Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
FAA trying to kill Experimental? >

FAA trying to kill Experimental?

Search
Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

FAA trying to kill Experimental?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-09-2021, 10:03 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 516
Default FAA trying to kill Experimental?

FAA Releases Policy on Training in Experimental, Primary, and Limited Category Aircraft (eaa.org)

Excerpt:
On Thursday the FAA released a yet-to-be-published policy addressing the issue of training for compensation or hire in Experimental, Primary, and Limited category aircraft. The policy follows up on a letter from the agency last month that asserted that, without exception, no compensated flight training can take place in these aircraft categories without an exemption or letter of deviation authority (LODA). The newly announced policy maintains that position while offering a short-term solution that allows these operations to continue.The policy confirms the FAA’s position that any instructor is “operating” an aircraft, regardless of who owns, rents, or otherwise uses the aircraft, and regardless of whether the use of the aircraft is compensated. Therefore, paying any instructor to provide training violates the language of FARs 91.315 (Limited), 91.319(a)(2) (Experimental), and 91.325 (Primary).

For as long as can be remembered, the FAA rules were interpreted as an instructor could usually not charge for the use of the aircraft, but could charge for flight instruction services. FAA’s own policy on LODAs backed this up, explicitly stating that such private individuals did not require a LODA to pursue training in their own aircraft. While a commercial flight training operation could not provide the training, an individual instructor could provide training for a private owner, co-owner, flying club member, or lessee.

The FAA explained in their policy statement that the previous policy on LODAs was erroneous. The stunning turnabout meant that tens of thousands of rule-abiding warbird, homebuilt, vintage, and other pilots and instructors are instantly out of compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations. The FAA’s only acknowledgement of this radical change for the GA community was the statement “The FAA acknowledges that the disconnect between the regulations and the guidance to inspectors has caused confusion in the industry.”
What a TERRIBLE decision by the FAA. Private owners of experimental aircraft can't even so much as get a flight review in their aircraft without a LODA. Big government going to big government.
kaputt is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 10:27 AM
  #2  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Default

You took that out of context, didn't you? Stopping short of quoting the rest of the article missed the more salient part...the one that contradicts your thread title (the one that suggests the FAA is "trying to kill experimental").

The rest of the article:

In response, the FAA admitted that flight training in one’s own aircraft is essential for flight safety, which EAA contended, and announced the rollout of a vastly expanded LODA system to authorize individuals to receive compensated training in their own aircraft.

Under the new LODA system, applicants can send an email to [email protected] with their name, address, email address, pilot certificate number, flight instructor number (if applying as a CFI), aircraft registration number (if applying as an owner), aircraft make and model, and aircraft home base (if applying as an owner). The request will then flow to the local FSDO, who will issue the LODA. For aircraft owned by flying clubs, ownership groups, and other shared ownership models, the entity owning the aircraft may hold the LODA rather than each individual member. Either the owner/operator of the aircraft or the instructor can have the LODA, as long as one person in the cockpit has one. LODAs issued under this system will not allow rental of the aircraft to the general public. Those LODAs, issued for transition training and other targeted operations, will continue to be issued per the guidance in FAA Order 8900.1.

The policy is anticipated to go into effect on Monday, July 12. Due to an anticipated bottleneck, EAA is encouraging members to apply for LODAs when an anticipated need arises, to maintain capacity for those individuals who need a LODA immediately. LODAs will be effective for 48 months, by which time the FAA hopes to have a more permanent fix in place.

The LODA policy does not help owners of Limited and Primary category aircraft, as the rules associated with these categories do not contain a LODA provision. These aircraft and their operators will require exemptions. The exemption requirement for Primary category is particularly frustrating, as the category was specifically created to allow flight training as stated in the rule’s preamble.

“This LODA/exemption process is not a permanent solution. It is cumbersome, can easily be taken away, and is a solution to a nonexistent problem,” said Jack Pelton, EAA CEO and chairman of the board. “Under no circumstances is a private individual who receives training in their own aircraft detrimental to safety. EAA will continue seeking a rule change or legislation to permanently restore the longstanding and common sense ‘facts on the ground’ for the GA community.”

