Experimental LODA Requirements - We’re not happy until you’re not happy…

[akomara1]

Useless bureaucracy…….

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...egory-aircraft

[RVBottomly]

Up until I read that, I had never known that something called "primary category" existed. At first I thought they were talking about normal category needing a LODA.

Still a huge hassle. The FAA now says their prior guidance was wrong and if you want training in your experimental, you need to apply for a LODA. But it is electronic now, so we should all be happy.

[CharlieN]

But it is electronic now, so we should all be happy.

Still need someone to press the OK button on their end, There just might be 10 or 20K requests coming in for a very few people to read and respond too.
And do we need a new approval for each training session?
Maybe I do not understand the fine print but this is very far from promoting safety.

[cubdrvr]

useless bureaucracy…….

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...egory-aircraft

loda bs

[CharlieN]

Guess we could always front your instructor for 30 or 40 meals at a time

And is this new policy that will affect many people just to keep the Collings Foundation from giving rides in warbirds?

[RaisedByWolves]

I see lots of donations and bartering In the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[akomara1]

I had no idea regarding the primary category as well. This is a continuation of the FAA’s disdain for grassroots general aviation, and further government overreach in an effort to control using safety as an excuse. We don’t need protected from ourselves by entities that have no interest in our safety and well being. We should all be responsible adults, capable of weighing and assessing our own risks. We fall further and further into the nanny state inch by inch each day with measures such as these. The FAA serves no real purpose, and is permeated by incapable bureaucrats, devoid of knowledge of anything related to aviation.

[frequent_flyer]

I just applied for a LODA to give instruction in my experimental aircraft and to give instruction to owners in their experimental aircraft. We'll see what happens. Worst case I'll have to keep instructing at the old rate of 2 beers per flight hour.

I had been considering applying for a LODA under the old interpretation (LODA needed to charge for use of the airplane) but I think that will have to wait until this mess settles down.

I assume the current FAA policy document 8900.1 (attached) should be consigned to the recycle bin.

[CharlieN]

Worst case I'll have to keep instructing at the old rate of 2 beers per flight hour.

Now to clarify, is this at the Bud/Miller price or the BrewDog, End of History price range?

[mam90]

The FAA’s definition of compensation is very broad, I’m sure receiving beer falls within their definition. I once saw a ruling that stated a low time pilot ferrying an aircraft for free was being compensated by building flighttime.

[akomara1]

Guess I won’t charge at all for flight instruction. It’ll cost you extra for ground instruction though.

[CharlieN]

I once saw a ruling that stated a low time pilot ferrying an aircraft for free was being compensated by building flighttime.

Never thought about not logging flight time would keep you out of trouble.

[frequent_flyer]

I once saw a ruling that stated a low time pilot ferrying an aircraft for free was being compensated by building flighttime.

FAA took the position that anyone volunteer towing for a gliding club was receiving compensation in the form flight of time and a commercial certificate was required. It took a lot a back and forth between Soaring Society of America and FAA to get that resolved. At one point FAA was going to allow private pilots to tow as long as they didn't log the flight time! I couldn't stand the bullshit and got a restricted commercial (later became unrestricted).

[mam90]

FAA took the position that anyone volunteer towing for a gliding club was receiving compensation in the form flight time and a commercial certificate was required. It took a lot a back and forth between Soaring Society of America and FAA to get that resolved. At one point FAA was going to allow private pilots to tow as long as they didn't log the flight time! I couldn't stand the bullshit and got a restricted commercial (later became unrestricted).

Ya, over 40 years in commercial aviation dealing with this kind of stuff convinced me to take early retirement at 59. Then I did some helicopter flying part time for fun, but only did the power line stuff because it was part 91. Now I just fly for me, and try to stay under the radar - figuratively and literally.

[skywagon8a]

I suspected when an airline pilot/airline executive was named to be the FAA administrator the already shaky FAA would soon forget and discourage general aviation. This is just one step in that direction. No ferry permits by A&Ps was another.

[RedOwlAirfield]

Never thought about not logging flight time would keep you out of trouble.

