FAA guidance on Flight instruction LODA in category aircraft. . . update July 8th
- Thread starter skyking3286
- Start date
Doc Holliday
En-Route
That’s what I thought when I posted the article. No reference to the alleged prosecutions but a link to AOPA Legal Sevices.
Cheers
So you don’t see a problem with training being considered a deviation or deviation being the new normal way of operating?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
That regulation was written decades ago. Nothing changed except the FAA was caught not providing the oversight of the regulation. So they admitted it, and provided a fairly simple fix that doesn’t burden the public, unless you consider spending 5 minutes sending an email as a burden.
I’ll take that as a no, even though you refuse to actually answer a question.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Take it anyway you want sodium boy. I answered your question, your inability to comprehend isn’t my problem.
You can now return back to your regularly scheduled hysteria now.
A juvenile attempt to Insult me is not an answer to a yes or no question, but nice job sinking even lower.
Lindberg
Final Approach
This only applies to aircraft with special airworthiness certificates. Most training is conducted in aircraft with standard airworthiness certs. So I wouldn't really call this the new normal, but YMMV.
Lindberg
Final Approach
I've learned a little more about the airmen in question, and based on that information, I don't have an issue with the FAA's argument in the case. The pilots were "volunteers" to fly aircraft that most of us mere mortals dream of. I agree with the FAA that they were compensated merely by being allowed to fly them. And the "students" were paying gobs of money for the "instruction." This is NOT, imho, something I would worry about if I was a CFI just giving my buddy a free BFR in his RV.
In the Harrington letter, the Chief Counsel's office wrote that pilots could avoid free flight time being considered to be compensation by not logging the time. Have they ever repudiated that interpretation since then?
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf
It “only” applies to aircraft with special airworthiness certificates, of which I’m probably safe saying are the majority of new piston aircraft entering the fleet today.
Regardless of that, it’s still insane to say that training in tens of thousands of aircraft in the fleet should be considered a deviation. In reality, NOT training in them is the deviation.
It is also crazy to say issuing deviation authorization by the hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands based on nothing more than an email is a good thing. Deviation by definition should not be the defacto standard.
You guys are literally praising the Faa for doing such a good job of making a deviation the new standard.
I think this whole process is the result of the FAA “stepping on their tie”. While the temporary “fix” may be messy, illogical, disturbing and out of the norm to you and others, to wait years for the regulatory, lawmaking or whatever process to come up with a tidy, logical, comforting and normal fix would be dumb since during those years, how would people get transition or periodic trading for experimental aircraft since the number of CFI’s with the proper existing LODA(s) was minimal.
In fact, this is pretty good thing in my opinion since it allows for a vastly larger ability to get important trading in experimental aircraft. Something bad might happen but leaving the status quo after the initial disaster is far worse.
If there’s a better solution for an immediate fix for the problem, I’m clueless. Saying issue changes to the FAR faster is possible is a non sequitur.
Cheers
Lindberg
Final Approach
Well that may be appropriate, since if you have a "standard" airworthiness cert, you don't need a LODA. I have no idea whether the majority of new planes have "special" airworthiness certs, but I do think it's safe to assume that wasn't the situation contemplated when the regs were written.
Previously an owner trained in his own airplane. He now will train in his own airplane with a piece of paper acquired from the FAA in a simple process that says it is an approved deviation from the accepted standard. A difference without distinction except now the owner would be in violation of the FAR because of a FAA Screw up if he didn’t have said paper.
Cheers
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
It’s just AOPA trying to justify their existence and sell their legal services.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Hopefully the legislature will rein in the FAA on this.
As von Mises noted, bureaucrats have all their incentives in the wrong places. Let’s create more work so we have a bigger budget and a bigger salary and bigger pension. Sort of wild the FAA fought this one so hard in court.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...s-to-solve-faa-created-flight-training-crisis
As von Mises noted, bureaucrats have all their incentives in the wrong places. Let’s create more work so we have a bigger budget and a bigger salary and bigger pension. Sort of wild the FAA fought this one so hard in court.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...s-to-solve-faa-created-flight-training-crisis
Well, it's a start. Now they also need to clarify that "compensation" means money, services, or tangible goods, not flight hours or "good will."
The FAA's definition of compensation is so broad that it's very hard to fly at all without being compensated. If I fly my wife to a horse show and thereby enjoy a happier home life, the FAA will probably deem that as compensation.
Maybe that would depend on whether you live in a community-property state.
Maybe that would depend on whether you live in a community-property state.
Judging from the experiences of others, the courts in this state view wives as housekeepers. Get a divorce and the wife keeps the house.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
More likely they will pull your medical for extreme risk taking behavior.
Lindberg
Final Approach
More good fundraising. This is exactly what should happen; the elected legislature correcting what it sees as a misstep by a regulatory agency.
Maybe the FAA should have the Chief Counsel's office ratify past practice in contradiction of the language of the regulations, like what was done with the 45-degree entry. They could put it in the AIM and an advisory circular, too.
"Section 9l.l26(b)(1) does not prohibit a 45-degree right turn from the entry leg onto the
downwind leg because we have long considered that this rule does not prohibit maneuvers
necessary to safely enter the flow of traffic at the airport."
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...011/Gossman - (2011) Legal Interpretation.pdfdownwind leg because we have long considered that this rule does not prohibit maneuvers
necessary to safely enter the flow of traffic at the airport."
Last edited:
keen9
Pre-takeoff checklist
Been busy (OSH), but I did get my LODA in a semi reasonable amount of time. Trying to email ahead of their procedure did no good. Also, I now have a .png with a FSDO signature. That won't be useful for anyone with low integrity.
As for the whole mess, isn't the FAA familiar with "normalization of deviance" as a safety issue?
As for the whole mess, isn't the FAA familiar with "normalization of deviance" as a safety issue?
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Maybe they should have hand delivered it with a blue ink signature of the Administrator, and a raised seal?
Of course, you would still complain.
Yes, he should complain about normalization of deviance, even if you won’t.Maybe they should have hand delivered it with a blue ink signature of the Administrator, and a raised seal?
Of course, you would still complain.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
It's not.
The regulation in question has been around for decades. The FAA, for whatever reason, didn't provide adequate oversight and this was pointed out in a lawsuit. So the FAA acted by enforcing the regulation with a simple process that only takes a few days, and is good for 4 years.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
From the few anecdotes I've heard it doesn't sound in any way bad. Yeah, a paperwork exercise, but it could be lots worse. The FAA tripped over themselves trying to spank some bad actors. New rules take time, so this is what it is. Should probably blame the Warbird guys rather than the FAA, they were warned. At the least the LODAs are coming quickly, for now.
Normalizing deviations is a normalization of deviance and that is a bad thing. If you want to blame decisions made decades ago, it doesn’t change the fact that this is a bad thing.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Lindberg
Final Approach
So you'd prefer that the FAA *not* issue any LODAs and enforce the regulations as written because deviance is a bad thing.
I'd prefer that training in your personally owned, airworthy aircraft to not be considered a deviation. It's pretty simple, and it's frightening that anyone would disagree with that.
To remove all the double negatives forced in because of the incompetence of someone at the FAA:
It should be considered normal to train in an airworthy aircraft that you own. It should not require special permission to train under these circumstances. The FAA's duty is to assure that training is considered a normal thing. NOT a deviant thing.
Last edited:
Doc Holliday
En-Route
You simply don’t understand the difference between a standard category aircraft and an experimental aircraft.
Ok, let's go with your naive logic.
So, you're ok with people flying these scary experimental aircraft without any training at all. Something that is totally legal to do without a request for deviation.
But you're not ok with people actually getting trained in them first, without permission via a deviation.
Great logic. Logic clearly not driven by a focus on safety.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Now you are attempting to twist this and insert things I haven’t stated.
Again, you clearly have never read the regulation in question, and you clearly don’t understand the difference between standard category and experimental.
You have nothing, other than butthurt over something you don’t understand.
Nice try avoiding the trap your logic laid for you. But the error in your thinking is there for all to see. This IS a huge screwup. Nobody should be happy about it until it gets resolved properly.