Experimental (ELSA / E-AB) No Longer Allowed for Flight Training??

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
307
Location
US Territory of Guam

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,853
Location
Rocky Mountains
Related thread:

Looks like some paper pusher has no knowledge of what has been considered "carried" or has an agenda of some sort. I really though this would have all been worked out by now. :rolleyes:
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,931
Location
CT, USA
SLSA is fine for flight training. ELSA (i.e. a SLSA converted to experimental) is OK, as long as the student isn't paying for the use of the aircraft, i.e. you can pay an instructor to teach you in an ELSA that you own, but the instructor can't provide the aircraft unless he's providing it for free.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,770
Location
Seattle, WA
SLSA is fine for flight training. ELSA (i.e. a SLSA converted to experimental) is OK, as long as the student isn't paying for the use of the aircraft, i.e. you can pay an instructor to teach you in an ELSA that you own, but the instructor can't provide the aircraft unless he's providing it for free.
The basis for this case was a P-40's operating limitations, which prohibited carrying persons for compensation or hire. If your SLSA *doesn't* have that phrase in your operation limitations, you're good to go.

The P-40 in question does not have Standard airworthiness. The company involved was offering "instruction" that consisted of a single flight rather than a course of training. The FAA warned them several times that they would take action. Yes, it affects people who legitimately need P-40 instruction.

If you thought that the Collings B-17 crash would have no effect on warbird operations, you should be disabused of that notion. FAA actions usually contain some degree of overreach.

Ron Wanttaja
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
307
Location
US Territory of Guam
The basis for this case was a P-40's operating limitations, which prohibited carrying persons for compensation or hire. If your SLSA *doesn't* have that phrase in your operation limitations, you're good to go.
Thanks for the reply. Looks more serious, though, when I note the Flying Magazine article referenced by HotWings has this:
Under the new interpretation of “carriage of persons for compensation or hire,” any student in a typical paid flight training scenario is now a “person” being “carried” by their instructor for “compensation or hire.” This would make the flight in question subject to air-carrier certification and regulatory requirements for the pilot, aircraft, and operator (the flight school). In short, any operation by a for-profit flight school would require a Part 135 or similar commercial air carrier certificate. Additionally, any flight lesson with an independent instructor who is being paid for his or her instructional services would be considered the “carriage of persons for compensation.” This effectively nullifies the standalone validity of a flight instructor certificate, as no individual instructor will be able to meet the qualification requirements for commercial air carriers.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,770
Location
Seattle, WA
Thanks for the reply. Looks more serious, though, when I note the Flying Magazine article referenced by HotWings has this:
Under the new interpretation of “carriage of persons for compensation or hire,” any student in a typical paid flight training scenario is now a “person” being “carried” by their instructor for “compensation or hire.” This would make the flight in question subject to air-carrier certification and regulatory requirements for the pilot, aircraft, and operator (the flight school). In short, any operation by a for-profit flight school would require a Part 135 or similar commercial air carrier certificate. Additionally, any flight lesson with an independent instructor who is being paid for his or her instructional services would be considered the “carriage of persons for compensation.” This effectively nullifies the standalone validity of a flight instructor certificate, as no individual instructor will be able to meet the qualification requirements for commercial air carriers.
Yes...this is why you don't poke the tiger.

The outfit doing the P-40 instruction ignored repeated notifications that they were in violation. The FAA went to court, and received a positive...yet ambiguous...ruling that the FAA had been correct, and leaving the door open for them to shove the implementation much broader over the scope of aviation. Seven people died in the crash of another Limited category warbird, and the FAA is under pressure to "close the loophole."

Whether the FAA *will* expand the definition of "carriage for hire" remains to be seen. I actually think we're just seeing scare-mongering. But the P-40 operator handed this to the feds on a silver platter.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,470
Location
World traveler
Freedom ≠ Lack of responsibility

From the Experimental category to Part 103 to a national airport system largely free of landing fees, we in the USA enjoy one of the most open and permissive light aviation environments in the world.

I don’t believe that the FAA has any intention of making it harder to receive LSA flight training, which would be counterproductive in terms of safety.

If you are angry about something like this, you should direct that anger at those who ignore the rules and bring consequences down on us all.
 

N804RV

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
331
Location
Mount Vernon, WA
I have a CFI friend with an SLSA SeaRey who bought the aircraft for purposes of flight training as well as recreation. Another friend planned on getting his tailwheel endorsement in this SLSA, as soon as the annual condition inspection is completed.

Looks like this is, for now, not permitted. Am I missing any thing?
The FAA has a long history of allowing individual personalities to drive the press wagon at times. Looks like this is one of those times.

It may take awhile to get this ironed out. But, I don't think disallowing flight instruction in SLSA and EAB (or even limited category) is what was really intended. Its just lawyers doing lawyer stuff. It'll be up to the real people to get it ironed out.

As much as I hate "groups" and "politics", it seems to me we're gonna have to really support AOPA/EAA and local pilot's groups in keeping the pressure on to get this stupidity ironed out.

