You're assuming of course that the FAA was not already considering this, and had no idea whatsoever that the case might affect some people other than the principles in the court case. It's possible of course, but not very likely. I'd bet good money the lawyers at the FAA were already looking into all this. It's what they're paid for, and surely the ramifications of the case couldn't have escaped the attention of everyone at the FAA while simultaneously being so troubling to AOPA and EAA. It's extremely unlikely the letter from AOPA/EAA caused all this.
Experimental (ELSA / E-AB) No Longer Allowed for Flight Training??
- Thread starter PagoBay
- Start date
Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:
Ah yes, but then they might have still gigged you with the argument that ignorance of the rules and interpretation of the rule is not a sufficient defense. It would have depended on whose attention you drew.
I'm going by what is actually stated and printed, not assumptions with no proof at all. You can choose to believe what you want. I'll stick with the actual facts until evidence to the contrary is presented, not vague theories.
And, even if you make your assumptions, you may have noticed that the request from EAA and AOPA didn't help. If someone is planning to shoot you, you don't send them instructions on how to load the gun.
Last edited:
Like the vague theory that the FAA had never considered this prior to AOPA/EAA sending the letter? You have no facts either, just an assumption. All I'm saying is that the assumption may be mistaken. Mine could be as well. We have no way of knowing at this point. Neither of us should pronounce cause until the facts are known, and they simply aren't known yet.
No. The guy in a robe with a novel definition of “carriage” brought this on. Essentially, the groups asked, ‘are you going to use this new definition as it applies to us?’ They did not bring this on. Let’s hope the proposed legislation gets this back to normal.
Actually he agreed with the definition offered by the FAA, and applied it only to the limited category. The FAA, who, originally presented that definition to the court, then decided to contradict their own policy and practice by extending that definition to other categories the judge never addressed in his decision. The judge even said the FAA had the authority to grant exceptions, just as they had done with other categories. They just hadn't granted an exception to the limited category that was the subject of that case.
So my understanding is-
When I want to do transition training with a current Dragonfly pilot in a Dragonfly prior to the first flight in my own aircraft, I can pay the fellow giving the transition training (assuming CFI) as long as he has a LODA for his aircraft.
However, if I am simply out with a fellow Dragonfly owner to "see how it flies", that is fine as long as he doesn't instruct me, is not a CFI, and receives no compensation for the flight(s)
If I then decide in a couple years to become a CFI, and want to use a common experimental as a trainer- say an RV or Zenith- I can use the plane for instruction, as long as I have a LODA for each aircraft used, and could not instruct a student in thier own Zenith or whatever unless they had a LODA, but could instruct them in a C150 or Cherokee 140?
Also If a student pilot purchased a flying and proven experimental- like a Cub or Zenith or Bearhawk, they could not receive instruction unless they received a LODA for that aircraft, but they could fly it with an unpaid volunteer CFI as long as they did not, in any way, compensate the instructor?
Have I got that right?
When I want to do transition training with a current Dragonfly pilot in a Dragonfly prior to the first flight in my own aircraft, I can pay the fellow giving the transition training (assuming CFI) as long as he has a LODA for his aircraft.
However, if I am simply out with a fellow Dragonfly owner to "see how it flies", that is fine as long as he doesn't instruct me, is not a CFI, and receives no compensation for the flight(s)
If I then decide in a couple years to become a CFI, and want to use a common experimental as a trainer- say an RV or Zenith- I can use the plane for instruction, as long as I have a LODA for each aircraft used, and could not instruct a student in thier own Zenith or whatever unless they had a LODA, but could instruct them in a C150 or Cherokee 140?
Also If a student pilot purchased a flying and proven experimental- like a Cub or Zenith or Bearhawk, they could not receive instruction unless they received a LODA for that aircraft, but they could fly it with an unpaid volunteer CFI as long as they did not, in any way, compensate the instructor?
Have I got that right?
rv7charlie
Well-Known Member
Not as I understand it, if I'm understanding what you wrote.
Instructor-owned experimental: transition training only *with LODA* held by instructor-owner specific for transition training
Owner-flown experimental: If owner, *or* the instructor, possesses one of the new LODAs, the instructor can be paid to instruct the owner in the aircraft. FAA has specifically said that club-owned experimentals can be covered by a single LODA for all members.
With the new rules, either the owner or the instructor needs one of the new LODAs. FAA's position even in cases preceding the Warbirds case (including certified a/c) has been that simply giving instruction can be construed as compensation, even if no tangible compensation changes hands, because the instructor gains time/experience.
Generic training in instructor-owned homebuilt experimentals, where payment is made for the use of the a/c, has never been allowed, and as I understand it, still isn't allowed.
My understanding is that the only time payment for the use of the HBE has ever been allowed is the 1st one: instructor-owned, and only for transition training to that a/c make/model. Note that the LODA for this type of training is *not* the same as the new, court decision-induced LODAs that are being issued now.
