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

Salty: What safety has been compromised?

Half Fast: So what’s the collateral damage?

Both of you made statements, yet you refuse to tell us why you have came to that conclusion. Why?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Salty: What safety has been compromised?

Half Fast: So what’s the collateral damage?

Both of you made statements, yet you refuse to tell us why you have came to that conclusion. Why?
Click to expand...
I explained it already days ago. You didn't agree then, I doubt you'll agree now. Frankly, it's as plain a nose on your face if it's not buried in the sand.
 
Salty said:
I explained it already days ago. You didn't agree then, I doubt you'll agree now. Frankly, it's as plain a nose on your face if it's not buried in the sand.
Click to expand...

With no basis in fact or what has been published.

I like to use facts. You, well, conspiracy seems to be your forte.

Say goodnight Salty.
 
The battle against part 134.5 continues. In all categories of aircraft.
And, I think flight training in SOME (not all) non std category aircraft is ABSURD.
 
bbchien said:
The battle against part 134.5 continues. In all categories of aircraft.
And, I think flight training in SOME (not all) non std category aircraft is ABSURD.
Click to expand...
Training in your personally owned aircraft is certainly not absurd. Making training in your personally owned aircraft a deviation, now THAT's absurd.
 
Doc Holliday said:
With no basis in fact or what has been published.

I like to use facts. You, well, conspiracy seems to be your forte.

Say goodnight Salty.
Click to expand...
Why does my opinion offend you so much you feel you must insult me over and over? Defensive?
 
Thread summary:

'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!...​

:D
 
Here is my take on the fundamentals of this issue, which I know many here will disagree with. But it is the reason I regard arguments about who is the worse actor here as less important.

I believe it is wrong to try and coerce peaceful people to try and make them do something they otherwise would not choose to do. It is also wrong to defraud them for the same purpose.

So we have the FAA regulators who are trying to coerce people and prevent them from flying in a manner that the people would choose to which does not endanger other innocent people to any greater degree than normal activities of daily living.

We then have the operator who may have been involved in defrauding passengers.

Both bad actors in my view.

Frankly I prefer the common law approach of suing and arresting people after they commit torts, frauds and crimes, rather than trying to predict who might do so in the future. Obviously there are cases of clear and imminent danger, but most flying activities don’t fall into that category.
 
Last edited:
So…serious question here and having been too lazy to do the research: this has been focused on Experimentals. Why does this not also apply to Certified and therefore require Certified aircraft owners to comply with 100 hour inspections, etc. if they get their Flight Reviews in their aircraft?

I’m NOT AT ALL advocating this: I’m actually wondering if the lack of applicability to Certified shows the FAA/the courts tried to keep the issue as narrow as possible while dealing with the Warbird Adventures guys and their misuse of the statutes.

Flame suit donned…
 
Llewtrah381 said:
So…serious question here and having been too lazy to do the research: this has been focused on Experimentals. Why does this not also apply to Certified and therefore require Certified aircraft owners to comply with 100 hour inspections, etc. if they get their Flight Reviews in their aircraft?

I’m NOT AT ALL advocating this: I’m actually wondering if the lack of applicability to Certified shows the FAA/the courts tried to keep the issue as narrow as possible while dealing with the Warbird Adventures guys and their misuse of the statutes.

Flame suit donned…
Click to expand...
This is the other problem with this. We haven’t seen all the fallout yet.
 
Salty said:
This is the other problem with this. We haven’t seen all the fallout yet.
Click to expand...
My perhaps naive impression is everyone, including the FAA, will tiptoe past that graveyard - unless Warbird Adventures says “yeah - but what about…”
 
Salty said:
This is the other problem with this. We haven’t seen all the fallout yet.
Click to expand...

50y477.jpg
 
Stewartb said:
The LODA has been a requirement for a lot longer than I’ve had an experimental. I knew about it and assumed it wasn’t a big deal to the FAA, which it wasn’t until the famous court ruling, and then my FAA fixed my deficiency. All in all? Pretty cool. ***** all you want but all you gain is the title of *****. *****.
Click to expand...
No, it has not. Up until recently getting instruction in YOUR OWN aircraft was never a problem. The instruction in aircraft that others provided was ambiguous in the regs and recently overruled by a federal court decision which only got there because the FAA despite the ability to essentially write their own regulations, refused to craft such to avoid the abuse of people selling common carriage and calling it instruction. Now we have a mess.
 
