FAA guidance on Flight instruction LODA in category aircraft. . . update July 8th
- Thread starter skyking3286
- Start date
Doc Holliday
En-Route
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.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
It doesn’t upset me that you’re participating in this thread. I just don’t see where the court ruling is totally irrelevant.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.
Stewartb
Final Approach
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.
Lindberg
Final Approach
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.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ok…so a SP instructor isn’t using an aircraft that is carrying a person for hire?
Lindberg
Final Approach
If he's instructing in an aircraft for hire, he is.
Are you referring to the aircraft being for hire?
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.
Marshall Alexander
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 213
- Location
- Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
- Display Name
Display name:
malexander
Lindberg
Final Approach
Please show how you come to these conclusions.
By applying your statement to the situation.
Lindberg
Final Approach
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.
We shall see. I don’t see how you anyone can not see it.
Lindberg
Final Approach
I can't see what you haven't shown me. The reg in question refers to a specific category of aircraft. If you want to talk about something else, be specific.
bflynn
Final Approach
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.
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
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
What email can you send to do instruction as a sport CFI, with no commercial license?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Which regulation are you citing that requires a LODA for what you described?
Lindberg
Final Approach
The court didn't say that. Did you read the order?
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
I don’t say anything about a loda
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Fair enough. Which regulation are you citing?
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.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
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.
bflynn
Final Approach
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.
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?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
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.
Stewartb
Final Approach
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.
bflynn
Final Approach
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
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
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.
Lindberg
Final Approach
I did read it. It doesn't contain the word "instructor" or the word "passenger," so it certainly contains no general statements about them.
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.
Lindberg
Final Approach
From the FAA:
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?
bflynn
Final Approach
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?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Thanks for admitting that.
The court kept their comments within the realm of 91.315, and was correct.
The regulations address this, and the regulations have not changed.
Now you are venturing into hysteria.
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: 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). Individuals seeking to provide flight training and receive compensation.
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.
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.
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.
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:
bflynn
Final Approach
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.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
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.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don’t think you quite understand how to explain things to those who don’t quite understand.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
In order to do that, you have to actually lead."You can lead a horse to water........" sorta comes to mind.