Got my LODA today - about a week after applying for it

[Lndwarrior]

I sent my Loda request to the FAA about a week ago and received the LODA today.

It says I am now legal to receive flight training in my experimental aircraft. This is limited to after the Phase 1 is complete.

Surprisingly it does NOT state that I cannot receive primary flight training which I understood from the original documents. Perhaps it doesn't say it because it is covered elsewhere.

The Loda also says a flight instructor is authorized to exercise the privileges of this LODA in any
experimental aircraft for which he or she is qualified to provide flight training.

You must keep a copy of the Loda in the aircraft.

The only significant ops limit is that the Loda expires after 48 months. Presumably you will be able to apply for a new one at that time. This assumes the FAA won't change the rules in the meantime....

 

[Salty]

Good lord, having to reapply every two years to get training? This is getting beyond absurd.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Good lord, having to reapply every two years to get training? This is getting beyond absurd.

48 months = 4 years

 

[Stewartb]

Heaven forbid! Next thing you know we’ll have to renew medicals and aircraft registrations, too. What’s the world coming to!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Heaven forbid! Next thing you know we’ll have to renew medicals and aircraft registrations, too. What’s the world coming to!

And CFI's, and IA's...

 

[Salty]

You guys are incredible. Equating a requirement to have a medical and flight reviews with making flight reviews more difficult. Amazing.

 

[Doc Holliday]

You guys are incredible. Equating a requirement to have a medical and flight reviews with making flight reviews more difficult. Amazing.

Sending an email with basic information is difficult? What, 5 minutes of difficult?? And it's free. And good for 4 years.

How unbelievable intrusive!

 

[Stewartb]

My days often include unanticipated obstacles and required navigation of them. This LODA thing? Not a hurdle, not a bump. Super simple to manage. Now off to more important things. Perpetuating this silly discussion with guys like you who seem to thrive on bitching has run its course.

 

[Salty]

I know you’ll ignore the question as I’ve asked it before. What benefit does this new paperwork provide to safety? How does having Faa employees sending out loda’s to tens of thousands of pilots instead of doing the work they were doing previously improve safety?

Also, how does lowering the pool of available instructors make us safer?

 

[Doc Holliday]

I know you’ll ignore the question as I’ve asked it before. What benefit does this new paperwork provide to safety? How does having Faa employees sending out loda’s to tens of thousands of pilots instead of doing the work they were doing previously improve safety?

Also, how does lowering the pool of instructors making us safer?

Who are you directing this too?

 

[tsts4]

I got my BFR back in Feb. I’m not gonna do anything LODA related for the next 22 months or so in order to see how this mess plays out.

 

[Lndwarrior]

I know you’ll ignore the question as I’ve asked it before. What benefit does this new paperwork provide to safety? How does having Faa employees sending out loda’s to tens of thousands of pilots instead of doing the work they were doing previously improve safety?

Also, how does lowering the pool of available instructors make us safer?

1. It doesn't
2. It doesn't
3. It doesn't.

Pretty sure no one claimed it would do any of these things. It's just a legal work around to what some say is a poorly worked reg.

 

[Salty]

1. It doesn't
2. It doesn't
3. It doesn't.

Pretty sure no one claimed it would do any of these things. It's just a legal work around to what some say is a poorly worked reg.

So, we’re all supposed to be happy that the Faa is spending money to make poorly worded regs even more confusing rather than focusing on making us safer?

 

[Stewartb]

I’d contend that the reg is fine. The LODA requirement was always there but wasn’t enforced until now as a result of the court ruling. That the work-around framework was in place is a happy detail.

 

[Lndwarrior]

So, we’re all supposed to be happy that the Faa is spending money to make poorly worded regs even more confusing rather than focusing on making us safer?

Pretty sure no one said you're supposed to be happy....

 

[Salty]

I’d contend that the reg is fine. The LODA requirement was always there but wasn’t enforced until now as a result of the court ruling. That the work-around framework was in place is a happy detail.

