Federal Court Decision: Flight training is carrying passengers for hire

bflynn said:
The only person who can get instruction is the person who owns it or someone that the owner (if they are a CFI) GIVES the instruction to. Unfortunately, it's owned by a business and giving away stuff for free is not a strong business strategy.
Click to expand...
Would it be allowable for the trainee to pay rent for the use of the plane while receiving instruction?
 
Found a photo of FAA message to Warbird Adventures. LOL!

b18a9c0f41bfcc672d5130bc5a7b4dd1.jpg
 
I suppose it'd be too late for the aggrieved party to apply for the waiver to the for-hire rule at this juncture? 100% chance of not getting what you don't ask for type of thing.
 
AOPA sent the letter to the FAA for their understanding of the Fed judge order on Apr. 19 any update as to what is going on?
 
Wow, just…. Wow. That is one of the worst outcomes imaginable. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean that it’s illegal for me to hire a CFI to get a flight review in my own E-LSA airplane?

“Oh, just ask us for an LODA, which we have a long established history of denying…”
 
Salty said:
I have a similar problem with experimental. I’m trying to figure out how I’m going to get training before my plane is done because I think combining training and flight testing is as unsafe as it gets, but there’s virtually nobody out there with a waiver and a rv-10 willing to let me train in it......
Click to expand...
You didn't think about this before plunking down all that money and starting all hat work?

I have little doubt that somewhere someone has a LODA on an RV10. Lots of guys building, and they all need instruction.
 
steingar said:
You didn't think about this before plunking down all that money and starting all hat work?

I have little doubt that somewhere someone has a LODA on an RV10. Lots of guys building, and they all need instruction.
Click to expand...
At the time I posted that there was not any willing to do training due to liability and COVID. Currently there are two I'm aware of, both associated with the factory.
 
Salty said:
At the time I posted that there was not any willing to do training due to liability and COVID. Currently there are two I'm aware of, both associated with the factory.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you'll finally get that trip to Oregon you've been wanting all these years.
 
Either way, doesn't the current FAA explanation also prohibit you from paying for instruction in their airplane too? According to the courts, you would still be paying a flight instructor for instruction and therefore be a "passenger" for hire.

Effectively the FAA has allowed the court to deny all flight training in certain categories of aircraft. I'm confident that safety will eventually win out, but it's going to be a strange path getting there.
 
bflynn said:
Either way, doesn't the current FAA explanation also prohibit you from paying for instruction in their airplane too? According to the courts, you would still be paying a flight instructor for instruction and therefore be a "passenger" for hire.

Effectively the FAA has allowed the court to deny all flight training in certain categories of aircraft. I'm confident that safety will eventually win out, but it's going to be a strange path getting there.
Click to expand...
To use their plane you always needed the LODA. That’s what’s stupid about this.
 
Using the FAA logic (???!), it seems to me that the instructor would have to be legally authorized not just to instruct, but also to carry a passenger for hire. That would blow Sport CFIs out of the sky.
 
It seems to me that rather than asking the FAA questions, it would be better for the advocacy groups to tell the FAA how they think this should be handled.
 
I'd be interested in knowing how many of those "instruction" flights were given to non pilots. It's a lot easier to justify it as instruction and not just a thrill ride if the "student" has at least a private certificate.
 
see, in the end we're all scofflaws to somebody. The veneer of "one standard of [______]" is crumbling in plain sight, with this gem of an edict from the randos-in-robes over at District 1. Rules for thee not for me.

Meh. Lay low, 'log what you need/fly what you want', and ask for forgiveness if caught. Life's too short for reindeer games. *shrugs*
 
Yeah, what could go wrong doing that? :rolleyes:
 
Reviving this... The FAA letter saying CFIs now flu for hire but only in certain categories of aircraft... Including experimental... is some entertainmemt.

The three letter groups have the letter and some have responses.

Hilarious.
 
denverpilot said:
Reviving this... The FAA letter saying CFIs now flu for hire but only in certain categories of aircraft... Including experimental... is some entertainmemt.

The three letter groups have the letter and some have responses.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...
Reads to me like it’s all flying for hire, but only some of it is in aircraft categories that are not allowed to be used for hire.
 
Salty said:
I don’t like the courts findings, but isn’t this down to waiver vs no waiver? If the Faa didn’t think they were doing tour flights under the guise of training, how hard would it be to get that waiver? If you can’t get the waiver, then I’m with those concerned about this.

