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

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

#### Wanttaja

##### Well-Known Member
Corner condition #348:

What happens if you have a CFI administer a BFR to a pilot flying a single-seat homebuilt airplane, using a handheld radio? The CFI isn't even IN the airplane, what difference does its certification category make?

Asking for a friend.

Ron Wanttaja

#### youngwerth

##### Member
I got my LODA, took 1 week. And the FAA guy confirmed only one LODA is needed (plane owner or the CFI).

Al.

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
But what if she loves you more?
No use in baring the front door. They will use a tank if needed. Already been done.

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Approval without any inspection is usually called pencil whipping or rubber stamping.
The FAA (and EAA) is fully compensated. Business as usual.

Last edited:

#### rv7charlie

##### Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
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.
Honestly, nothing has changed for you, given the conditions you describe. The only training ever allowed in a non-owner-flown exp was transition training. No tailwheel endorsements, complex, high performance, etc etc. If you own the exp & have a LODA, or if you own the exp and the instructor has a LODA, you can get training. I haven't seen it spelled out anywhere, but it logically follows that if a friend *loans* you an exp and either he or the instructor has a LODA, you're good to go. But getting paid for the use of an exp for anything except transition training has never been allowed.

Doing a 1st flight of an exp with the ink barely dry on one's private license is a whole 'nuther matter....

#### rv7charlie

##### Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
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? Key points, it seems to me, would be that there are no other amphib a/c available, and no other tailwheel a/c available, within 'reasonable' distances. The final key point would be whether the managing FSDO is willing to see and recognize the conflict between the general rule and training/safety needs. The FAA has much greater latitude in how its own rules are applied than most of us realize (ask those who fly in Alaska, for instance). In more general terms, I suspect that the FAA got blindsided just like the rest of us by the recent court ruling. Once that court made its radically overstepped ruling, it became 'law', and the FAA had no choice but to comply with the court's *entire* ruling; not just with the much more restricted ruling they were seeking. What were they to do; publicly say that the court's ruling was not lawful? To the FAA's credit, they've moved *very* quickly to come up with a workaround to restore normalcy to as many of us as possible, as quickly as possible. It's going to take a court appeal by someone or some group, or congressional legislation, to provide a permanent fix. #### Rhino ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter ...But getting paid for the use of an exp for anything except transition training has never been allowed... There's a flight school a few hours from me that's been offering training in two experimentals for years, one is a Zenith CH 750, which is what I'm building. Not sure what they're doing now since all this came out. That's where I had planned on getting the bulk of my training. In more general terms, I suspect that the FAA got blindsided just like the rest of us by the recent court ruling. Once that court made its radically overstepped ruling, it became 'law', and the FAA had no choice but to comply with the court's *entire* ruling; not just with the much more restricted ruling they were seeking... Not really. If you read the ruling you'll see the judge specifically said he agreed with the FAA argument that training constituted compensation, so this was the FAA's idea, not his. He also specifically limited his decision to limited category aircraft. It was the FAA who decided to expand that definition to other categories. #### rv7charlie ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter Go and ask them if they have an exemption. If you're in TN (plenty of planes available), it's unlikely they would be able to get one for actual flight training. Odds are they're either doing only transition training, or they were just ignoring the law. Unless, of course, they're legal LSA aircraft, like factory built RV12s; those are *not* experimental. It defies logic that the FAA flipped their decades-long position that the instructor isn't being 'compensated for carrying persons or cargo for hire', got the court ruling, and then immediately began issuing LODAs to every experimental owner and every CFI that asked for them, and also crippled long-standing rules for obtaining training in Limited/etc a/c that are outside the legal definition of experimental. #### Rhino ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter The FAA defying logic isn't exactly something new. #### skydawg ##### Well-Known Member it seems FAA wants to consider everything as compensation, even building time performing instruction as value. EXP is growing 2-3 times that as certified, and this is just another blow to GA fired by FAA. This new policy is based on the warbird limited category issue and blanketed to all EXP, directly contradicting current policy. FAA long standing and current written policy clearing states flight training is allowed in EXP aircraft as long as there’s no compensation for the aircraft; FAR part 1 defines flight training as any type of training in flight, without mention/limit of transition or towards a certificate; and states examiners dont have to fly in EXP aircraft, so logic states check rides for a certificate or rating is allowedi. And exp.. im teaching my kid to fly in an EXP C172, I don’t need or log the hours and obviously not paying aircraft rental, other than cost of ownership. Since FAA went so far as stating the war bird instructor was compensated by the good faith of the aircraft club, I’m wondering if FAA would try to state that I am being compensated by saving the cost of a CFI or renting a standard category aircraft? Or I am being compensated by receiving appreciation of my daughter? this is a slippery slope. I was a designee, from my experience most of the upper FAA would like to see GA go away. targeting the fastest growing GA segment behind business/Corp segment which has a lot of$ and influence behind it, the EXP LODA is just another example to this end.

