Experimental (SLSA) No Longer Allowed for Flight Training??

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
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.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,827
Location
Fresno, California
Without this notification, E-AB training would be allowed without a LODA. If the EAA and AOPA (and the other industry groups) didn't demand this response, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. They definitely brought this on.
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.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,208
Location
Louisville, KY
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.
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:

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
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...
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.
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,933
Location
KBJC
They definitely brought this on.
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.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
No. The guy in a robe with a novel definition of “carriage” brought this on...
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.
 

dwalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
271
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?
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,692
Location
Pocahontas MS
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.
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
304
Location
US Territory of Guam
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?"

 
Last edited:

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
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!
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,454
Location
SC
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?
 

rdj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
331
Location
Northern California
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.
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,933
Location
KBJC
.

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?
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.
 
Top