Read the regs. Always been there. I linked it earlier. You hard headed guys need to read the facts instead of reciting the same BS over and over again.
 
Stewartb said:
Read the regs. Always been there. I linked it earlier. You hard headed guys need to read the facts instead of reciting the same BS over and over again.
Click to expand...
Which reg says that being carried in your own aircraft is being carried for hire?
 
Last edited:
91.319 a(2) addresses commercial operations. By definition a flight instructor is compensated and that makes it a commercial operation. A subsequent chapter addresses it for the purposes of flight instruction and says quote

(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority.
Click to expand...

If you can read and speak English that’s the whole answer right there.
 
Stewartb said:
91.319 a(2) addresses commercial operations. By definition a flight instructor is compensated and that makes it a commercial operation.
Click to expand...

I thought that was not the case. The flight instructor is being compensated for his or her instruction, which is not in and of itself a commercial operation.
 
And that’s the rub. Until the Court ruling the FAA agreed with that. The ruling caused the problem. Hopefully Congress can straighten the flight instruction status out. I mean c’mon, what else do they have to do now that they fixed health care?
 
Stewartb said:
91.319 a(2) addresses commercial operations. By definition a flight instructor is compensated and that makes it a commercial operation. A subsequent chapter addresses it for the purposes of flight instruction and says quote



If you can read and speak English that’s the whole answer right there.
Click to expand...

Then why doesn't a flight instructor need a 2nd class or even any medical to conduct instruction?
 
At the moment they might. You meatheads continue to argue about the E-AB LODA requirement while the flight instructor component of the conversation is the real concern. Maybe you should get familiar with the problem before you take your perch at the pulpit?
 
Stewartb said:
At the moment they might. You meatheads continue to argue about the E-AB LODA requirement while the flight instructor component of the conversation is the real concern. Maybe you should get familiar with the problem before you take your perch at the pulpit?
Click to expand...


Exactly correct, and that’s a point I made a while ago. Many CFIs are not legally authorized to carry passengers for compensation (3rd class med, Basic med, Sport CFIs). I know the EAA is concerned about where that may be headed, and likely others are worried, too.
 
Salty said:
Training in your personally owned aircraft is certainly not absurd. Making training in your personally owned aircraft a deviation, now THAT's absurd.
Click to expand...
I can’t begin to tell you how many guys say to me, “my CFI is taking me to Xyz for a business meeting“. I cover my ears. In comes the CFI: “I can teach ANYWHERE, he bellows,” and I leave the room.

We’ll find out if FAA’s intention is as you fear, won’t we....but I think claiming primary “Flight Training” in a TBM Avenger, is an absurdity. The example that I saw was clearly “flight for hire”. Sorry but this isn’t the first time a few bad apples ruin it for everyone.

I wonder how many “graduates”of warbirds Adventures” end up ever applying for their own LOAs....prolly near zero. Instruction, huh?

Until then wear your tin hat, and stay outta my ADSB block.....
 
bbchien said:
Until then wear your tin hat, and stay outta my ADSB block.....
Click to expand...
Because we disagree on the importance of this I can’t fly near you? Wow. That’s almost as powerful an argument as the tin hat insult.

This post attempting to tell me where I cannot fly simply because you hold a different opinion than me is highly offensive to me. Only because I used to have respect for you before I read this post.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Because the regs say he doesn't: 61.23(a)(3).
Click to expand...

But @Stewartb says one does because "a flight instructor is compensated and that makes it a commercial operation" and the rest of us meatheads need to learn stuff.

I actually know what the regulations say.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
But @Stewartb says one does because "a flight instructor is compensated and that makes it a commercial operation" and the rest of us meatheads need to learn stuff.

I actually know what the regulations say.
Click to expand...
That's what happens when people paraphrase regulations and court decisions they haven't read.
 
Nothing but the fact, Jack!

Skyrys62 wins the Golden Star for his superior homework.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top