Federal Court Decision: Flight training is carrying passengers for hire

DaleB said:
So, another vote for “Just ignore the regs we find inconvenient, they’ll probably really do anything about it”.

Or am I misunderstanding something?
Click to expand...
What regulation says that being paid for flight instruction is flying for hire?
 
Half Fast said:
Explain that one to the insurance companies who cover instructors and flight schools. Also consider that if there's an incident, an insurance company may refuse to pay if the insured is in violation.
Click to expand...
Which insurance company has refused to insure you? And I keep hearing the insurance boogeyman for this and that. Don't fly without a medical, the insurance company won't pay. Don't fly the airplane out of annual, the insurance company won't pay. I've never in 20 years heard of an insurance company denying a claim based on any of this. Never ever once.

Like I said, do your best to try and operate safely and you're more than likely going to be OK. Be a scofflaw and they'll get you. Problem is they can make things hard for everyone else when they do.
 
I've sent a request to my FSDO to see if it is actually just an easy request to get the LODA as the FAA letter seems to imply. I'm not holding my breath. My BFR is due in the fall which is the next time I would need instruction in my experimental aircraft.
 
Palmpilot said:
In other words, it's not a case of ignoring the regs.
Click to expand...
According to what we've seen of the court's interpretation of the regulations, at the FAA's request, it seems that yes, it would be.
 
keen9 said:
I've sent a request to my FSDO to see if it is actually just an easy request to get the LODA as the FAA letter seems to imply. I'm not holding my breath. My BFR is due in the fall which is the next time I would need instruction in my experimental aircraft.
Click to expand...

My advice to everyone is to drop by the FAA booth at Oshkosh and ask them in person.
 
The FAA letter to EAA and AOPA discussed here was in stark contrast to prior written policy and according to EAA will likely be rescinded or considerably rescinded in next couple of weeks. The letter was intended to deal with limited category training (a lot became of this issue after a war bird that takes donations for passenger flights crashed), but somewhere along the line got off track and even added other EXP and primary categories to it (the regulatory reason for primary was for training with compensation in the first place).

From FAA FSIMS online documents

3-292 FLIGHT TRAINING IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
A. Use of Experimental Aircraft for Flight Training. Persons may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training in an aircraft holding an experimental certificate issued for any of the purposes specified in § 21.191. Other than the person receiving flight training, the operation must not involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or be prohibited by the aircraft’s operating limitations.
B. Flight Instructors. Flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft, but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and as described in paragraph 3-293. An experimental aircraft owner may not rent an experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flight.

FAA written policy allows for primary and advance flight training in all categories of experimental aircraft (ref FAA order 8900.1 for starters), and the instructor or examiner can be compensated (you can’t charge for plane unless FAA issues a letter saying you can, and will only do so for type specific transition training).

I have a C172 with a V8 engine that’s EXP category and pay a CFI to conduct training for my daughter….. it’s legal per FAA written policy. I’m also a CFI, I could charge for giving instruction in my plane, but I could not charge for the plane itself…..I often do this with friends. The only way to allow me to charge for the plane is if someone else had a V8 C172 and needed transition training, and I could ask FAA for LODA and charge for plane use.

Most EXP owners don’t rent the plane out anyways, so it’s not an issue for most. I have a couple of friends that fly it and are building time in it and training for their commercial ride. A CFI buddy may fly it to Oshkosh while giving cross country instruction to a buddy working on their private. It cost less than $20/hr to fly compared to over $60 with original engine, so it was a good trade off losing ability to lease it back to a flight school for our purposes. We are thinking about finding another 172 or a c182 and installing same engine design and starting a flying club. … as long as members are all part owners in the plane (equity based club), than they can pay for aircraft use. Some post mention insurance issues, but I didn’t have any issues and pay same as any C172.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
The FAA letter to EAA and AOPA discussed here was in stark contrast to prior written policy and according to EAA will likely be rescinded or considerably rescinded in next couple of weeks. The letter was intended to deal with limited category training (a lot became of this issue after a war bird that takes donations for passenger flights crashed), but somewhere along the line got off track and even added other EXP and primary categories to it (the regulatory reason for primary was for training with compensation in the first place).

From FAA FSIMS online documents

3-292 FLIGHT TRAINING IN EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.
A. Use of Experimental Aircraft for Flight Training. Persons may receive, and provide compensation for, flight training in an aircraft holding an experimental certificate issued for any of the purposes specified in § 21.191. Other than the person receiving flight training, the operation must not involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire or be prohibited by the aircraft’s operating limitations.
B. Flight Instructors. Flight instructors may receive compensation for providing flight training in an experimental aircraft, but may not receive compensation for the use of the aircraft in which they provide that flight training unless in accordance with a LODA issued under § 91.319(h) and as described in paragraph 3-293. An experimental aircraft owner may not rent an experimental LSA to a person for the purpose of conducting solo flight.

FAA written policy allows for primary and advance flight training in all categories of experimental aircraft (ref FAA order 8900.1 for starters), and the instructor or examiner can be compensated (you can’t charge for plane unless FAA issues a letter saying you can, and will only do so for type specific transition training).
Click to expand...
.


