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

Half Fast said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are twisting several things around here. Nowhere has the FAA stated getting an exemption is a rubberstamp paper process. You are making that assumption with no facts in evidence.

Here's what you copied and pasted yesterday in post 262:

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.

The FAA clearly states they are considering adopting a fast track exemption. They go further in explaining the fast track would be considered "when compensation is provided solely for the flight training and not the use of the aircraft".

So your premise "they (warbird operators) should file a new lawsuit" is also incorrect based on what you previously quoted from the FAA.

And here's the exemption process: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/Petition_For_Exemption_Guide.pdf just in case you are curious to how it works.

If the FAA does fast track an exemption process for Limited aircraft then that will be a good thing. And as far as clearing the air on what is actual flight training versus selling rides, the exemption will clearly spell that out.


Half Fast said:
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.
Click to expand...

Curriculum. Possible

Testing. What testing? While some warbird aircraft may require a test for an LOA or possibly a type rating, others do not.

Stage Checks. These are a part 141 requirement, not applicable to the discussion.

Solo. What is the requirement to solo the aircraft for a type checkout? People receive ratings such as Sea Plane and Multi Engine to name a couple without ever soloing the aircraft.
 
Doc Holliday said:
You are twisting several things around here. Nowhere has the FAA stated getting an exemption is a rubberstamp paper process. You are making that assumption with no facts in evidence.

Here's what you copied and pasted yesterday in post 262:

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.

The FAA clearly states they are considering adopting a fast track exemption. They go further in explaining the fast track would be considered "when compensation is provided solely for the flight training and not the use of the aircraft".

So your premise "they (warbird operators) should file a new lawsuit" is also incorrect based on what you previously quoted from the FAA.

And here's the exemption process: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/Petition_For_Exemption_Guide.pdf just in case you are curious to how it works.

If the FAA does fast track an exemption process for Limited aircraft then that will be a good thing. And as far as clearing the air on what is actual flight training versus selling rides, the exemption will clearly spell that out.




Curriculum. Possible

Testing. What testing? While some warbird aircraft may require a test for an LOA or possibly a type rating, others do not.

Stage Checks. These are a part 141 requirement, not applicable to the discussion.

Solo. What is the requirement to solo the aircraft for a type checkout? People receive ratings such as Sea Plane and Multi Engine to name a couple without ever soloing the aircraft.
Click to expand...


PoA members have reported getting LODAs in an hour or two via email. If you don’t think that’s a mere rubber stamp, your head is in the sand.

I merely listed a few examples of things that may go with a training regimen. AFAIK, the FAA didn’t even try to show Warbirds wasn’t really doing training, so I suggested that might have been another means of approaching the problem. You’re getting hung up on the details of that line of attack rather than considering the overall strategy.
 
Half Fast said:
PoA members have reported getting LODAs in an hour or two via email. If you don’t think that’s a mere rubber stamp, your head is in the sand.
Click to expand...

You are confusing a LODA with an exemption, 2 entirely different processes. My reply focused on the exemption process, which is not a quick process, and as of this writing, the FAA has not fast-tracked. Had you actually read what you copied and pasted you may have understood that.

Half Fast said:
I merely listed a few examples of things that may go with a training regimen.
Click to expand...

Which have nothing to do with what's being discussed.

Half Fast said:
AFAIK, the FAA didn’t even try to show Warbirds wasn’t really doing training, so I suggested that might have been another means of approaching the problem. You’re getting hung up on the details of that line of attack rather than considering the overall strategy.
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand what's going on. Go back and reread the policy letter. It's spelled out right there. You even copied and pasted some of it. o_O
 
Submitted at 3:17
Received at 4:41

From the Albuquerque FSDO - I'm in Michigan. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Half Fast said:
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.
Click to expand...
Warbirds wasn't giving instruction, it was selling rides (according to the FAA). The FAA told it to stop. It said, "We're not giving rides, we're giving instruction." The FAA said, "Even if we accept for the sake of argument that's true, you still need an exemption." The court agreed.

The FAA didn't go after Warbirds because it lacked an exemption, it went after Warbirds to terminate what it saw as an illegal and unsafe operation. If Warbirds applied for an exemption, there's every reason to believe it would be denied on that basis.
 
