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

"Under the new LODA system, applicants can send an email to 9-AVS-AFG-LODA@faa.gov with their name, address, email address, pilot certificate number, flight instructor number (if applying as a CFI), aircraft registration number (if applying as an owner), aircraft make and model, and aircraft home base (if applying as an owner). The request will then flow to the local FSDO, who will issue the LODA. Both instructors and those receiving training will require a LODA."

"The policy is anticipated to go into effect on Monday, July 12. Due to an anticipated bottleneck, EAA is encouraging members to apply for LODAs when an anticipated need arises, to maintain capacity for those individuals who need a LODA immediately. LODAs will be effective for 48 months, by which time the FAA hopes to have a more permanent fix in place."
 
After the Court dismissed the petition for review, several industry groups requested that the FAA publish a statement explaining the impact of the decision and providing clarification regarding flight training in general and flight training for compensation in certain aircraft that hold special airworthiness certificates.2 The FAA is issuing this notification in response to the request from industry.
Click to expand...

Smooth move.
 
Am I interpreting that correctly that any instructor and or owner of an Experimental aircraft wanting to do a flight review, Wings Training, Transition training, or insurance mandated training in that aircraft will require a LODA?

If I am correct then I interpret that to mean every Multi-place experimental owner and their instructor should be applying for a LODA. 30,000 applications might be low.

Fortunately mine is a single place aircraft.

Brian
 
brcase said:
Am I interpreting that correctly that any instructor and or owner of an Experimental aircraft wanting to do a flight review, Wings Training, Transition training, or insurance mandated training in that aircraft will require a LODA?

If I am correct then I interpret that to mean every Multi-place experimental owner and their instructor should be applying for a LODA. 30,000 applications might be low.

Fortunately mine is a single place aircraft.

Brian
Click to expand...

If that turns out to be the case, it's hard to imagine how that would be in any way conducive to safety.
 
lulz what a clownboat of a regulatory body. The irony of the Primary category scenario as highlighted by the article is especially emblematic. Can't make that s--t up. :rofl:
 
brcase said:
Am I interpreting that correctly that any instructor and or owner of an Experimental aircraft wanting to do a flight review, Wings Training, Transition training, or insurance mandated training in that aircraft will require a LODA?

If I am correct then I interpret that to mean every Multi-place experimental owner and their instructor should be applying for a LODA. 30,000 applications might be low.

Fortunately mine is a single place aircraft.

Brian
Click to expand...
I haven't read the published policy (yet) but yes that would appear to be the case. But it also seems only one person requires the LODA - either the owner or the CFI. That may help a bit with the numbers but I can see both applying for different reasons.

Hopefully, the "streamlined" LODA policy will (a) help and (b) signal a regulatory change to conform regulatory language to long-existing policy.

IMO, this is the real fallout from the warbird case.
 
I'd say it is clearly experimental owners . . . you're screwed. My LODA email is in. From the other thread . . . my local FSDO did reply and tell me to follow the new process. From the email, it sounds like the FSDO will get an approval from some "team" then issue the LODA.
 
The flaw is in how the regs were written. The court ruling exposed how the regs weren’t being properly applied. The current change isn’t the problem, the regs are. And as an E-AB owner? The LODA solution is pretty simple so no grief from me. Instructors have a different issue.
 
Don’t worry. Somebody will be along shortly to tell us this is a good thing and the Faa will do a great job.
 
What exactly does sending a LODA to anyone that asks for one do for safety that wasn’t being done previously?
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with anything but making a pathway for compliance with existing regs.
 
Salty said:
What exactly does sending a LODA to anyone that asks for one do for safety that wasn’t being done previously?
Click to expand...

Nothing……but it does give lawyers and others things to do, none of which are productive.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Are all light sport Aircraft considered experimental, and therefore subject to LODA?
Or just E-LSA?
 
LSA regs don’t allow commercial ops. I’d think they’re in the same situation but I have no idea whether the LODA solution applies to them.
 
Stewartb said:
LSA regs don’t allow commercial ops. I’d think they’re in the same situation but I have no idea whether the LODA solution applies to them.
Click to expand...


And I suspect Sport CFIs who only hold a SPL are hosed as well, since a SP can't carry anyone for hire.

And what about CFIs who are using Basic Med? Can't carry anyone for hire with that. Don't you need at least a 2nd class to transport people?
 
Nah. I own an experimental and don’t find the LODA thing to be a problem. I’ll let all you guys with no skin in the game play the victim. Your anger at the FAA is misguided. They’ve provided me a very painless solution to dealing with what a Federal judge ruled upon. All’s good in my little part of aviation.
 
Half Fast said:
And I suspect Sport CFIs who only hold a SPL are hosed as well, since a SP can't carry anyone for hire.

And what about CFIs who are using Basic Med? Can't carry anyone for hire with that. Don't you need at least a 2nd class to transport people?
Click to expand...
CFIs using BasicMed have a problem and I haven’t paid attention to that part since it doesn’t affect me. My instructor buddies fly airliners so they’re properly credentialed.
 
It’s an honest perspective. I don’t care much about ADs on airplanes I don’t own, medical restrictions for conditions I don’t have, etc. The best path to the best answer to a particular issue will come from those impacted by that issue and fully understand the issue.
 
Stewartb said:
It’s an honest perspective. I don’t care much about ADs on airplanes I don’t own, medical restrictions for conditions I don’t have, etc. The best path to the best answer to a particular issue will come from those impacted by that issue and fully understand the issue.
Click to expand...
Time for that head in the sand image again.
 
Stewartb said:
It’s an honest perspective. I don’t care much about ADs on airplanes I don’t own, medical restrictions for conditions I don’t have, etc. The best path to the best answer to a particular issue will come from those impacted by that issue and fully understand the issue.
Click to expand...


Interesting perspective. A bit self-centered and naive. Reminds me of the poem Martin Niemöller wrote back in the 1940s. Perhaps not quite as serious a situation here, but the same basic attitude.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
Stewartb said:
CFIs using BasicMed have a problem and I haven’t paid attention to that part since it doesn’t affect me. My instructor buddies fly airliners so they’re properly credentialed.
Click to expand...
Or even a Third Class? Seems concerning. Lots of CFI's on a Third Class as well.
 
So what do you guys (the majority of whom aren’t affected by this) planning to do to right the great wrong? Barking on the internet isn’t political action, it’s just noise. I’m not the enemy. I’m just a guy invested in the issue who understands the simplicity of the solution, at least as it applies to me.
 
Stewartb said:
So what do you guys (the majority of whom aren’t affected by this) planning to do to right the great wrong? Barking on the internet isn’t political action, it’s just noise. I’m not the enemy. I’m just a guy invested in the issue who understands the simplicity of the solution, at least as it applies to me.
Click to expand...


Depends on what the final outcome looks like when the dust settles. Maybe nothing will be necessary. Maybe bring pressure via AOPA and EAA (yes, I'm a member of both). Maybe contact a congress critter. But I don't just sit back and say, "Sorry, fellow pilots. Guess you're screwed, but at least I'm okay. Sucks to be you."

Someday I might be the one who needs some help.
 
Do you understand the issue? No regs changed at the FAA. A Federal Judge made a ruling that changed the interpretation of flight instruction. Apparently FAA legal thinks that interpretation will be upheld, and to common old me? It kinda makes sense. So the potential actions are 1-rewrite the CFRs to clearly define flight instruction outside of commercial ops, or 2-get the court ruling overturned in a higher court. Both are unlikely to happen anytime soon, like this decade. So what the FAA did, at least for the EXP guys, was to create a simple means of compliance with long-standing CFRs. When I get a chance to talk to FSDO? I’ll say thank you.
 