They could have enforced it without doing this. That’s what’s so stupid about it. It was commonly accepted by all of us that you couldn’t train someone in an experimental and charge for the aircraft without a LODA, as that was carrying someone for hire. That’s why SLSAs were so popular because you could rent them out for training, but not esla’s. However, you COULD pay an instructor to train you in an experimental that you weren’t renting ie: one you own. It made perfect sense and it already prohibited the P-40 operation without this new ruling.

I agree the guy in the p-40 was breaking the rule as we all understood it, and needed a LODA to do what he was doing, but there was no need to change the long standing presumption that training is not carriage for hire in order to get the court to stop him.

 

[tspear]

They could have enforced it without doing this. That’s what’s so stupid about it. It was commonly accepted by all of us that you couldn’t train someone in an experimental and charge for the aircraft without a LODA, as that was carrying someone for hire. That’s why SLSAs were so popular because you could rent them out for training, but not esla’s. However, you COULD pay an instructor to train you in an experimental that you weren’t renting ie: one you own. It made perfect sense and it already prohibited the P-40 operation without this new ruling.

I agree the guy in the p-40 was breaking the rule as we all understood it, and needed a LODA to do what he was doing, but there was no need to change the long standing presumption that training is not carriage for hire in order to get the court to stop him.

That is where you are wrong. Based on existing court decisions, and the regs as written the FAA had no choice. If the FAA was selective and only prosecuted the warbirds it is considered selective procescution which the defendant can win on appeal.
The new FFA LODA is likely the quickest and easiest work around.

Now, the FAA has a choice. Rewrite the regulation or maintain this workaround. Having looked into reworking regs, I would be surprised if they went that way.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[Cluemeister]

A few questions:

Did you use the email address 9-AVS-AFG-LODA@faa.gov to send this information? Or some other form you filled out?

Did you hear from anyone prior to receiving, or did you just receive the LODA via email? or via snail mail?

Thanks!

 

[catmandu]

A few questions:

Did you use the email address 9-AVS-AFG-LODA@faa.gov to send this information? Or some other form you filled out?

Did you hear from anyone prior to receiving, or did you just receive the LODA via email? or via snail mail?

Thanks!

I did use that email address, and my first and only reply was an email from my local FSDO yesterday with my two LODA's attached as PDF's.

 

[tsts4]

So I broke down and sent my LODA request to 9-AVS-AFG-LODA@faa.gov this morning. Got my signed LODA back in 5 hours! Now that’s service!

 

[Jackk]

Have any of you flown in much more restrictive countries? Don’t feed a mouse crumbs. It was a bad rule and a path down a road anyone who loves aviation will not like.

 

[tsts4]

Have any of you flown in much more restrictive countries? Don’t feed a mouse crumbs. It was a bad rule and a path down a road anyone who loves aviation will not like.

Actually GA in most countries is way more restrictive and expensive than here in the US. Don’t get me wrong, this LODA business stinks, but as typical in the E-AB world, one party took advantage and bent the rules and ruined it for all of us. At least in this instance the FAA has made compliance about as painless as they can.

 

[Daleandee]

I got a LODA for mine and used it during a recent flight review. FWIW the powers that be say this cluster should disappear before a renewal is needed. I'm not holding my breath ...

 

[sarangan]

I sent my Loda request to the FAA about a week ago and received the LODA today.

It says I am now legal to receive flight training in my experimental aircraft. This is limited to after the Phase 1 is complete.

Surprisingly it does NOT state that I cannot receive primary flight training which I understood from the original documents. Perhaps it doesn't say it because it is covered elsewhere.

The Loda also says a flight instructor is authorized to exercise the privileges of this LODA in any
experimental aircraft for which he or she is qualified to provide flight training.

You must keep a copy of the Loda in the aircraft.

The only significant ops limit is that the Loda expires after 48 months. Presumably you will be able to apply for a new one at that time. This assumes the FAA won't change the rules in the meantime....

I applied for a LODA and received it in a few hours. So that part is great.

