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
Did you intend to say 91.413?
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.

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. They're only allowed to fly light sport airplanes, so they can't train in anything else. The letter that gtae07 mentioned means that section of the regulations has been negated. One way or the other, the FAA will have to come up with a better explanation. Either they'll have to change the interpretation back to what it was for sport pilot training, or they'll have to gut the regs and start over.
 
Last edited:

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,069
Location
Port Townsend WA
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
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.
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
61.413 lists privileges of sport pilot instructors. Since sport pilots can only fly in LSA, it wouldn't make much sense to have a section of the regs for sport pilot instructors if you can't train anyone in an LSA because training is considered for compensation or hire. So if they stick with the interpretation in that letter, 61.413 will have to be deleted or heavily modified. It makes no sense.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,069
Location
Port Townsend WA
Standard category instructors (Cessna 150) must first be commercial pilots. The commercial pilot certificate authorizes the holder to conduct " for compensation or hire".
But Sport instructors are not required to be commercial rated. So yes, 61.413 seems inadequate.
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
304
Location
US Territory of Guam
This ruling only affects limited category aircraft under 14 C.F.R. § 91.315.
When in doubt, read the actual court ruling.
According to AOPA the FAA definitely indicated in a formal written response that Experimental aircraft are included in this ruling.
 

Marc Zeitlin

Exalted Grand Poobah
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
966
Location
Tehachapi, CA

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
According to AOPA the FAA definitely indicated in a formal written response that Experimental aircraft are included in this ruling.
Yeah, we were discussing that above. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. It could definitely affect my training.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,069
Location
Port Townsend WA
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?
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
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?
Just the same old FAA mantra. "We're not happy until you're not happy".
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,139
Location
Savannah, Georgia
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?
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).
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,852
Location
Rocky Mountains
"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?"

"it's very clear that the FAA considers the ruling to affect
all experimental aircraft as well."

What is the fuss?
Maybe this only applies not to 'all' experimentals, just those not owned or partially owned by the student? After all the student/owner is the one that, in the past, has been the one to
“use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in section 91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).”

If the FAA is indeed now stating that ALL experimentals are placed into operation by the instructor, even if they have zero ownership, it is a change from what has been considered standard.
The glider club where I intend to someday take lessons uses an EAB as it's primary trainer. Will they now have to obtain a LODA to continue to do so?
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,069
Location
Port Townsend WA
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).
So you are saying the experimental aircraft will need a LODA ?
Why not just modify all operating limitations to allow instruction for compensation?
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
6,503
Location
US
I wonder if an E-AB owner who is selling his plane can take the new buyer up for a few familiarization flights without obtaining a LODA. Are the flights "for compensation" if they are "free" after purchase of the plane? My guess is that "you took money for the plane+flights, so you were compensated."

Any bureaucratic impediments that reduce the ability to get needed familiarization/training will be hard to sell as "enhancing safety."
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,069
Location
Port Townsend WA
There are too many bureaucrats and not enough pilots and airplanes left. I remember when the pilot population was about 800,000. It's now about 400,000 not including students. The student statistics are inflated because they changed the duration to five years (if under 40). And after that they changed the student roster to permanent so now it is 200,000 students and the total "pilots" now is back up to 600,000. ;)
 

Rhino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
1,205
Location
KTHA
I am aware of that. But my head hurts if I attempt to think other than logically.
That disqualifies you for employment in quite a few government agencies, and definitely the FAA.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,852
Location
Rocky Mountains
Laying in bed this morning going over the activities for the day my mind wandered back to this subject.
It occurred to me that the FAA has admitted that this is going to be a significant change in their intent. The letter referenced above mentioned having to streamline the process for a LODA because of the expected increase in demand.
This, to me indicates that they did in the past intend for the activity of using student owned EAB for instructing to be legal. Now that some judge has interpretated the regulations in a different way, rather than fix the lawyers poor wording to match their original intent, they simply let some judge's interpretation of their poorly crafted regulations guide them into the future. Or................
Someone saw an opportunity to get their way?

Is the FAA now going to say that part 23 certified aircraft need to have 100hr inspections if the owner wants to get instruction in his own part 23 plane as well? I hear a camels nose sniffing at the tent seams.
 
Top