Lindberg said:
Warbirds wasn't giving instruction, it was selling rides (according to the FAA). The FAA told it to stop. It said, "We're not giving rides, we're giving instruction." The FAA said, "Even if we accept for the sake of argument that's true, you still need an exemption." The court agreed.

The FAA didn't go after Warbirds because it lacked an exemption, it went after Warbirds to terminate what it saw as an illegal and unsafe operation. If Warbirds applied for an exemption, there's every reason to believe it would be denied on that basis.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the FAA didn’t have to “accept for the sake of argument” that Warbirds was giving instruction and then create the exemption/LODA mess.

How would you go about proving it wasn’t really instruction?
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, but the FAA didn’t have to “accept for the sake of argument” that Warbirds was giving instruction and then create the exemption/LODA mess.
Click to expand...
That's how you get emergency relief from a court. You say, "Even if everything he says is true, I still win." Why would you argue about disputed facts like whether instruction is bona fide if you doubt have to?
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
That's how you get emergency relief from a court. You say, "Even if everything he says is true, I still win." Why would you argue about disputed facts like whether instruction is bone fide if you doubt have to?
Click to expand...


Why? Because the approach they took opened a large can of worms and requires them to go through 4 years of exemptions and LODAs and re-write a regulation, and now has Congress critters introducing legislation to change their regs for them. Dumb move.
 
Half Fast said:
Why? Because the approach they took opened a large can of worms and requires them to go through 4 years of exemptions and LODAs and re-write a regulation, and now has Congress critters introducing legislation to change their regs for them. Dumb move.
Click to expand...

The only part of this which is not in the self interest of bureaucrats working at the FAA is the Congress critters intervening. Other than that, more work for all departments concerned, larger staffs, and larger salaries and pensions. What’s not to like?

As Von Mises noted in “Bureaucracy”, all the incentives point in the wrong direction for these people.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
The only part of this which is not in the self interest of bureaucrats working at the FAA is the Congress critters intervening. Other than that, more work for all departments concerned, larger staffs, and larger salaries and pensions. What’s not to like?

As Von Mises noted in “Bureaucracy”, all the incentives point in the wrong direction for these people.
Click to expand...


Bingo.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
The only part of this which is not in the self interest of bureaucrats working at the FAA is the Congress critters intervening. Other than that, more work for all departments concerned, larger staffs, and larger salaries and pensions. What’s not to like?

As Von Mises noted in “Bureaucracy”, all the incentives point in the wrong direction for these people.
Click to expand...


The FAA has not had budget increases to increase staff. In fact this latest LODA issue just added work to the agency with no increase in personnel.

I would venture to say the 4 year length was placed there to give them time to streamline, and hopefully rewrite the law (49USC) and the regulation (14CFR).

I can’t imagine anyone in the agency was overly excited about this. But, it was handed to them, they fixed it in the least painful way for the public and will now let the higher ups come up with a fix.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
I can’t imagine anyone in the agency was overly excited about this. But, it was handed to them, they fixed it in the least painful way for the public and will now let the higher ups come up with a fix.
Click to expand...

Isn’t the FAA the agency which pursued this case resulting in the ruling requiring this?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Isn’t the FAA the agency which pursued this case resulting in the ruling requiring this?
Click to expand...
You've left out a crucial step in the chronology: AOPA and EAA wrote a letter saying that the Warbirds decision applied to everyone and demanded FAA repudiate it, which was never going to happen.
 
Lindberg said:
You've left out a crucial step in the chronology: AOPA and EAA wrote a letter saying that the Warbirds decision applied to everyone and demanded FAA repudiate it, which was never going to happen.
Click to expand...

The FAA used a hand grenade instead of a sniper rifle to take down Warbirds, inflicting lots of collateral damage. They didn’t even understand what they had done until the AOPA and EAA called it to their attention.
 
