It's possible to learn to fly on a homebuilt airplane?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,377
Location
Savannah, Georgia
The LODA requirement is specifically for the situation where the instructor is intending on giving instruction in his own airplane and getting compensated for the hobbs time of an experimental. If one owns the airplane and its just the instructors time its not an issue.
Well, that was the case. But then some warbird outfit just had to be difficult and tried to have the last word, and as a consequence there's now an official ruling that instruction is "carriage for hire". See this whole thread (Experimental (ELSA / E-AB) No Longer Allowed for Flight Training??) for more discussion.

But essentially, now there has to be a LODA for any instruction in an experimental. Fortunately, the FAA at least sees some reason, and basically said "yeah, that's not really what we wanted either but it's what the judge said. So, here's your basically automatic process for getting the required LODA until we can get around to fixing the regs in a few years". Instructors or owners of experimentals can fill it out and as long as one of you has this particular LODA you can either (a) instruct someone in their airplane and charge for instruction, or (b) receive instruction in your airplane and pay the CFI. By all reports you basically just submit the form and get your email response/approval in a couple days.

The other LODA you speak of (instructor charging both instruction time and aircraft usage, in their airplane, for purposes of transition training) is still out there but it's an entirely separate process.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,954
Location
CT, USA
A minimum private certificate is required to fly off the test hours on an experimental aircraft.
After the pilots sign off the phase test flights you can start training.
No, even a student pilot can fly an experimental during phase 1, if he can find a CFI to sign him off. I have a friend who made the first test flight of his Sonerai while still a student pilot.

Check the current rule for LSA instructors. As originally written, instruction from light sport instructors couldn't be counted toward a private ticket. FAA has said they intend to fix the rule, but I don't know if it has happened yet.

It has, the hours now count.

The LODA requirement is specifically for the situation where the instructor is intending on giving instruction in his own airplane and getting compensated for the hobbs time of an experimental. If one owns the airplane and its just the instructors time its not an issue.

You need a LODA if you're going to pay a CFI to instruct in you in your own experimental, but it's a simple process to get it.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,603
Location
Memphis, TN
There is no reason for her not to get a ppl in a light sport airplane. She shouldn’t waist the time on LSA or recreational pilots license when it’s only slightly more effort to get the ppl. In fact the other licenses she has to know why it’s not a ppl where as a ppl doesn’t have to know anything about lsa.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,265
Location
Pocahontas MS
What gaet07 said, about LODAs.

Dana, thanks for the update; good to know they fixed the LSA instructor issue.

TFF, I read his post as saying he wanted to use a very inexpensive to own/operate a/c like the Tornado to do all the training except the ppl stuff that couldn't be achieved in it. I did something similar in principle, in a Luscombe 8A. Only had to rent an a/c for the night & hood work. LSA wasn't available when I got my ticket. Since both a/c and instructors are in short supply in his area, the LS ticket would let her build time until they can buy a more sophisticated a/c for the rest of the ppl requirements. I can see the financial sense, given their situation.
 

MaxLA

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
23
It's possible to learn to fly on a homebuilt airplane?

I'm planning on doing just that with my quarter scale Bachem Ba-349 replica.
And it's not just because there is no living person who has experience flying one.
images (3).jpeg
How hard could it be? I won't have to learn how to takeoff or land. Just how to repack parachutes.
hsybk0tj1gj71.png
I'll be waa-aay over 500 foot AGL when I cross my property line, so those annoying neighbors can complain all they want, it won't matter.

--Joe Isuzu
 
Last edited:

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,377
Location
Savannah, Georgia
She shouldn’t waist the time on LSA or recreational pilots license when it’s only slightly more effort to get the ppl.
The only case I can see to go Light Sport only would be if she knows (or has good reason to believe) she won't be able to pass a Third Class medical exam. Recreational pilot is useless.
 

