That’s the difference between living under the regulations and enforcing the regulations. There is zero point in having this discussion with the person enforcing the regulations. They are clueless.
I'm going to channel Doc. H. and say "the FAA always does what's right and everything will be fine. You're overreacting." or maybe simply "what's the problem? There's a process, and it'll be streamlined."
You seem to have missed the point that the sky has already fallen. You only point out promises to lift it back up again.
Waiting for the official proclamation is obviously what’s necessary, but the response letter sounds a lot more like, “you’re right, and well have official documentation of the policy changes at some future date,” than “no, this only applies to those operations to which we have previously issued LODAs, and well clarify that at some future date.”
Unfortunately this is nowhere indicated to the general flying public.
You seem to have missed the point that the sky has already fallen. You only point out promises to lift it back up again.
Pretty much exactly what I guessed you'd say.
And Doc H. says "People don't need to train in their own planes. They can just go find someone that already has a LODA. This is not a problem. Stop making a big deal out of nothing. Making it harder to get training doesn't make people less safe."How about I channel Salty and say "No need to read the documents, it's all a huge conspiracy!" or maybe "Where's my tinfoil hat dammit!"
And you the lead apologist for even the most foolish action that makes safe flying harder to accomplish.You're usually the lead pearl clutcher.....
Which would be a relevant question if “safe or legal, pick one” was acceptable.
It’s a relevant question because the Faa decided the second one is preferred. But I agree they should have dealt with the legality issue of the first one rather than making the second illegal. It’ll relevant, because it made things overall less safe, not more safe than before this action.
It’s still up to the pilot to be safe...the FAA may not be making it easy to be safe, but they are not demanding unsafe operation.
So you don’t think making instruction more difficult to attain makes things less safe overall?
Kinda like FAA clutching pearls that the operation was unsafe without a piece of paper, but magically becomes safer with it? Ha.
If making instruction more difficult to attain makes things less safe, pilots are allowing themselves to fly in a less-safe environment.
Moving goalposts.
No, it always was, is now, and always will be the responsibility of the PIC to ensure that the flight is safe.
It is and was, but the discussion is not about the PICs responsibility, the discussion is about the FAAs responsibility.
The FAA’s responsibility is not to make it “easy”.
Is it their responsibility to make it harder as they did here?
No, but if this continues to be the cluster**** that it looks like, it’s still the pilot’s responsibility to ensure safet flight.
Either it stays that way, which is the only indication the general public has; or cooler heads may prevail as Doc thinks will happen. Either way, compliance isn’t optional, it’s required.
And wouldn't it also prohibit a regular CFI who doesn't hold a current second class medical from giving paid instruction?
True, if you assume normally-certificate airplanes are already a thing of the past.