Half Fast said:
Why? Because the approach they took opened a large can of worms and requires them to go through 4 years of exemptions and LODAs and re-write a regulation, and now has Congress critters introducing legislation to change their regs for them. Dumb move.
Click to expand...
The approach FAA took resulted in shutting down the operator. The approach you're suggesting may not have. I'm not sure why your ire isn't more directed at the operator attempting to skirt regulations with sham instruction. If exemptions address rubber stamp, as you seem to believe, why do you supposed the operator didn't apply for one when first approached by the FAA?
 
Half Fast said:
The FAA used a hand grenade instead of a sniper rifle to take down Warbirds, inflicting lots of collateral damage. They didn’t even understand what they had done until the AOPA and EAA called it to their attention.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you now recognize AOPA and EAA's culpability.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm glad you now recognize AOPA and EAA's culpability.
Click to expand...


Yes, they were culpable of speaking out on behalf of those wounded by grenade fragments when the FAA didn’t know the damage they’d done.
 
Lindberg said:
The approach FAA took resulted in shutting down the operator. The approach you're suggesting may not have. I'm not sure why your ire isn't more directed at the operator attempting to skirt regulations with sham instruction. If exemptions address rubber stamp, as you seem to believe, why do you supposed the operator didn't apply for one when first approached by the FAA?
Click to expand...


By all means, let’s accept whatever collateral damage is necessary to get one bad actor. That makes as much sense as bombing a Walmart to stop one shoplifter.
 
Lindberg said:
The approach FAA took resulted in shutting down the operator. The approach you're suggesting may not have. I'm not sure why your ire isn't more directed at the operator attempting to skirt regulations with sham instruction. If exemptions address rubber stamp, as you seem to believe, why do you supposed the operator didn't apply for one when first approached by the FAA?
Click to expand...
We’d be safer and far better off if this hadn’t happened and the operator wasn’t shut down. This did far more to decrease safety than shutting down that one guy would have done.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm glad you now recognize AOPA and EAA's culpability.
Click to expand...
Yep, blame the guy who doesn’t have their head in the sand. You’d never know you were eaten by the lion if you’d been allowed to ignore it.
 
Salty said:
We’d be safer and far better off if this hadn’t happened and the operator wasn’t shut down. This did far more to decrease safety than shutting down that one guy would have done.
Click to expand...

What safety has been decreased?
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, they were culpable of speaking out on behalf of those wounded by grenade fragments when the FAA didn’t know the damage they’d done.
Click to expand...
So bizarre. If "the FAA didn’t know the damage they’d done," then they couldn't have been planning additional enforcements, which is the theoretical damage, so no damage.... The FAA has further demonstrated that it's not interested in enforcing this against most experimental owners by providing a simple process for LODAs.
 
Salty said:
We’d be safer and far better off if this hadn’t happened and the operator wasn’t shut down. This did far more to decrease safety than shutting down that one guy would have done.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the problem with broad regulatory approaches to problems of this type.

It tends to injure a lot more people than the actual malefactors.
 
Salty said:
We’d be safer and far better off if this hadn’t happened and the operator wasn’t shut down. This did far more to decrease safety than shutting down that one guy would have done.
Click to expand...
After the B-17 that went down, I think it would be tough to sell that view to the FAA.
 
Half Fast said:
By all means, let’s accept whatever collateral damage is necessary to get one bad actor. That makes as much sense as bombing a Walmart to stop one shoplifter.
Click to expand...
Isn't that how government works?
 
Half Fast said:
None you will accept unless you choose to extract your head from the sand. Come back when you’ve decided to do that.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty lame.

Thanks for showing you still have no clue to what’s being discussed here.
 
As a person who was building a Sonex Onex, I had looked for a CFI to get transition training in a Sonex. Previously, IIRC, there were around three in the USA, none within 1000 miles of me who a) had a Sonex, b) was a CFI and c) had the required LODA. One reason I ceased construction of the Onex and donated it to the local A&P school.

After this screw up by the FAA, I assume any CFI who owns a Sonex can spend 5 minutes and then offer transition training. While I have no way of knowing if there are any additional CFI’s who own a Sonex and wish to offer transition training, if there’s even one, this will result in increased safety, not less.

It certainly seems similar situations exist for RV’s, LongEZ’s, Velocities, etc. The net result is an opportunity for increased safety for those who desire what I consider essential transition training before stepping into their completed E-AB for their first flight.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top