Way back in the late 90's early 00's I got to know most of the guys at the local FAA in a semi - social - friendly - not - really - professional kinda set up. Several of them told me never to log anything but the required currency stuff - since I wasn't worried about "time building" at the time. They said that if it wasn't in the book they couldn't write a violation for it. They also told me that when asked by them for my logbook I had 48 hours to produce it, so I could always add the recent stuff from memory during that time.

I'm not sure if all of that is still valid - or if the insurance folks would feel the same way - but that was what I was told - unofficially of course.

So maybe logging everything all the time might not be right for everyone.

[stewartb]

So they revised the process to stay legal after a judge embarrassed them. It looks simple enough to do. I guess I’ll use my Cessna if I have to pay for a BFR, but not til after I get a ferry permit to get it to town for an annual. Did that last year, too. Easy peasy. As for training in my Exp? I have lots of volunteers for that. No money required.

[skywagon8a]

Keep two books. One for yourself and one for the FAA.

[Richgj3]

The FAA’s definition of compensation is very broad, I’m sure receiving beer falls within their definition. I once saw a ruling that stated a low time pilot ferrying an aircraft for free was being compensated by building flighttime.

Yes, this absolutely happened. I remember when it did. The guy was a Private Pilot. I used to ferry a friend’s Stearman and WACO for expenses. I figured I’d never get time in them any other way. I was a Commercial pilot at the time. He did buy me a nice Bose headset as a gift.

[CharlieN]

As for training in my Exp? I have lots of volunteers for that. No money required.

Oh but they will get flight time

[stewartb]

There are two reasons to train. 1-to satisfy FAA or insurer requirements. I can do that in my Cessna easily enough. The 2nd reason is to improve my skills in my plane. I don’t need log entries for that. I expect I’ll request a LODA in the coming months just to have it. With a 48 month certificate life the problem is solved for a useful period of time. Maybe I’ll time it with my BasicMed exam. I don’t see sending an email request as much or a burden. My days are filled with problems and solutions. This one seems pretty easy to manage.

[CharlieN]

I am curious what brought up the recent talk about this rule, it looks like it has been in the books for quite some time.

[stewartb]

A court ruling on a CFR regulation. I'll bet somebody at the FAA got called to the carpet for that one.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...-training-case

[mvivion]

There is more to this whole mess than just whether the owner and/or instructor in an EX/Limited/etc category airplane has to get a LODA.

The foundation of flight instruction forever has been that the Flight Instructor in any airplane is not of necessity serving as Pilot in Command. Therefore, an instructor who does not hold a medical certificate can flight instruct, as long as the "other pilot", ie: the pilot receiving instruction, is fully qualified to act as PIC. So, a CFI with Basic Med or no medical at all, can provide things like Flight Reviews, insurance checkouts, etc, as long as the other person is legal to fly the plane.

And, a CFI with Basic Med has been able to instruct in almost any capacity, including primary instruction, instrument instruction, etc.

Till now, that is. The Court case that devolved from that Collings accident has effectively changed that definition of a CFI, to one as a "commercial" or flying for hire category.

Which means, if this sticks, ANY CFI will be required to hold a Class 2 medical to instruct.

That's going to remove a lot of very experienced flight instructors from the field, frankly.

Try to find someone who has a bunch of experience in a particular flavor of old airplane, and often times the only folks who meet the insurance requirements don't hold a medical.

Time will tell where this goes, but it has the potential to force a major change, and it doesn't seem that the FAA is interested in defending the status quo.

MTV

[dgapilot]

Yup, trying to decide if I go back to a special issuance 2nd class after being basic med for a couple years now. This really sucks!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RaisedByWolves]

What if you charge for ground instruction and fly for free if you don’t have a medical? This about sums up my recent experience with the faa. They are going to make outlaws out of all of us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mvivion]

What if you charge for ground instruction and fly for free if you don’t have a medical? This about sums up my recent experience with the faa. They are going to make outlaws out of all of us


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There've been all sorts of attempts at "work arounds" when it comes to flying for compensation. Ferry pilots trying to build time, with a private certificate seem to figure regularly there, and several have been bit by the FAA.