Pelton continued: “This entire episode is a scary example of how new interpretations of the regulations can upend the entire community. While this short-term fix allows operations to continue, it never should have come to this point. Creating more than 30,000 new LODAs and exemptions is a paperwork exercise that does nothing to advance safety.”

There are many more questions surrounding this still-evolving issue. If you have questions of your own, please call us at 800-564-6322 or send an email to [email protected].

Correction: This story was updated to reflect that either the owner/operator of the aircraft or instructor can have the LODA, as long as one person in the cockpit has one.
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...cNhhmpqEqsb84c
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 12:00 PM
  #3  
Occasional box hauler
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,683
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
You took that out of context, didn't you? Stopping short of quoting the rest of the article missed the more salient part...the one that contradicts your thread title (the one that suggests the FAA is "trying to kill experimental").

The rest of the article:



https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...cNhhmpqEqsb84c
The EAA president seems to think it’s a pretty big governmental over reach in the quote you provided. It definitely sounds like someone in government is trying to make a name for themselves.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 12:36 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 516
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
You took that out of context, didn't you? Stopping short of quoting the rest of the article missed the more salient part...the one that contradicts your thread title (the one that suggests the FAA is "trying to kill experimental").

The rest of the article:



https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...cNhhmpqEqsb84c
Seriously? Despite your smart a** comments, I read the whole article. Maybe you didn’t and missed the part where it explains what a massive departure this is from previously established FAA guidance.

So you think making every single Experimental owner apply for a LODA, including Joe Shmoe with an RV-8 that needs a BFR and wants his son to get his PPL, is not a ridiculous increase of bureaucratic red tape that now exists for something that was never even a problem?

There was no underground market of experimentals being used for cheap flight schools. In fact, this whole thing came about because the FAA was targeting a Warbird operator that was giving rides under the guise of instruction. The FAA then announced this ruling about a month ago, to which the EAA and AOPA pointed out also needlessly crushed experimental aviation. Stunningly (as the article says), the FAA doubled down on their stance today and now has decided that experimental aircraft owners need a LODA or have to find a CFI with a LODA for their specific aircraft in order to receive instruction.

Despite your claims, these are the types of things that kill activities like general aviation. The government over regulates it into non-existence.
kaputt is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 01:01 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 216
Default

Doesn’t the FAA have more important things to worry about such as making sure model flyers have ADSB in their models and taking the c o c k out of cockpit for the fragile and sensitive ones? Just wondering………..
100LL is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 03:26 PM
  #6  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Default

Originally Posted by kaputt View Post
Seriously?
Yes.

Originally Posted by kaputt View Post
So you think making every single Experimental owner apply for a LODA, including Joe Shmoe with an RV-8 that needs a BFR and wants his son to get his PPL, is not a ridiculous increase of bureaucratic red tape that now exists for something that was never even a problem?
Did I say this? No, you said this. I just quoted you saying it.

Speak for yourself, if you're able, not for me, and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I speak very well for myself.

Originally Posted by kaputt View Post
Despite your claims, these are the types of things that kill activities like general aviation. The government over regulates it into non-existence.
General aviation exists as a function of government regulation, as does your pilot certificate. At no point has the government ever regulated it into non-existence. Your statement is patently false; a lie.

Has general aviation been regulated into non-existence? No, it has not. A lie.

Has experimental aviation been regulated into non-existence? No, it has not. A lie.

The FAA is not trying to "kill experimental." Your thread title insinuation is unsubstantiated drama, and likewise, a lie.

Your half-quote of the linked article is likewise, untrue, as you cherry-picked the bit that supported your unfounded sky-is-falling claim, and is, therefore, a lie.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 04:28 PM
  #7  
Occasional box hauler
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,683
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
Yes.



Did I say this? No, you said this. I just quoted you saying it.

Speak for yourself, if you're able, not for me, and don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I speak very well for myself.



General aviation exists as a function of government regulation, as does your pilot certificate. At no point has the government ever regulated it into non-existence. Your statement is patently false; a lie.

