificate, so that creates other issues. For example, you could take dual training in a warbird and it would count as training towards a sport pilot certificate.
Just require a medical before training begins for any certificate that will require a medical. That way you don't screw up Sport and gliders.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Then intro flights can't be logged. Nor can any of the training while waiting on a medical. I probably had 10 hours in before I got my medical.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
FAA enforcement actions seldom if ever lead to violence. Thus, portraying an FAA regulation as a choice between "liberty vs. violence" is an exaggeration, and an emotional argument that doesn't contribute anything to deciding which regulations are appropriate and which aren't.
Last edited:
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
RyanShort1
Final Approach
What if they want a Sport Pilot license? I completely disagree.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
If there were no threat of violence (such as armed cops), how could laws ultimately be enforced? Without a physical threat, laws and regulations could be ignored.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Require SP training to be in an LSA. No medical needed, but no SP training in a B17.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Try not paying the fine or relinquishing your certificate and then refusing to go to jail. What will be the result?
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
I said there'd be unintended consequences, but really, if you knew you needed the medical first, it probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal. You're going to have to get it eventually anyway. Not sure that's really that big of a deal.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. If a potential airplane customer wants to see if they want an LSA or a Super Cub, that experience is just as valid. Why on earth would you want to make our hobby / industry / job more restrictive?
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's an emotional argument, and an irrelevant one because it does not distinguish between just regulations and unjust ones.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Maybe something horsepower specific? More than 300 hp? OTOH, I am pretty sure that anyone taking a $1000 flight in a P-51 is a consenting adult, and should be allowed to make the decision to do so. A certified Cub vs a LSA Carbon Cub? The differences from a safety perspective are so negligible as to be laughable.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Sure, but is an "intro flight" in a P-51 REALLY legitimate flight training? Are they actually doing pattern work/stalls/etc for a private cert? The answer is nooooooooooooooo.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
That argument can be applied to ALL regulations, and therefore sheds no light on which regulations are just and appropriate, and which aren't.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
So, if Tom Cruise wants to buy one, it could be... Just because it's niche doesn't make it illegitimate.
I have non-millionaire friends who have done more serious flight training - 10 hour courses to fly a P-51 and it's not unreasonable for them to want to take a single flight to see if they want to dump that kind of money on going further.
I also know someone that owns a T-28, but generally has a commercial pilot fly him in it. You could be a non-pilot interested in buying something!
Also, flight training is broader than a private pilot rating. I can go do a flight in all kinds of planes as a commercial pilot and legitimately be receiving flight training for a purpose other than a rating. I've received flight training simply so I could be qualified for insurance for a ferry flight, for instance.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Can't those flights be logged as dual received?
Laws and regulations are ignored by the public and by governments every single day and not much happens.
In some instances, governments also actively refuse to either comply with their own laws or enforce laws on the public. This happens at all levels, and even when the judiciary gets involved. What’s amazing is that some judiciaries have no power at all to enforce their rulings, yet they are generally complied with.
All the hypotheticals are just mental gymnastics.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
My notion was that requiring a medical to receive dual would prevent these flights, so no, that's the point, under my notion, you would not be able to pay for the flight without the medical, and you can't log a flight you didn't take.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
All of these examples, presumably have at least a private certificate yes? My suggestion was legislation to ensure warbirds aren't used for PRIMARY training - which was the end around for this commercial operation and the court ruling. Just make it that flight training given in this "class" of aircraft require the recipient to have a private or higher.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Seems sensible, but I still think it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. The danger is really only to the "student". And they are agreeing to the risk by getting in the aircraft. So, really, who cares?
This is completely a non issue anyway because of the following:
1. Text in a typical LODA
This should easily be usable to stop warbirds if they wanted to
2.
Don't like what they are doing? Cancel the LODA. No need to even go to court. If they still do it without the LODA, then there is a clear reg violation.
None of this situation makes any sense unless you attribute it to incompetence.
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,992
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
The difference, at least in theory, is that a "student" is more aware of the risks involved in aviation and is acknowledging that.
When you are advertising to the public at large, your customer may not be as well informed. That is why there are standards in place for offering flights to the general public, whether 121, 135, or 91.147, that require increased safety and scrutiny from the FAA to pretty ensure the safety of the general public.
The case against Warbird Adventures was exploiting the flight training loophole to avoid those rules. The reason that was brought to light is because they killed someone.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
No, some rich guy could want to go buy a warbird - or a jet - and want to take a "lesson" in it. I don't think that's fundamentally a safety issue. The onus is on the flight instructor.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
At that point he owns it. He's not renting it out to the public.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Ok, so say Warbird Adventures trains private pilots four times a week... some rich dude thinking about buying a P-51 is interested in taking the same flight that my Citation pilot buddy took - why should he have to go get a student pilot license and a medical? He's a grown adult and can take his own risks...
midwestpa24
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 4,992
- Display Name
Display name:
midwestpa24
Still a big difference in your hypothetical scenario and what Warbird Adventures were doing. They were advertising, holding out, "sightseeing" flights in their warbird to the general public under the guise of flight instruction, just because the pilot was a CFI. It didn't take much imagination to realize the "students" were really just passengers.
To put it another way, imagine I offer to transport people in my Piper where ever they would like to go, but since I am a CFI we call it "flight instruction". Now there is nothing that says I as a flight instructor can't instruct a student on a cross-country. But what if my instruction being offered was solely cross-country, and to "students" that had no intention of ever becoming a pilot.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
It's really not that different than numerous flight schools offering adventure discovery flights on Groupon. The scenery aside, I doubt most of those people were more interested in the beaches, or whatever, than they were in the plane.
If a first intro flight, where a student pilot gets to hold the controls half the time and learns that they like flying is ok, why is an intro flight in a more "fun" airplane inherently wrong? I'm sure there are places where less than half of the people that take a discovery flight actually solo, so give me a moral argument.
Edited to add: Also, if they were going cross-country, that would take it in a different direction, but I suspect they were always intending to return to base as a normal discovery flight would.
Last edited:
Pinecone
En-Route
Many of the other operations (T-28, T06, P-51, T-33, etc) require a minimum of a 3rd class medical and a PP with appropriate category and class.
TA-4J Skyhawk Flight Training – Student must have at least a current, valid FAA Private Pilot Certificate with a current and valid FAA Class 3 Medical Certificate. Student Pilot, Recreational Pilot, and Sport Pilot Certificates are not permitted.
Any pilot with a current medical can fly a one hour instructional flight (usually in the front seat)
What are the requirement for F-104 flight training? These are the minimum requirements for candidates:
- Must be at least 18 years of age and in good health
- Must have a valid flight medical
- Must be a licensed pilot
Current Third Class Medical Certificate
Multi-engine Rating
Curious if that’s insurance driven or intentionally excluding most BasicMed holders.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’m guessing that most of those adventure discovery flight are under an LOA that includes sightseeing flights.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I doubt it. I've been contacted by Groupon before. I usually quickly disabuse them of their scheme since I don't really want masses of people calling for something I don't really want to do.
Here are some examples...
https://www.groupon.com/browse/dall...bcategory=classes&subcategory2=flying-lessons