I'm currently giving instruction in my experimental light sport to a friend, not charging ANYTHING for the airplane.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, it doesn’t. It says operating an airplane with special airworthiness for hire can be done if flight instruction is the object.
Click to expand...

I think you make a good point drawing the distinction between the operation of a particular aircraft (certification of the aircraft), and the act of a particular pilot flying for hire (certification of the pilot). I can see how a federal judge with no experience in the subject matter can have a very difficult time trying to parse out these regulations. Why does there need to be an exception to the prohibition of operating an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category for compensation or hire to permit flight training if providing flight training is not flying for compensation or hire?
 
PPC1052 said:
I think you make a good point drawing the distinction between the operation of a particular aircraft (certification of the aircraft), and the act of a particular pilot flying for hire (certification of the pilot). I can see how a federal judge with no experience in the subject matter can have a very difficult time trying to parse out these regulations. Why does there need to be an exception to the prohibition of operating an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category for compensation or hire to permit flight training if providing flight training is not flying for compensation or hire?
Click to expand...
What reg are you referring to?
 
A. Flight instructors can get paid. Therefore flight instruction can be for compensation. As I stated earlier, this reg doesn’t address that.

B. If you are hiring yourself out with an airplane (as opposed to flying or giving instruction in an owner’s airplane), you are operating the airplane for compensation or hire, which IS what this reg addresses.

unfortunately the court ruling (based on the FAA’s complaint) misrepresented an entirely different reg to say that a “learner” is a passenger, which would change the meaning of many long-standing regulations.
 
MauleSkinner said:
unfortunately the court ruling (based on the FAA’s complaint) misrepresented an entirely different reg to say that a “learner” is a passenger, which would change the meaning of many long-standing regulations.
Click to expand...
It didn't. The reg in question isn't about passengers.
 
Its really great that we restarted this thread to argue over what regulations say instead of the court case and the FAA letter that basically says yes we are ignoring those regs.
 
The answer is that neither the reg at issue nor the court's decision mention "passengers."

MauleSkinner said:
I don’t know. So the whole OP was bogus?
Click to expand...
76713c2a7734a62c6ff7ba46d80d16aa.jpg
 
Last edited:
Most posted arguments here are moot points. Reference my earlier post regarding specific FAA written policy on training in special airworthiness aircraft and experimentals. This post was about letter from FAA that was supposed to clarify policy that ran amuck of well established policy and demonstrated ignorance of fundamental and long standing regulations, such as primary category. Again, EAA and others expect that the letter will be rescinded shortly.

There’s a lot of speculation here of whats allowed and why for special airworthiness certificates (AC), especially experimental, restricted and limited categories. These type of ACs have operating conditions far different than standard AC’s. Each of these aircraft carts have what’s referred to as ‘program’ letters and aircraft specific operating limitations that are part of the AC. Without knowing this info it’s impossible to know what is allowed or not. I have seen operating limitations several pages, as well as just a few.

I thinks this letter is a good indication of just how FAA really cares about GA, and how much time they really spend on thinking about it. GA is a huge distraction and cost to them and would like to see it just go away by continuing to make it more expensive and difficult to participate. If it was not for AOPA and EAA, and a few other groups, constantly fighting this anti GA campaign, I expect GA here would be even smaller and shrinking to near extinction….. unless you had the wealth to participate. I hope all on this website are members of AOPA and EAA.
 
I actually got a response from my local FSDO today. Seems they don't know anything about this, so I sent back the decision and letter. Certainly wasn't a quick and easy as its almost a month to find out I know more than the FSDO.
 
keen9 said:
I actually got a response from my local FSDO today. Seems they don't know anything about this, so I sent back the decision and letter. Certainly wasn't a quick and easy as its almost a month to find out I know more than the FSDO.
Click to expand...
Comforting. :rolleyes:
 
keen9 said:
I actually got a response from my local FSDO today. Seems they don't know anything about this, so I sent back the decision and letter. Certainly wasn't a quick and easy as its almost a month to find out I know more than the FSDO.
Click to expand...

Because this hasn't been transmitted to the FSDO's or other parts of the agency. Also, no changes to 8900.1 guidance and no notices.

The guy who signed the letter retired as of yesterday.

Again, much ado about nothing.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Because this hasn't been transmitted to the FSDO's or other parts of the agency. Also, no changes to 8900.1 guidance and no notices.

The guy who signed the letter retired as of yesterday.

Again, much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
Even more comforting. :rolleyes:
 
Doc Holliday said:
Because this hasn't been transmitted to the FSDO's or other parts of the agency. Also, no changes to 8900.1 guidance and no notices.

The guy who signed the letter retired as of yesterday.

Again, much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
So the FAA causing much confusion and NOT communicating with their full team makes it better? Oye. How does the letter's author retiring make any difference at all. That is irrelevant. Great that YOU are unaffected, but some of us are being affected. Can you get me a LODA in the next couple of weeks? You're obviously tight with the FAA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top