But I see no purpose for this extra bureaucracy. Just because you have a LODA does not mean you are more qualified. Has anyone been denied a LODA, and what would the grounds for denial be?

 

[Salty]

I applied for a LODA and received it in a few hours. So that part is great.

But I see no purpose for this extra bureaucracy. Just because you have a LODA does not mean you are more qualified. Has anyone been denied a LODA, and what would the grounds for denial be?

Shhh. Don't look behind the curtain. We're all safer because you all request and get a piece of paper. But we should be happy it's "quick".

 

[Jackk]

Actually GA in most countries is way more restrictive and expensive than here in the US. Don’t get me wrong, this LODA business stinks, but as typical in the E-AB world, one party took advantage and bent the rules and ruined it for all of us. At least in this instance the FAA has made compliance about as painless as they can.

I agree, and that was my point, the LODA is a step towards the more restrictive model of GA.

 

[Daleandee]

I agree, and that was my point, the LODA is a step towards the more restrictive model of GA.

Supposed to be going away soon as it's a temporary fix ...

 

[tsts4]

Shhh. Don't look behind the curtain. We're all safer because you all request and get a piece of paper. But we should be happy it's "quick".

So you want me to be unhappy that even though we got stuck with this garbage requirement, common sense as far implementation has prevailed? Give me a break. I’m thankful the result of this legal action wasn’t worse than it was. Let’s not forget this isn’t the FAA’s fault to begin with. It is what it is—I’m not not going to cry over water under the bridge. At this point I’ve spent more time and energy on this thread than I did on getting the LODA. Ponder that.

 

[Jackk]

So you want me to be unhappy that even though we got stuck with this garbage requirement, common sense as far implementation has prevailed? Give me a break. I’m thankful the result of this legal action wasn’t worse than it was. Let’s not forget this isn’t the FAA’s fault to begin with. It is what it is—I’m not not going to cry over water under the bridge. At this point I’ve spent more time and energy on this thread than I did on getting the LODA. Ponder that.

How is it not the FAAs fault?

They picked the fight with warbirds and had to win, with no regards for the rest of aviation safety.

The FAA could have also ignored the ruling and not made the LODA requirement, the FAA has ignored the law and even the senate and congress plenty of times.

 

[tsts4]

How is it not the FAAs fault?

They picked the fight with warbirds and had to win, with no regards for the rest of aviation safety.

The FAA could have also ignored the ruling and not made the LODA requirement, the FAA has ignored the law and even the senate and congress plenty of times.

the warbirds were the ones who took it to court and got non-aviation people involved which precipitated this crap. I’m no FAA fanboy but you poke the bear and this is what you get. Same rationale for never asking the FAA general counsel for a ruling as you’ll get an answer you don’t want to live with.

 

[Jackk]

the warbirds were the ones who took it to court and got non-aviation people involved which precipitated this crap. I’m no FAA fanboy but you poke the bear and this is what you get. Same rationale for never asking the FAA general counsel for a ruling as you’ll get an answer you don’t want to live with.

As warbirds should have, they were within the FARs.

One can win against the state, the fed, and even the FAA, this is allowed, what is not allowed is to make them lose face, if they have a path they can go back to, without losing face, they will, warbirds mistake was their approach did not allow for this.

The government was never intended to be the bear, the people were always intended to the the bear.

 

[tsts4]

As warbirds should have, they were within the FARs.

One can win against the state, the fed, and even the FAA, this is allowed, what is not allowed is to make them lose face, if they have a path they can go back to, without losing face, they will, warbirds mistake was their approach did not allow for this.

The government was never intended to be the bear, the people were always intended to the the bear.

We ‘ll just have to agree to disagree then as I don’t see it the same way. IOW I put the blame squarely on the warbirds because IMO they were clearly speeding, so to speak.

 

[Palmpilot]

Same rationale for never asking the FAA general counsel for a ruling as you’ll get an answer you don’t want to live with.

The good news on that front is that the Chief Counsel's office has said that they are not going to be answering hypothetical questions anymore.