Light Plane Philosopher
- Dec 16, 2007
- Port Townsend WA
No. The court cited 91.313, but it appears to mean exceptions to some restricted category operations other than training, and I mistook it for experimental. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct it.Did you intend to say 91.413?
Not sure about that. FAR 61.413 doesn't list " for compensation or hire" as a privilege. It doesn't mention compensation or hire at all.This highlights the comment I made that this interpretation flies directly in the face of 61.413, which covers the privileges of sport pilot instructors
According to AOPA the FAA definitely indicated in a formal written response that Experimental aircraft are included in this ruling.This ruling only affects limited category aircraft under 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.
When in doubt, read the actual court ruling.
Here's the letter:According to AOPA the FAA definitely indicated in a formal written response that Experimental aircraft are included in this ruling.
The FAA previously said that CFIs offering instruction in their own E-AB needed a LODA and could then charge for use of airplane an instruction.The FAA has required a LODA for many years in the case of compensation or for hire instruction in experimental.
What's this fuss about?
So you are saying the experimental aircraft will need a LODA ?The FAA previously said that CFIs offering instruction in their own E-AB needed a LODA and could then charge for use of airplane an instruction.
The FAA is now saying that if you have an experimental and want a CFI to go up with you in your airplane (e.g. for a flight review, or transition training) that you will have to obtain a LODA (assuming the instructor wants to be paid).