MaxLA

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
23
The only case I can see to go Light Sport only would be if she knows (or has good reason to believe) she won't be able to pass a Third Class medical exam. Recreational pilot is useless.
If one has a reason to believe they cannot pass a flight physical, they cannot fly per FAA regulations. Fortunately, the world is full of "ignorant" people and it is rarely possible to separate willful ignorance from the mundane form of ignorance. :)

Just don't ever use an AME as your physician.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,603
Location
Memphis, TN
Here is the dream. LSA 20 hour license. Reality, it takes 10 hours just to get to the point to be competent in skill to start realistically logging the 20 hours of requirements. 30 hours is a realistic minimum. What is the difference in flying solo and LSA when it’s about time building. Solo is pilot in command. It’s also time building for a professional career. LSA is non professional. Total time yes, but in an interview they will question it if time is close to minimum. It’s resume building, not fun flying. So you spend 5 hours flying at night, so the cross countries are a little longer. These things are very minor in the scheme of things. If you are playing off minimum time, you fly all PPL requirements to Commercial standards. When I did my helicopter cross country it’s to Commercial standard. Skills learned flying a non standard aircraft is good to have. A Titan would be good, but you want it under PPL. Every flight, with a job in mind, should push just a little. At job interviews, you are either in the easy stack of paperwork or you are not. They go to the not easy when the easy stack runs out. It doesn’t take much to spook these people.
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
10,954
Location
CT, USA
If one has a reason to believe they cannot pass a flight physical, they cannot fly per FAA regulations.
Not correct. You simply must have no medical condition that, in your opinion, makes you unsafe to fly. And you must have a drivers license, under the theory that if the state thinks you're healthy enough to drive a car you're healthy enough to fly a LSA.
 

MaxLA

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
23
With all due respect you linked a AOPA opinion. Itself a synopsis of (a) FAA regulation(s), not the FAA itself.

But the AOPA page you linked has a link to an FAA FAQ page.

This page, posted by the FAA, states in part: "Long-standing FAA regulation, § 61.53, prohibits all pilots — those who are required to hold airman medical certificates and those who are not--from exercising privileges during periods of medical deficiency. The FAA revised § 61.53 to include under this prohibition sport pilots who use a current and valid U.S. driver's license as medical qualification."

I'm not a lawyer, and I doubt it would ever come up unless your medical condition caused an accident, but I imagine that having any AME tell you that your condition would preclude you from getting a Third Class Medical** Basic Med Certificate would be construed by the FAA as your knowing that you had a medical deficiency. Failing an examination-- at least for a permanent condition-- certainly does.

**I originally typed Third Class Medical, but it was pointed out to me that the Basic Med Certificate does not disqualify for diabetes and some diabetes related conditions. I stand by my interpretation that, "If your doctor, were to tell you that you had a medical condition that precluded you from obtaining a medical certificate appropriate for the aircraft you were flying, it would be contrary to the regulation to fly it. Regardless of whether or not you had a certificate. I also stand by my statement that it would be unlikely that anyone would ever know this unless the medical condition caused an accident.
 
Last edited:

KeithO

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
787
Location
Jackson, MI
She already has her medical and student pilot ID. The goal is not to stop at recreational pilot, just be able to do whatever is permitted based on how the airplane is equipped, until a better (regular category) airplane is available. As said we are building a RV-9A but completion is probably 2 years out and that can be configured to permit IFR training so would allow night VFR, IFR ticket and go a good way towards getting her commercial ticket. Having a glass panel and an in flight adjustable prop may give her what she needs for the "complex" 10 hour requirement, otherwise she would have to rent that time in a suitable airplane.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
15,589
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
but I imagine that having any AME tell you that your condition would preclude you from getting a Third Class Medical would be construed by the FAA as your knowing that you had a medical deficiency.
The FAA’s rules for Light Sport Pilot / driver’s license medical, as well as their Basic Medical contradict your opinion.


BJC
 

MaxLA

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
23
Not correct. You simply must have no medical condition that, in your opinion, makes you unsafe to fly. And you must have a drivers license, under the theory that if the state thinks you're healthy enough to drive a car you're healthy enough to fly a LSA.
Not trying to pick nits but: "For operations provided for in § 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

I imagine that the FAA would hold that they deny medical certification in the interest of safety. So, ipso-facto, being denied, or knowing you have a condition for which you would be denied means your condition makes flying unsafe. (The much beloved circular argument.) The only "wiggle room" that I personally see is that (b) below pertains to the specific airplane you are actually flying, while (a) pertains to every potential airplane you could be flying.

As I read this, and again I am not a lawyer, "opinions" do not matter. (Well, your opinion and my opinion do not matter, I'm sure that many people "inside the building" at the FAA possess opinions that matter.) If you "know or have reason to know," does. I can know 100 medical conditions that make it unsafe to operate an aircraft. But if I don't know, or have reason to know, that I have one of those conditions, I'm in compliance.