I flight instruct and ask the "student" to donate to a Foundation that offers flight training scholarships. Makes no difference when it comes to the definition.....still POTENTIALLY a "commercial operation".

MTV

[skywagon8a]

Ferry pilots trying to build time, with a private certificate seem to figure regularly there, and several have been bit by the FAA.

What is the difference between "Ferry pilots trying to build time" and "Ferry pilots flying for the fun of it"?

I accumulated a lot of hours in a lot of different types of airplanes, Not once was any of it for any other reason than flying for the fun of it. In the end, it helped finding jobs, but finding jobs and getting flying "tickets" was not the purpose.

[frequent_flyer]

What is the difference between "Ferry pilots trying to build time" and "Ferry pilots flying for the fun of it"?

FAA don't know if they are coming or going as this recent change of policy demonstrates. At one time during the gliding club private tow pilot fiasco FAA changed from "can't log the time" to "can log the time but can't use towards any more advanced rating".

I never relied on income from instructing, or towing, or flying jumpers but, at that time, I kept a class 2 and a commercial to be "squeaky clean". Now I'm retired from an aerospace career I need flying income even less. What I can't do on basic med isn't likely to happen. With nearly 6,000 hours in my log books, logging an extra hour is no compensation or credit for anything. I fly simply because I enjoy flying.

[mvivion]

What is the difference between "Ferry pilots trying to build time" and "Ferry pilots flying for the fun of it"?

I accumulated a lot of hours in a lot of different types of airplanes, Not once was any of it for any other reason than flying for the fun of it. In the end, it helped finding jobs, but finding jobs and getting flying "tickets" was not the purpose.

Pete,
the cases I’m familiar with, the FAA determined that actually logging the hours of a ferry flight was “compensation”.

Go figure.

MTV

[skywagon8a]

Pete,
the cases I’m familiar with, the FAA determined that actually logging the hours of a ferry flight was “compensation”.

Go figure.

MTV

Mike, In the interests of staying in sj's good graces I have to say "no comment". This discussion could easily get out of control.

[RedOwlAirfield]

the cases I’m familiar with, the FAA determined that actually logging the hours of a ferry flight was “compensation”.

MTV;

So if the pilot doesn't log the time - it's all good? Remember we're only required to log time germane to currency. So despite what most pilots think you can actually fly and not log it. If it's free time and you're going to be current anyway it stills sounds like a good deal to me.

Interesting that a rule like this has absolutely nothing to do with flight safety - at all. This sort of thing is what makes it hard to take the FAA seriously.

ROA

[skywagon8a]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...m_medium=email

[mvivion]

MTV;

So if the pilot doesn't log the time - it's all good? Remember we're only required to log time germane to currency. So despite what most pilots think you can actually fly and not log it. If it's free time and you're going to be current anyway it stills sounds like a good deal to me.

Interesting that a rule like this has absolutely nothing to do with flight safety - at all. This sort of thing is what makes it hard to take the FAA seriously.

ROA

Who knows? Bear in mind that a private pilot would be absolutely legal to fly a particular airplane (assuming they are appropriately rated). So, if they're not taking ANY compensation, and their only goal is simply to build experience, why would they "need" a Commercial certificate, or a medical?

Please don't look for logic here. And, please don't expect logic to prevail.

The current "decision" unfortunately opens the door for further decisions, none of which are likely to promote aviation or aviation safety.

Opinion only,
MTV

[RedOwlAirfield]

So, if they're not taking ANY compensation, and their only goal is simply to build experience, why would they "need" a Commercial certificate, or a medical?

As claimed earlier in the thread, the FAA regards the experience as compensation. The situation I'm interested in is where the pilot is merely doing a favor for a friend. That is to say, my friend has to get his plane to the mechanic but is out of town for a week. I can do it for him and his plane can be ready to go upon his return. If I don't claim the experience, all I get out of this is doing a favor for a friend. Mind you, helping one's friends is a great thing but still of no redeemable value.

And yes I realize that when dealing with the "gubmint" common sense and logic are often scarce commodities. I'm not overly proud of it, but the last 10 years of my working career I worked for a well known federal government. I am intimately familiar.