This policy not only contradicts long standing policy, but was made without any input from EAA, AOPA or public comment, and based on the war birds written court opinion, which is not normal. Again, the FAA can’t violate based on breaking a policy, and unless they rewrite all current contradicting policies, it seems it would be a tough case for them to win against a CFI giving training in an EXP. I hope EAA and AOPA keep up the heat. It seems the LODAs don’t prohibit any specific type of training, so primary isn’t specifically prohibited per FAA definition. Be sure to join EAA and AOPA.

#### Alan_VA

##### Active Member
it seems FAA wants to consider everything as compensation, even building time performing instruction as value. EXP is growing 2-3 times that as certified, and this is just another blow to GA fired by FAA. This new policy is based on the warbird limited category issue and blanketed to all EXP, directly contradicting current policy. FAA long standing and current written policy clearing states flight training is allowed in EXP aircraft as long as there’s no compensation for the aircraft; FAR part 1 defines flight training as any type of training in flight, without mention/limit of transition or towards a certificate; and states examiners dont have to fly in EXP aircraft, so logic states check rides for a certificate or rating is allowedi. And exp..

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
And there's one of the 'gihugic' problems with our system as it currently exists. 'Contribute' enough, and you get to write the legislation. Example: The infamous state immigration laws of Arizona & many other states, handed to the legislatures by a private prisons lobbying organization (along with hefty checks, of course).
I agree with the principle you cite, but we restricted our activity to strictly issues we directly dealt with as an organization. We didn't color outside the lines. We weren't anything like prisons writing immigration laws. We were sometimes asked for input on related (usually) legislation, but we never provided actual legislative text in those instances, nor did we want to. We were just as aware of the dangers as you are. Much of what we had to fix was the result of practices just like what you've outlined, people writing legislation for areas outside their expertise, and we had no desire to become that same problem. I'd tell you exactly what we did, but I fear we're already risking an admonishment from the admins for getting political and drifting off topic.

#### PagoBay

##### Well-Known Member
edit: meant to add: As evidence this was unintended consequence, consider that the court ruling could just as easily be applied to instruction in *any* airplane, requiring that every training a/c become part 135-certified. Surely no one believes the FAA wants that.
Please see:
That's not really true. If you read the ruling, the judge did not make an overly broad decision that's negatively impacting sport pilot training. He did in fact limit his decision to the circumstances in that particular case, using warbirds in the limited category. He even noted that the FAA made exceptions for other categories, but not specifically for limited category aircraft like the particular warbird involved in this case. It was the FAA in their letter that extended that to include aircraft in other categories, including LSA, and that's the pickle we find ourselves in here.
This requires almost no digging at all, I posted the judge's ruling as an attachment in a previous thread. It's 2 pages long and easily readable. The judge specifically quoted limited category aircraft regulations and specifically categorized the ruling as specific to the combination of circumstances in this case: "Perhaps no one of those reasons alone would be enough, but together they amount to substantial evidence supporting the FAA’s emergency order."
Seriously, everyone needs to read this decision before commenting, it's shorter than any of the articles I've seen written about it.
The FAA letter was way, way out of line with the judges ruling. In my opinion, the EAA and AOPA were stupid to ask about it, there's nothing in the ruling which required any of this. This is a case of "ask a stupid question, get a dumber answer with bad consequences."