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

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Sorry to chime in with a negative note but while reading through the FAA's new mandatory "safety test" or Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) for flying model airplanes last night I found their twisted fixation on only FAA approved versions of personal satisfaction fascinating. Even donated time searching for a lost child was specifically spelled out and determined illegal unless the pilot had the equivalent of a "commercial license" (14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 107, also known as the civil small UAS rule). Evidentially no good deeds are permitted unless approved and paid for before hand by some faceless government bureaucrat.
In a twisted way, be glad the FAA is taking it to this kind of extremes. Having a good-Samaritan be fined or cited for breaking the regs on a donated flight to find a lost child is exactly the kind of PR the community can use to get Congress to act in our behalf. The more extreme and non-sensical the FAA makes the rules, the easier they are to get overturned.

And yes, that means it's a twisted world we live in.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
And what about use of the plane for a BFR? That isn't "aircraft specific training.'
That would be quite a stretch for a "reasonable person" to consider a flight review as aircraft type specific training.

The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege.
However, consider the scenairo: Since there no Lancair IV P Level C simulators, the only way type specific training can be accomplished in this model is in the actual airplane. If at the completion of the type specific training the applicant has met the the requirements for a flight review, could he receive an endorsement for a flight review? I think as long as the flight review training was integrated with aircraft type training it would not be an issue. But if type specific training were completed, then separately a flight review was administered, that would cross the line into what is not allowed since the flight review could be conducted in any airplane for which the pilot is rated.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
I think as long as the flight review training was integrated with aircraft type training it would not be an issue. But if type specific training were completed, then separately a flight review was administered, that would cross the line into what is not allowed since the flight review could be conducted in any airplane for which the pilot is rated.
So, all mixed together, everything is fine. Conduct the same instruction in two sorties, that's not okay. If that is the way the rule is going to be interpreted, it is ridiculous.

If the only, or primary, plane a person flies is their E-AB, and if both the student and the instructor want to do the training in that plane, isn't safety advanced if the pilot gets the benefit of instruction in that very plane? If the FAA intends to say that this is about safe flying and not some sort of protection for the certified acft fleet, they will need to do a better job of explaining it.

Last edited:

#### Sonex1517

##### Member
HBA Supporter
My CFI and I think I can do WINGS and my BFR in the plane(yes, I do both…). But he’s getting a LODA also to CYA.

I helped found a type club for the Sonex fleet….learned a lot about transition training (thank you Joe Norris!) and what a complete mess it is. This made it much, much worse.

#### X3 skier

##### Member
The sky has not fallen IMNSHO.

Previously an owner trained in his own airplane with any appropriate CFI. If he wanted transition training in an E/AB, it was nigh impossible to find a CFI with a similar aircraft and a LODA.

He now will train in his own airplane with a piece of paper acquired from the FAA in a simple process that says it is an approved deviation from the accepted standard. A difference without distinction except now the owner would be in violation of the FAR because of a FAA Screw up if he didn’t have said paper. If he wants transition trading, it is now much much simpler since a CFI with a similar E-AB spends 5 minutes filling out a form for himself and his aircraft, emails it to the FAA and Presto, in less than a week, he has the LODA’s and he can offer transition training.

Cheers

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
That's great if you have your own completed plane to train in, but that's rare for those getting primary training. I want my certificate before my plane is finished, which appears to be the case for most builders that aren't already pilots. I can't easily get all my training in a plane similar to mine at a flight school because the closest one is a few hours away, but I want the option to get at least some of the training in it. I'd like to do my own first flight, but there's no way I'm going to do that without a very good familiarity with flying that aircraft. The sky may not have fallen for those in similar circumstances to mine, but the ceiling has definitely lowered dramatically, and there's indications there may be storms in there.

Last edited:

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
The LODA for an instructor providing the airplane for hire is different and likely will remain restricted to a few regional instructors only.

#### Hot Wings

##### Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
and likely will remain restricted to a few regional instructors only.
Another example of controlling the market/commerce, not safety.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Another example of controlling the market/commerce, not safety.
A bit like the physician's guild, the AMA, being given authority (by law) to limit the total number of medical school slots in the US.

#### PagoBay

Our friendly aviator group has an E-AB SeaRey owned by one individual who is also a CFI. We all want to be able to fly this SeaRey and have no other similar aircraft available. The nearest similar aircraft to us in Guam is a 14 hour flight to California and a $1,500 air ticket. Federal Register -- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-07-12/pdf/2021-14765.pdf -- "The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege." TWO QUESTIONS: -1- If this CFI obtains a LODA for his E-AB SeaRey, then is training for a tailwheel endorsement or amphibious operation of this boat hull type not allowed? -2- Besides transition training which does not apply here as no one else has this type of aircraft - given the above - THEN what other training would a LODA permit? #### BBerson ##### Light Plane Philosopher HBA Supporter THEN what other training would a LODA permit? None. Now you see why recreational aviation businesses do not exist. #### tallank ##### Well-Known Member Our friendly aviator group has an E-AB SeaRey owned by one individual who is also a CFI. We all want to be able to fly this SeaRey and have no other similar aircraft available. The nearest similar aircraft to us in Guam is a 14 hour flight to California and a$1,500 air ticket.

Federal Register -- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-07-12/pdf/2021-14765.pdf -- "The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege."

TWO QUESTIONS:

-1- If this CFI obtains a LODA for his E-AB SeaRey, then is training for a tailwheel endorsement or amphibious operation of this boat hull type not allowed?

-2- Besides transition training which does not apply here as no one else has this type of aircraft - given the above - THEN what other training would a LODA permit?
I got my T28 training in my instructor's T28. I got my Commercial Certificate training in my T28 and my Commercial check flight in my T28. How could you do this today?

#### PagoBay

##### Well-Known Member
PagoBay Said:
THEN what other training [besides transition training] would a LODA permit?
BBerson said:
None. Now you see why recreational aviation businesses do not exist.
===
Just checking BB. No offense intended. We now have the "No Compensation" solution clearly prohibited.

Then it is just not possible at all to obtain Tailwheel or BoatHull Amphib endorsements in an E-AB SeaRey.

Does everyone agree with this conclusion? Not even a glimmer of hope / alternative view?

#### TJTX

##### Active Member
I'm honestly more confused now than before. Isn't this all about compensation? So if I'm not getting compensated, or hell costing myself money by training my daughter, I'm not in violation am I? And no, flight time isnt compensation to me. Another hour in a piston airplane isnt getting me a darn thing when I've already got an ATP with multiple type ratings.

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
I'm honestly more confused now than before....
So the FAA will sleep better in their beds tonight knowing they've done their job well. Safety has been compromised and nobody knows what the hell is going on. Mission accomplished.

#### TFF

##### Well-Known Member
What the FAA is saying is no one does anything for free. They have no belief in free; commerce or charity. Somehow service is being exchanged if not flying yourself around. They are not stating minimum or maximum value,luckily, or asking for accounting, thank goodness. Flying is business, they allow GA to fill in unused space as long as we conduct ourselves professionally. That is their take

For my license, I got free time at work, expensive time. If they wrote it off, I do not know. I know I would not have the license to have if I had to pay for it.

Side note. On another forum, someone had flown in the past with the offender that started it all. The member said it was all professional and organized, so this is all red tape not being followed, not stylized cowboy fighter pilot, hot dogging. It’s someone who was warned to fill out paperwork or get in trouble. I’m sure because if was a warbird owner, he had some good lawyers. The FAA does not loose cases. The flea does not boss the dog. The FAA has nuked the system to prove a point.

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Hanlon's Razor, as expressed by Napoleon;

‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.’

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Hours logged might help get a job promotion. I suppose the hours need not be logged. A private pilot isn't required to log time. I don't know about instructors giving free instruction?

#### Marc Zeitlin

##### Exalted Grand Poobah
Yes. Within the FAA's muddy definition of what might be considered "compensation", which is far more expansive than what Walmart or Amazon (or their employees) would consider "compensation".

So if I'm not getting compensated, or hell costing myself money by training my daughter, I'm not in violation am I?
No.

And no, flight time isnt compensation to me. Another hour in a piston airplane isnt getting me a darn thing when I've already got an ATP with multiple type ratings.
Since your daughter will love you whether you train her or not, and if you don't log the time (or use the logged time for gaining jobs or <whatever>) then it's not compensation and you can go to town.

I would argue the same for anyone that is training anyone for free (if it's TRULY for free, and not just an end-run around the rules).

The Experimental Aircraft Police Force will not come after you.