Has general aviation been regulated into non-existence? No, it has not. A lie.

Has experimental aviation been regulated into non-existence? No, it has not. A lie.

The FAA is not trying to "kill experimental." Your thread title insinuation is unsubstantiated drama, and likewise, a lie.

Your half-quote of the linked article is likewise, untrue, as you cherry-picked the bit that supported your unfounded sky-is-falling claim, and is, therefore, a lie.
You are completely full of $hit. This will dramatically impact the practical usability of thousands of experimental aircraft around the country. There will be no safety benefit, but the FAA will hire dozens of additional bureaucrats to handles the LODAs and someone’s empire will grow. This will financially impact a significant chunk of GA in a negative manner. There is no benefit to this change in regulation other than creating more taxpayer funded jobs that accomplish nothing.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 07-09-2021, 06:44 PM
  #8  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Default

Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr View Post
There is no benefit to this change in regulation other than creating more taxpayer funded jobs that accomplish nothing.
This isn't a regulatory change. You don't understand that, do you?

Comprehension is key.

This does not create more "taxpayer funded jobs." Show your reference to prove otherwise. You can't.

What regulation has changed? Show it. You can't.

Perhaps you should read about the purpose and the reason behind this regulatory clarification.

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/1091C7E2...C3EB9B628.ashx

This stems from a legal appeal to an emergency cease and desist order, the appeal brought by Warbird Adventures, regarding paid rides in their limited category aircraft. Based on the appeal, AOPA, EAA, and GAMA sent for clarification from the Administrator, and the policy clarification is the result of that request. You knew that, right?

The court dismissed Warbird Adventures appeal (refused to hear it; dismissed Warbird Adventures petition for review of the emergency order). You knew that too?

The FAA has moved to address not only flight instruction but paid rides in special airworthiness aircraft, especially in light of recent high profile mishaps involving public loss of life. The Collings B-17 at Windsor Locks was one such event that has contributed to this scrutiny.

In the case of the LODA interim requirement (pending publication on the 12th), the FAA has clarified that authorization will be given individually, but is made simple and issuable at the FSDO level with an easy request with minimal information, and moreover, it can be issued to the owner or the instructor. The FAA has long had injunction against the use of experimental category aircraft for commercial purposes, with very limited exception, and that includes instruction. In this case, the FAA is addressing the disparity between using an experimental aircraft to provide instruction, and giving instruction to an owner in an experimental aircraft.

Despite the EAA's assertion to the contrary (the EAA's petition for clarification, ironically, is what drove this), this isn't new policy, nor is it "killing" experimental aviation...and certainly not general aviation. This is clarification regarding policy for special airworthiness certification, and doesn't impact certified production aircraft. You knew this too, right?

Last edited by JohnBurke; 07-09-2021 at 06:55 PM.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 07-14-2021, 09:46 PM
  #9  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,017
Default

Published:

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...rtain-aircraft

It should be noted that the regulation already reflected this, as found in 14 CFR 91.319, and was clarified as recently as 2014 in a Chief Legal Counsel letter of interpretation (Letter to G. Morris), regarding limited category aircraft.

The FAA notes that because there is no standard for experimental aircraft, while giving proficiency training in a specific aircraft enhances safety (thus the LODA authorization), the experimental certification is not and never was intended for flight training toward a certificate or rating, and the FAA has always encouraged the use of type certificated aircraft for that purpose.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 07-18-2021, 07:37 AM
  #10  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
The FAA notes that because there is no standard for experimental aircraft, while giving proficiency training in a specific aircraft enhances safety (thus the LODA authorization), the experimental certification is not and never was intended for flight training toward a certificate or rating, and the FAA has always encouraged the use of type certificated aircraft for that purpose.
Yeah, not particularly unreasonable.
rickair7777 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
docav8tor
Safety
7
08-18-2019 04:04 PM
ClearRight
Regional
255
08-14-2014 07:48 AM
FEtrip7
Cargo
38
02-16-2012 02:25 PM
USMC3197
Regional
66
11-12-2009 06:54 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices