Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: How are you going to deal with this?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    60

    Question How are you going to deal with this?

    Interesting bit from the FAA. Considering insurance dictates for getting insured, this letter could throw a wrench into transition training and initial training for the pilot just finishing his aircraft.

    https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2...A_GAMA_EAA.pdf

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,305
    This just means that the FAA is going to process a LOT of LODA's (Letter Of Deviation Authority). Since FAA lives on paperwork I assume that the groups named in the FAA letter will write a pro-forma LODA application and the FSDO's will issue them as needed. The FAA is in the safety, oversight, and paperwork business and there is no reason for FAA to take any other action. They can claim a trifecta of process. Could the higher levels of FAA initiate the rulemaking process? That costs $$ from a different budget.

    Stay tuned.

    Wes

  3. #3
    Mayhemxpc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia
    Posts
    789
    This seems to be a very carefully worded letter that only makes things more confusing. The position that EAA. AOPA, and others, as referred to in the letter, is consistent with previous positions taken by the FAA that a CFI is not operating an aircraft for compensation of hire when he is conducting flight instruction for hire, rather, he is being compensated for his instruction. This has been interpreted to mean that a CFI does not need to hold a second class medical. Basic Med is enough. This has been particularly pointed out in the last two CFI renewal courses I have gone through. The language in this letter could affect that.

    Smmary: If the CFI is being paid to conduct flight training in a C-172, is he operating that aircraft for compensation or hire? Previous interpretations say no, this letter calls that into question.
    Chris Mayer
    N424AF
    www.o2cricket.com

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,305
    FAA legal is its own FAA. Since the original party was so dumb as to push this up to US District Court the FAA and us must now live with the 2021 output of that court. All previous practice is no longer applicable and everyone gets to work with the new reality. The intent of the regulation may not have been what the lawyers are stating but the words of the regulation say what the lawyers are stating. So everyone, including the other parts of the FAA get to deal with it.

    Never ask a lawyer a question unless you already know the answer.

    Wes

  5. #5
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    868
    The warbird guys were abusing the system, selling rides and calling it "instruction", and the court rightfully slapped them. Unfortunately, the court knew nothing about the wider ramifications of their decision and how it would affect legitimate instruction. The FAA knows this, and is carefully working on their interpretation to allow training, but it'll take time for the dust to settle.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    The warbird guys were abusing the system, selling rides and calling it "instruction", and the court rightfully slapped them. Unfortunately, the court knew nothing about the wider ramifications of their decision and how it would affect legitimate instruction. The FAA knows this, and is carefully working on their interpretation to allow training, but it'll take time for the dust to settle.

    Current FARs rule as far as I'm concerned. Everything else is hearsay.

  7. #7
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc View Post
    This seems to be a very carefully worded letter that only makes things more confusing. The position that EAA. AOPA, and others, as referred to in the letter, is consistent with previous positions taken by the FAA that a CFI is not operating an aircraft for compensation of hire when he is conducting flight instruction for hire, rather, he is being compensated for his instruction. This has been interpreted to mean that a CFI does not need to hold a second class medical. Basic Med is enough. This has been particularly pointed out in the last two CFI renewal courses I have gone through. The language in this letter could affect that.

    Smmary: If the CFI is being paid to conduct flight training in a C-172, is he operating that aircraft for compensation or hire? Previous interpretations say no, this letter calls that into question.
    If left alone, this could prevent a lot of CFIs from instructing. It could also kill the concept of a Sport CFI dead. I'm a Private Pilot flying with SP privileges, no medical. I can get a Sport CFI ticket. It would, however, be of almost zero use to me -- since according to this I would need a Commercial certificate an a second class medical to be compensated in any way for instruction or flight reviews.

    It would also make a CFI giving me a flight review in my own E-LSA airplane illegal.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. Building a Fisher Celebrity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •