My objection is that you attributed to the court something that it did not say. That's at the root of all the hysteria here. And "passenger" is not merely an incorrect word, it's the wrong word. The regs and the FAA are clear that "passenger" and "person" have different meanings. And indeed, while a passenger must be a person, a person might not be a passenger. In fact, the difference between these words is so significant, that if the regulation in question had said "passenger" instead of "person," the whole case likely would have come out differently, and if the court had, in fact, said "passenger" instead of "person," as you stated, then the hysteria would actually be warranted! This is not trivial semantics, and it's why my crim law professor admonished us to "never paraphrase a statute!"
Maybe.
But that's not it. If anything, the crux of the FAA's notification is that a CFI may be an operator of an aircraft being used for instruction. Another important distinction.
It really doesn't. And the FAA has said repeatedly that students and CFIs on a dual flight are not passengers. That's why it's significant that 91.315 and the court's order don't use the word "passenger," and why it's so important that we use the right words when discussing them.
Apparently it impacts the supports for the whole FARs according to some. But if the FAA isn't considering it, why does it matter? The FAA has already said that it wasn't its intent to apply this holding broadly, but since EAA and AOPA forced them to make a statement, this policy statement was actually the best we could hope for. The FAA saying, yes, the reg. means what it says, we'll give you a workaround for now, and we will fix it down the road.
My point exactly.I want to lead the horse to drink at the creek.
Or we could follow your method. You want to take the horse, lead him up a mountain side to go find snow to eat because you are convinced that the creek has been contaminated and will kill everyone and everything based upon a preconceived notion you can neither articulate or quite comprehend.
What do the applicable regs say?
Regardless of the new ruling you could pretty well assume that as a CFI you would be jointly responsible for any stupid pilot tricks regardless of who was PIC.
But what do they say? We can't even begin to attempt to determine what they mean if we don't know what they say.
Nobody knows what FARs you're talking about if you don't identify them.
If the question is whether a CFI could face a violation of 91.7 for flying an unworthy aircraft, the answer is probably yes if he knew or should have known it was unairworthy. Was that your question?
Nobody knows the answer until you ask a specific question. Even above, just identifying 91.7 isn't asking a question.
I do have a sense that I'm better equipped to discuss the impact of documents I've read than people who haven't read them are. And given my professional training and experience, I may be better equipped to understand them than others lacking that training and experience. That doesn't make me "superior," though.
Where did I tell you that you were wrong without identifying the correct answer?
Yeah, well you can't predict the future either.
Although I did say when they sent it that the AOPA and EAA letter was misguided and wouldn't have the desired effect. That doesn't mean I knew what would happen, I could have been wrong. Just the application of experience.
People can keep saying that, but it's meaningless. There are always unidentified consequences of anything. So identify them or don't. But running around talking about the sky falling, without identifying where or how is pointless.
How did the FAA change the responsibility of a CFI?
I'm not going to quote again the passage from the FAA notice that the policy update you hate so much was made in direct response to the request from those "far above" me in the aviation world. But it's there.
Goodbye.
My understanding is the presence of a cfi does not relieve a certificated pilot of responsibility nor does some other pilots PIC role protect a cfi.
Sounds like fun
I neglected to include a couple of pieces of required info. They (DigitaliBiz) emailed asking for that info, I had a signed LODA from FSDO 2-1/2 hours later. Since a Federal Judge ruled flight instruction is a commercial venture (which by definition it is) I’m covered to receive professional flight instruction in my EXP airplane. End of story. All you ******* need to find a new cesspool to stir!
Because they are actually looking at the possibly wideswept negative consequences that could pop up and haven't shoved their heads in the sand. This is a serious safety issue and should not have been approached so hap-hazardly. To pretend like adding nonsensical steps to get training, and more fear by instructors that they might be violating rules that seem to be changing daily isn't going to mean less training occurs is nothing more than having your head in the sand.
Why write an article about a court proceeding without providing background on the proceeding, let alone naming it? Is it because if we actually researched it, the facts wouldn't support the author's premise?