My understanding of the rules; I could be wrong.
Instructor-owned experimental: transition training only *with LODA* held by instructor-owner specific for transition training
Owner-flown experimental: If owner, *or* the instructor, possesses one of the new LODAs, the instructor can be paid to instruct the owner in the aircraft. FAA has specifically said that club-owned experimentals can be covered by a single LODA for all members.
With the new rules, either the owner or the instructor needs one of the new LODAs. FAA's position even in cases preceding the Warbirds case (including certified a/c) has been that simply giving instruction can be construed as compensation, even if no tangible compensation changes hands, because the instructor gains time/experience.
Generic training in instructor-owned homebuilt experimentals, where payment is made for the use of the a/c, has never been allowed, and as I understand it, still isn't allowed.
My understanding is that the only time payment for the use of the HBE has ever been allowed is the 1st one: instructor-owned, and only for transition training to that a/c make/model. Note that the LODA for this type of training is *not* the same as the new, court decision-induced LODAs that are being issued now.
My understanding of the rules; I could be wrong.
PagoBay
Well-Known Member
FAA Administrator confirms he is not happy because you're not happy. Shifts blame to the Warbirds team.
Says LODA requirement will require 4 years for rule making changes.
“The bottom line is this thing doesn’t say what we want to say,” but it could take several years before additional measures are put in place to clear up the situation brought on by a company operating warbird aircraft during instructional flights. Dickson said the LODA would be “in place for 48 months.”
He made a point to “assure everyone this will not pollute other things. We want to rewrite the rule, but the problem is that this takes a lot of time."
Question left begging for an answer is "What exactly does this thing say?"
Says LODA requirement will require 4 years for rule making changes.
“The bottom line is this thing doesn’t say what we want to say,” but it could take several years before additional measures are put in place to clear up the situation brought on by a company operating warbird aircraft during instructional flights. Dickson said the LODA would be “in place for 48 months.”
He made a point to “assure everyone this will not pollute other things. We want to rewrite the rule, but the problem is that this takes a lot of time."
Question left begging for an answer is "What exactly does this thing say?"
FAA’s Dickson: LODA is ‘a four-letter word’
"I'm not any happier about this situation than you are," said FAA Administrator Steve Dickson when explaining compliance with a letter of deviation authority, which, as of July 12, is now required for owners of experimental aircraft to receive training in their aircraft from a CFI.
www.aopa.org
Last edited:
It says the situation is as bad as we thought it was, and they refuse to do anything about it for a long time. Four years to rewrite a rule. And I thought the Air Force was mired in hopeless bureaucracy! These guys set new standards!
I have requested and received a LODA for my aircraft. The process was quick, easy, and free. I will admit to not clearly seeing the point in all of this but it's our government at work and I'm guilty of not spending much time trying to figure out the rationale of it all.
But I do have a question ... for a friend of course. Suppose that you are a student pilot with a plane that you own and are signed off to solo in it by your instructor. Because you are technically practicing your training in your plane, even though you are sans instructor, are you still required to have and carry a LODA?
But I do have a question ... for a friend of course. Suppose that you are a student pilot with a plane that you own and are signed off to solo in it by your instructor. Because you are technically practicing your training in your plane, even though you are sans instructor, are you still required to have and carry a LODA?
rdj
Well-Known Member
Not to be the pedantic one, but could the title of this thread be modified to eliminate SLSA? Experimental (E-AB or E-LSA) and S-LSA have very little to do with each other, and it's the former for which a LODA is required, not the latter.
No LODA should be required in that case. A student pilot exercising solo privileges is acting as PIC; no instruction is taking place and no compensation is being given to anyone.
PagoBay
Well-Known Member
But presumably the CFI would want to fly dual with the student before signing him off...
Done.
It is still unclear to me if a private pilot exercising solo privileges (without the add on rating) in an EA-B needs any instructor endorsement to be pilot in command solo?
Remember, the FAA consider "generating goodwill" compensation. Any flight you or the pilot enjoy is illegal.
The main takeaway is stay unhappy whenever you fly and you'll be OK.
Brandon
From post #226
The FAA alleged volunteer instructors received compensation by “accumulating flight time” and “generating goodwill.” In other words, the FAA believes giving away your time and talent equates to compensation.
rv7charlie
Well-Known Member
By definition, no. Otherwise no private pilot could operate an EA-B.
Student pilot *might* be a different question, but for a data point, the builder of the RV4 that I owned for a long time learned to fly in it, after building it.
Turd Ferguson
Well-Known Member
The legal term "carriage" predates the FAA. In fact, it predates aviation. I don't think anyone in the legal profession is novelizing it.
Something similar happened in the mid '80's which anyone flying then will remember. It had to do with inoperative equipment. No doubt the legislative solution helped but I'm not sure how much.