I have a similar problem with experimental. I’m trying to figure out how I’m going to get training before my plane is done because I think combining training and flight testing is as unsafe as it gets, but there’s virtually nobody out there with a waiver and a rv-10 willing to let me train in it......
Click to expand...

There are a few. The factory has one and there are a couple of others that have the waiver. Also, there are a few generous private owners around who have a CFI on their allowed pilot list. You might get a long ride in an RV-10 that way. If all goes well, once you land, that ride might get logged as 3-4 hours of dual.
 
Dana said:
I'd be interested in knowing how many of those "instruction" flights were given to non pilots. It's a lot easier to justify it as instruction and not just a thrill ride if the "student" has at least a private certificate.
Click to expand...
Even with a private they were 95% joy rides.
 
Clip4 said:
They aren’t in Utility Category aircraft.
Click to expand...
Actually they very well may be, which is legal. But they're not in Limited Category aircraft, which is what many of the warbirds are.

Clip4 said:
Even with a private they were 95% joy rides.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But it's more plausible for it to be "advanced training" or "transition training" for a current pilot than for a complete non pilot.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Reads to me like it’s all flying for hire, but only some of it is in aircraft categories that are not allowed to be used for hire.
Click to expand...

this. And every time you fly with a cfi, according to the courts, you are a passenger.
 
We need to hold a nationwide “request a LODA” day where every experimental owner requests one on the same day.
 
bflynn said:
this. And every time you fly with a cfi, according to the courts, you are a passenger.
Click to expand...

Is that correct? I thought the PIC is determined on a flight by flight basis without reliance on who holds which certifications.

Ex: My plane is E-AB. My CFII is a named pilot on my insurance. He has not done his checkout in make/model so he cannot fly her solo (yet). When we fly, I'm PIC and he's giving instrument instruction.

I think the legal and insurance stuff is okay for this ..
 
How odd to see a few of the responses here effectively saying that this doesn't really matter, we can pick and choose which FAA regulations we can ignore as long as we're "trying" to be safe.
 
Salty said:
We need to hold a nationwide “request a LODA” day where every experimental owner requests one on the same day.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Basically the faa was doing the gorilla chest thump against a squeaky wheel, and got the courts in a position to make everyone wear diapers as an unintended consequence. The faa petty functionaries in question didnt intend to upset the entire apple cart over a single ego trip, so now they're hoping the street doesn't go on a "bank run" and call them on the selective application of the law they're incurring writ large.


One such general strike type of action as you suggest would certainly gain the attention of lawmakers and embarrass the bureaucracy, but Americans are generally too meek and disorganized when it comes to class solidarity. So i fully expect the abuse and selective application of the very rules they create to go unchallenged. Contrary to the general disposition of the well to do here, asking nicely never got anyone anything.
 
Arnold said:
And the FAA responded. And I was wrong to think this would not happen.

https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2021/0604_FAA_letter_to_AOPA_GAMA_EAA.pdf
Click to expand...

As I read this, the FAA gives two avenues to get exemptions to accomplish the task, and states they will provide the associated guidance to achieve this.

Of course, this will tighten up on those giving joy rides under the guise of instruction. But what everyone is seeking is a way to conduct legitimate instruction, correct?

And as a side note, the guy that signed the letter is leaving the FAA at the end of the month. His successor may help expedite the process.
 
So, how is this likely to change things as far as part 61 and 141 instruction is concerned?
 
Ravioli said:
Is that correct? I thought the PIC is determined on a flight by flight basis without reliance on who holds which certifications.

Ex: My plane is E-AB. My CFII is a named pilot on my insurance. He has not done his checkout in make/model so he cannot fly her solo (yet). When we fly, I'm PIC and he's giving instrument instruction.

I think the legal and insurance stuff is okay for this ..
Click to expand...

The Court’s decision states that a flight instructor who receives compensation for flight instruction is carrying persons for compensation or hire, with no qualification that it isn’t always. The alphabet groups asked the FAA for clarification and their response letter essentially said, “yeah, they’re right. We will try to do something.” According to this, airplane owners cannot get flight instruction in their own airplane if the aircraft cannot carry passengers for compensation. That is the real point of contention. Realistically, I don’t think anyone is looking too closely at the “ordinary” situations.

your cfi might not be covered by your insurance, but he is FAA qualified to fly your plane...well, unless it requires a type rating or something.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top