 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,074
Location
Port Townsend WA
I don’t believe that the FAA has any intention of making it harder to receive LSA flight training, which would be counterproductive in terms of safety.
The FAA already made it harder to get two seat training when they suspended the 496 pound two seat training exemption in 2004. The solution is enforce the proper rules and only limit violators and not bring consequences on us all.
 

Lendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
759
Location
Brisbane
I look at this in total bewilderment at FAA rule makers and hope any rule change in LS in Australia, won't be such as disaster. We can use flaps for Stall speed assessment, we have no speed limits as speed limits in a small plane is largely governed by design (weigh), Fuel quantity (weight) and powerplant (weight).
To me it seems so simple and logical. Yes it would be advantageous to be able to have more weight, to get away from design to the bleeding edge of safety .
George
 

ssorell

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2021
Messages
7
The basis for this case was a P-40's operating limitations, which prohibited carrying persons for compensation or hire. If your SLSA *doesn't* have that phrase in your operation limitations, you're good to go.

The P-40 in question does not have Standard airworthiness. The company involved was offering "instruction" that consisted of a single flight rather than a course of training. The FAA warned them several times that they would take action. Yes, it affects people who legitimately need P-40 instruction.

If you thought that the Collings B-17 crash would have no effect on warbird operations, you should be disabused of that notion. FAA actions usually contain some degree of overreach.

Ron Wanttaja
A complaint about that interpretation was that the CFI in the other seat was never considered a "passenger for hire". . . until now. Using that rule in this manner creates a precedent. Discovery flights could be suspended because of this interpretation. Moreover, I need to learn more about the ruling, because if the person being "trained" had a current medical, then it becomes even harder to tell whether this was a CFI training someone, or someone getting a tour of the Grand Canyon (or whatever vicinity) in a vintage fighter. From where I'm sitting, only someone who wants to learn about the aircraft is going to hop in the aircraft and go for a flight over corn fields, or some nowhere, nothing-special city. And learning about the aircraft, even if it's only one flight, seems like flight training to me.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,074
Location
Port Townsend WA
In a free country there would be no distinction between a tour ride and instruction with a certified instructor or commercial pilot in command. We don't have that. Much more is required beyond a commercial pilot certificate.
 
Last edited:

Robert Dingus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
337
Location
somerset, ohio USA
Great another kick in the Licensing Gut, so instead of paying the instructor for his or her instruction time, could i rent their headset for the time it is being used in my owned EAB aircraft. Thus i am not compensating the person for hire, or carriage for compensation i am renting the equipment needed for the flight.

Robert
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,217
Location
KTHA
This ruling only affects limited category aircraft under 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.

Warbird petitions for review of the FAA’s emergency cease and desist order. We deny the
petition because the aircraft is not certified for paid flight instruction and substantial evidence
supports the order.

Under 14 C.F.R. § 91.315, “[n]o person may operate a limited category civil aircraft
carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.” Warbird’s P-40N is a limited category

aircraft. Although the owner of a limited category aircraft can sometimes obtain an exemption
from § 91.315, Warbird has not requested one. See id. § 11.81.
When in doubt, read the actual court ruling.

The assumed controversy here is the assumption that instructing is carrying for hire as a general rule, and thus could be interpreted to prohibit flight training for LSA or Sport Pilot. But if you read the court decision, they noted that the FAA created exemptions for restricted category in C.F.R. § 91.313. But since there is no such exemption under C.F.R. § 91.315 for limited category aircraft, Warbird Adventures lost their case.

14 C.F.R. § 61.413 also gives instructors the right to instruct with a sport pilot rating, and obviously they can only conduct such training in light sport aircraft. They can't extend the 'carriage for hire' provision to light sport without changing the other parts of the regulations, so I don't see any danger here.




EDIT: Corrected reference to 91.313. It refers to restricted category, not sport pilot.
 
Last edited:

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,139
Location
Savannah, Georgia
This ruling only affects limited category aircraft under 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.
The problem now is that some FAA high-up wrote a letter to EAA, AOPA, etc. and basically says "All instruction is carriage for hire, this is going to affect primary and experimental categories too, yeah it'll probably have a safety impact, and we know this is counter to past practice, but rules are rules and you can either file for a LDA or train in a certified plane. Not our problem."

A link to said letter is in this article: FAA Clarifies Flight Training Policy For Limited Category Aircraft - AVweb
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,853
Location
Rocky Mountains
The assumed controversy here is the assumption that instructing is carrying for hire as a general rule
Even though the court ruling is pretty limited it appears to me that some in the FAA have decided to apply their interpretation more broadly than the court intended. Thus the mess we are now facing.

It all seems to revolve around the definition of "carried'. To me, "carried" implies transport of cargo (live or inanimate) that has no direct control over the flight. A student is not "carried". They placed themselves in the flight control loop voluntarily.

A chicken that escapes it's crate and flies into the cockpit is still being "carried"
 
Top