Federal Court Decision: Flight training is carrying passengers for hire

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...
LOL -riiight…and the only outcome will be to gridlock the process for those who legitimately need one.

“We’ll show YOU, FAA!”

016A412A-2AD1-4373-8D10-BFBD1B151B7E.jpeg
 
AKBill said:
Joy rides or not it is still training/instruction
Click to expand...
LOL - sorry but several reductio ad absurdum thoughts come to mind here. Like “joy ride or not prostitution is still training/instruction”
 
AKBill said:
What about point a to point a
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

But the reason this situation has come to the surface deals in the providers selling something under one description and then providing something else.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

But the reason this situation has come to the surface deals in the providers selling something under one description and then providing something else.
Click to expand...
It’s to bad the FAA was to lazy to make that case and ****ed everyone else in the process.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Using that analogy one could fly someone point a to point b and to avoid part 135 just call it “training/instruction”.
Click to expand...

Doc Holliday said:
Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

But the reason this situation has come to the surface deals in the providers selling something under one description and then providing something else.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. My point was it does not seem like they are traveling point a to point b. Instruction/training for a pilot is different than a non pilot IMHO. Flying something like a war bird would be a real learning experience for me as someone who holds a PPL
 
AKBill said:
I understand what you are saying. My point was it does not seem like they are traveling point a to point b. Instruction/training for a pilot is different than a non pilot IMHO. Flying something like a war bird would be a real learning experience for me as someone who holds a PPL
Click to expand...

It may be a learning experience, but again, these type of operators were using it as a vehicle to give essentially joy rides.
 
I can just see it now: "Your honor, you either get it or you don't." :rofl:
 
@Doc Holliday - Similar but different scenario.

Lady in her 60's always wanted to learn to fly. She's not good with "tests" (written) and terrified of the Checkride (oral and performance tests).

But she pays for her instruction as a student, may even get the 3rd Class and do some solo, but really is a flying tourist.

Is she joy riding or receiving instruction?

Now then - war bird land
Are they getting instruction or joy riding? I don't know. Never taken their "lesson".

I'm not disputing with the rule or the "implementation". Just saying, there may be some gray space there.
 
Ravioli said:
@Doc Holliday - Similar but different scenario.

Lady in her 60's always wanted to learn to fly. She's not good with "tests" (written) and terrified of the Checkride (oral and performance tests).

But she pays for her instruction as a student, may even get the 3rd Class and do some solo, but really is a flying tourist.

Is she joy riding or receiving instruction?

Now then - war bird land
Are they getting instruction or joy riding? I don't know. Never taken their "lesson".

I'm not disputing with the rule or the "implementation". Just saying, there may be some gray space there.
Click to expand...

Of course it's gray, that's why it was being exploited.

Now the FAA want's to clarify the gray area, and people are upset.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Is someone getting a DC-3 type rating, "just to have it / for fun" receiving instruction or joy riding?

/s
Click to expand...

The DC3 type is a certification event. Were the recipients of the P40 training receiving any type of certification for their training? Was the training program the P40 operator was using an approved (FAA) program? Or if Part 61, did they as a company have a training outline and a specific documentation criteria? Or did the customer just show up, pay the money, get the "training" and a logbook entry and go on their way?
 
Doc Holliday said:
Of course it's gray, that's why it was being exploited.

Now the FAA want's to clarify the gray area, and people are upset.
Click to expand...
I think it's more apt to say the FAA threw red paint all over the gray area, and negatively effected a far larger number of people that weren't abusing the system, than the few that were abusing the system, and people are upset. They used a Nuke to get rid of a squirrel stealing their nuts.

This image describes the FAA actions better than it does my suggestion.

016a412a-2ad1-4373-8d10-bfbd1b151b7e-jpeg.97205
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I think it's more apt to say the FAA threw red paint all over the gray area, and negatively effected a far larger number of people that weren't abusing the system, than the few that were abusing the system, and people are upset. They used a Nuke to get rid of a squirrel stealing their nuts.
Click to expand...

How so?

I read the letter and they defined their position, then offered regulatory relief and an alternate means of compliance for those wishing to continue giving instruction. The letter concluded saying the agency was working on ways to streamline the process (LODA or exemption} and would be providing follow up information in an upcoming policy statement.
 
Doc Holliday said:
How so?