I don't expect anything written here to have any effect whatsoever, but showing that there are things that can happen that do not fall under the preconceptions the regulators have used may lead to others. Pepper the preconceptions with enough contradictory facts, and the basis for the interpretation fails.

Either way, shining the light on governmental lunacy, even in a private forum such as this, is a good thing. One never can tell from where progress will begin.

[RaisedByWolves]

This must be what the decided to spend all there free time on now that the Fsdo’s don’t do ferry permits or field approvals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stewartb]

18 years on this site, and this is definitely on the short list of worst threads ever. Quite possibly the worst.

All this yak about the FAA causing a problem is misguided. A Federal Judge heard a case challenging an FAA ruling to shut down a warbird carrier who gave rides under the guise of instruction. Who pushed them to challenge that limited ruling? I’ve read it was AOPA but I don’t know for sure. Regardless, the case ends up in front of a judge who wrote an opinion that flight instructors are providing a professional service for compensation, the roots of commerce, and that by being present in the aircraft they’re carrying passengers. The ruling that I read sounds credible, and by the reaction of the FAA I believe they agree the ruling will likely withstand any challenge.

Moving on, how it applies to my experimental Cub is this. CFR91.319 (a) defines limitations on commercial ops.

§ 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate -

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

And also written into the regs is part (h).

(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority.

(1) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at any time.

(2) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority to the FAA at least 60 days before the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the regulations for the deviation requested.

See? There’s nothing new here except an aggressive effort to get these letters distributed.

Fortunately for me the FAA recognized the implications of the court ruling and quickly set up a program to get permission letters into EXP owner’s hands so they can continue to receive instruction in their planes. What does this mean for the future of instructors? I’m not immersed in that world and don’t know that answer, but given that my instructors maintain 1st Class medicals and ATPs I don’t anticipate any problems. How AOPA has responded in their press release is embarrassing. Whoever wrote that release for Mark Baker must be fresh out of high school. The FAA is not the problem here. A court ruling is, and apparently AOPA has some responsibility in that. Congratulations, AOPA.

[dgapilot]

The problem FAA has is that it is in direct conflict with prior LOIs. The most significant being the Fretwell letter back in 1995. Fretwell - (1995) Legal Interpretation (faa.gov) In that legal opinion, FAA Chief Counsel made the interpretation that Flight Instructors were being compensated for the instruction given, and not for piloting the aircraft. As such, only Private Pilot privileges' were required while in the aircraft. This new ruling from a judge throws out 26 years of precedent for CFIs not acting as Commercial Pilots, but rather Private Pilots while providing instruction under their CFI. It's going to be interesting to see how FAA digs out of this one!

In any case, I sent my email to FAA yesterday requesting a LODA to flight instruct in any aircraft for which I'm rated. We'll see how that goes over! I would suggest everyone that holds a CFI to send a similar letter and absolutely flood their in box so they are overloaded!

[CharlieN]

All this yak about the FAA causing a problem is misguided. A Federal Judge heard a case challenging an FAA ruling to shut down a warbird carrier who gave rides under the guise of instruction. Who pushed them to challenge that limited ruling? I’ve read it was AOPA but I don’t know for sure. Regardless, the case ends up in front of a judge who wrote an opinion that flight instructors are providing a professional service for compensation, the roots of commerce, and that by being present in the aircraft they’re carrying passengers. The ruling that I read sounds credible, and by the reaction of the FAA I believe they agree the ruling will likely withstand any challenge.

Moving on, how it applies to my experimental Cub is this. CFR91.319 (a) defines limitations on commercial ops.

And all of this stems from the B-17 909 crash at BDL, the major operational deviance's of the Collings Foundation and their "Bob Collings" steadfast refusal to operate under regulations. His son Rob had done a masterful job creating the world for the warbird ride experience to operate under. But since their operation was shut down during the crash investigation with their refusal to comply, this now is at least for now all dumped on us. This is what Stewart's note is referring to. This is not a trivial case which hopefully gets dealt with properly.

[stewartb]

For guys interested in the ruling, here’s an article that touches on the ruling and earlier case references.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/industr...ing/25805/amp/