Stewartb said:
Do you understand the issue? No regs changed at the FAA. A Federal Judge made a ruling that changed the interpretation of flight instruction. Apparently FAA legal thinks that interpretation will be upheld, and to common old me? It kinda makes sense. So the potential actions are 1-rewrite the CFRs to clearly define flight instruction outside of commercial ops, or 2-get the court ruling overturned in a higher court. Both are unlikely to happen anytime soon, like this decade. So what the FAA did, at least for the EXP guys, was to create a simple means of compliance with long-standing CFRs. When I get a chance to talk to FSDO? I’ll say thank you.
Click to expand...
But the FAA created the problem…
 
Tarheelpilot said:
But the FAA created the problem…
Click to expand...
No. EAA and AOPA created the problem.

The FAA initiated an enforcement action against a bad actor. It won. It was satiated. It took no action to revise any guidance to ASIs.

AOPA and EAA came along and DEMANDED that the FAA repudiate that victory. A victory that the FAA was happy to apply to just one bad actor.

Of course the FAA wasn't going to repudiate a decision that resulted in the clearly correct outcome. And it couldn't put in writing that it was only going to apply the rule to clearly bad actors and no one else. So it did what it was forced to do. What EAA and AOPA forced it to do. If you read the guidance, it even says as much.
 
Stewartb said:
Do you understand the issue? No regs changed at the FAA. A Federal Judge made a ruling that changed the interpretation of flight instruction. Apparently FAA legal thinks that interpretation will be upheld, and to common old me? It kinda makes sense. So the potential actions are 1-rewrite the CFRs to clearly define flight instruction outside of commercial ops, or 2-get the court ruling overturned in a higher court. Both are unlikely to happen anytime soon, like this decade.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand the issue. The judge apparently believed the interpretation only impacted warbird operations like the one he was presented with. I doubt whether he understood the further, probably unintended, consequences for experimental aircraft and for instructors.


So what the FAA did, at least for the EXP guys, was to create a simple means of compliance with long-standing CFRs. When I get a chance to talk to FSDO? I’ll say thank you.
Click to expand...


Glad you're thankful to have a "simple" fix for experimentals. But that ain't the whole world.

So far I haven't heard the FAA address the question of how this interpretation will impact instructor medicals, Sport CFIs, or LSAs. I know AOPA legal is seeking some clarification there.
 
Lindberg said:
No. EAA and AOPA created the problem.

The FAA initiated an enforcement action against a bad actor. It won. It was satiated. It took no action to revise any guidance to ASIs.

AOPA and EAA came along and DEMANDED that the FAA repudiate that victory. A victory that the FAA was happy to apply to just one bad actor.

Of course the FAA wasn't going to repudiate a decision that resulted in the clearly correct outcome. And it couldn't put in writing that it was only going to apply the rule to clearly bad actors and no one else. So it did what it was forced to do. What EAA and AOPA forced it to do. If you read the guidance, it even says as much.
Click to expand...


Another way of looking at that would be to see the interpretation as creating a potential for future adverse action. Each instructor and EXP aircraft owner was left with the sword of Damocles over his head, not knowing when it might fall. EAA and AOPA are (still) trying to get some means of protection from that sword.
 
Stewartb said:
Do you understand the issue? No regs changed at the FAA. A Federal Judge made a ruling that changed the interpretation of flight instruction. Apparently FAA legal thinks that interpretation will be upheld, and to common old me? It kinda makes sense. So the potential actions are 1-rewrite the CFRs to clearly define flight instruction outside of commercial ops, or 2-get the court ruling overturned in a higher court. Both are unlikely to happen anytime soon, like this decade. So what the FAA did, at least for the EXP guys, was to create a simple means of compliance with long-standing CFRs. When I get a chance to talk to FSDO? I’ll say thank you.
Click to expand...
So do you have this loda in hand? I hope for your sake the "simple means of compliance" is in place and operating by the time you're due for your next flight review. I wouldn't hold my breath. Meanwhile what's the point of the loda's if the faa is just going to hand them out willy-nilly? Do you think it will be their top priority? You seem to have a lot more faith in burocracy than me.

This whole thing is a loda crap.
 
Are there any Chief Counsel opinions or case decisions that say instructors are being paid to teach, not to fly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top