I read the letter and they defined their position, then offered regulatory relief and an alternate means of compliance for those wishing to continue giving instruction. The letter concluded saying the agency was working on ways to streamline the process (LODA or exemption} and would be providing follow up information in an upcoming policy statement.
Click to expand...
The way most of us are reading things,
Scenario 1: if I owned an RV-8 or a P-40, long-standing FAA interpretation is that I can hire an instructor to give me instruction; but
Scenario 2: if I want to give instruction in my RV-8 or P-40, I would need a LODA to do that.

Under this interpretation, I now need a LODA in both scenarios.

And it reaches beyond that, but I don’t want to confuse the issue too much. ;)
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
The way most of us are reading things,
Scenario 1: if I owned an RV-8 or a P-40, long-standing FAA interpretation is that I can hire an instructor to give me instruction; but
Scenario 2: if I want to give instruction in my RV-8 or P-40, I would need a LODA to do that.

Under this interpretation, I now need a LODA in both scenarios.

And it reaches beyond that, but I don’t want to confuse the issue too much. ;)
Click to expand...

Understood.

But aren't some missing the main issue as to how it has arrived at this point?

Also, again, the letter does give a path for limited and experimental to continue instruction, and even states they are working on a streamlined process.
 
Doc Holliday said:
So yet another broad sweeping statement with no content.

Got it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Because it has to be or I’ll get the ban hammer. Ask me how I know. After 10 years enjoying the conversations here I can recognize bans and statists from a distance and have learned when to keep my mouth shut. If this gives you confidence in your position or makes you think there is no substance to my position that would be the confidence found in ignorance.
 
I have a violently strong suspicion that if the folks who started this whole brouhaha were actually in the business of giving warbird instruction the FAA would have never bothered with them.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah. Because it has to be or I’ll get the ban hammer. Ask me how I know. After 10 years enjoying the conversations here I can recognize bans and statists from a distance and have learned when to keep my mouth shut. If this gives you confidence in your position or makes you think there is no substance to my position that would be the confidence found in ignorance.
Click to expand...

I'll just stick with my comment as you keep proving my point. ;)
 
steingar said:
I have a violently strong suspicion that if the folks who started this whole brouhaha were actually in the business of giving warbird instruction the FAA would have never bothered with them.
Click to expand...
I agree. Their intentional violation of the spirit of the rules is pretty clear. The FAA response was inappropriate in my opinion. The letter from the CC office was a double down of a bad hand.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Understood.

But aren't some missing the main issue as to how it has arrived at this point?

Also, again, the letter does give a path for limited and experimental to continue instruction, and even states they are working on a streamlined process.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone is arguing the main issue as to how it arrived at this point, and streamlining the process will be necessary, as now a large percentage of experimental category aircraft owners will need a LODA.

As the alphabets pointed out initially, this court decision goes far beyond the actual main issue. Besides changing the things in my previous post, it also prohibits any Sport Pilot instructor who does not hold at least a commercial certificate from giving instruction.
 
Doc Holliday said:
How so?

I read the letter and they defined their position, then offered regulatory relief and an alternate means of compliance for those wishing to continue giving instruction. The letter concluded saying the agency was working on ways to streamline the process (LODA or exemption} and would be providing follow up information in an upcoming policy statement.
Click to expand...

An actual example: I've got a TW student (private cert and instrument rating, but relatively low time) in the process of buying an RV-4. He got a deposit in before the June 4 letter. So now he's looking at 3 choices:
  1. Fly his new-to-him airplane with no instruction in RVs. (A bad idea, and he's not likely to do this.)
  2. Find an operation with an existing LODA that will provide instruction in an RV (he's beating the bushes on this, but even before this letter, the guy that works closely with Van's was booked out to October.)
  3. Apply for a LODA himself. (We'll start working this, but... a: he doesn't own the airplane yet, and b: how long do you think THAT will take? A year? Who knows. The FSDO has been working some very basic paperwork for me - just reissuing an airworthiness certificate as the signature is nearly faded - and we're 2 1/2 years in. Doesn't build confidence in "streamlined processes".)
So, too bad for this guy.

But note that it's only his good decisionmaking that deters him from 1) above. The FAA letter of June 4 sure adds pressure in the unsafe direction.

The guys selling the P-40 rides caused a crap-ton of trouble, and IMHO should've been stopped, but the FAA seems to have really "tripped on their own shoelaces", as some earlier poster said. Hard to argue that this TW student isn't an innocent bystander that got red paint splashed all over him....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top