(Just for the record, I currently hold a valid medical certificate.)

Entire text of § 61.53:

§ 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.
(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or
(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.
(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations provided for in § 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.
(c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S. driver's license. For operations provided for in § 61.23(c), a person must meet the provisions of -
(1) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter and does not hold a U.S. driver's license.
(2) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a U.S. driver's license.
 
Last edited:

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
3,265
Location
Pocahontas MS
I linked the AOPA page both because it was convenient, and it contained the link to actual FAA rules.
A more full understanding of how the FAA's medical certification process functions would probably help with understanding why you can legally fly with medical conditions that would prohibit passing a flight physical. There are *many* requirements embedded in even the 3rd class medical that can disqualify a pilot, but have nothing to do with the pilot's ability to safely fly. The Sport Pilot rule allowing flight with a driver's license is evidence the FAA recognized that the 3rd class rules had become too onerous. Otherwise, what's the point of the Sport Pilot driver's license rule? But it's a very slow moving government bureaucracy with a lot of external political pressures, so it created a limited 'out' that limited Sport Pilots to smaller, lighter, slower a/c. Now that they have more than a decade of safety data, rule making is in process to expand our ability to fly on our driver's license.

Re-read carefully the pt 61.53 section you quoted, remembering that reading a legal document is like a scavenger hunt or a set of road rally directions. You have to parse every single 'and' and 'or' and 'except', in the proper order.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm thankful you're not one of the guys out doing ramp checks. The pilot would ultimately win, but he'd never get back the time he had to waste. ;-)
 

MaxLA

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
23
The FAA’s rules for Light Sport Pilot / driver’s license medical, as well as their Basic Medical contradict your opinion.
BJC
I could have worded that better. Basic Med does indeed have a lower standard than Third Class, which is lower than Second Class, which is lower than First Class. Since every "step" allows a pilot to operate increasingly sophisticated aircraft. So one could hold Basic Med certification and have a condition that would disqualify you from holding a Third-Class (From Plane and Pilot):

"Disqualifying conditions under the rules for BasicMed and the Third-Class Medical are conditions that deal with 1) the heart (myocardial infarction, permanent cardiac pacemaker, etc.), 2) the psyche (bipolar disorder, substance abuse, etc.) and 3) the nervous system (epilepsy, unexplained loss of consciousness, etc.)...One notable condition that appears only in the third-class requirements is, 'Unless otherwise directed by the FAA, the Examiner must deny or defer if the applicant has a history of diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication...' You still need to be certified fit to fly.”
 

MaxLA

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
23
I linked the AOPA page both because it was convenient, and it contained the link to actual FAA rules.
A more full understanding of how the FAA's medical certification process functions would probably help with understanding why you can legally fly with medical conditions that would prohibit passing a flight physical. There are *many* requirements embedded in even the 3rd class medical that can disqualify a pilot, but have nothing to do with the pilot's ability to safely fly. The Sport Pilot rule allowing flight with a driver's license is evidence the FAA recognized that the 3rd class rules had become too onerous. Otherwise, what's the point of the Sport Pilot driver's license rule? But it's a very slow moving government bureaucracy with a lot of external political pressures, so it created a limited 'out' that limited Sport Pilots to smaller, lighter, slower a/c. Now that they have more than a decade of safety data, rule making is in process to expand our ability to fly on our driver's license.

Re-read carefully the pt 61.53 section you quoted, remembering that reading a legal document is like a scavenger hunt or a set of road rally directions. You have to parse every single 'and' and 'or' and 'except', in the proper order.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm thankful you're not one of the guys out doing ramp checks. The pilot would ultimately win, but he'd never get back the time he had to waste. ;-)
Mea culpa, when I obtained my certificates Third Class was the floor. Basic Med is newer and has lower standards, and I should have recognized that. Not that it matters, I agree with the logic that a person who is flying a Bensen B-8M over their own property, or a Piper Cub daytime VFR, should have a lower standard to meet than someone flying a Cessna 172, a Skywagon with all six seats filled, a Caravan full of parcels for hire, or an Airbus full of people.

I should have stated that if you knew or should have known that you have a condition that would prohibit your obtaining a Basic Med certificate it is just as much of a violation to fly as if you knew or should have known that you have a condition that would prohibit your obtaining a Third Class.

I did state that probably the only way anyone would know that you had an undisclosed condition would be if it caused an accident.
 
Top