What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

E-LSA RV-12 used for revenue flight instruction

Mich48041

Well Known Member
todehnal, I opened another thread to discuss this.
I believe what Kahuna meant is that it is legal to use an E-LSA or any experimental for paid flight instruction if certain conditions are met.
 
todehnal, I opened another thread to discuss this.
I believe what Kahuna meant is that it is legal to use an E-LSA or any experimental for paid flight instruction if certain conditions are met.

Certain conditions? Any EAB may be used for paid instruction if the pilot under instruction is the airplane owner. Or the aircraft owner has a waiver ("LODA") (usually limited to transition training). Or if the airplane owner (who is not the cfi) has allowed the use of his airplane for absolutely no cost.
 
Certain conditions? Any EAB may be used for paid instruction if the pilot under instruction is the airplane owner. Or the aircraft owner has a waiver ("LODA") (usually limited to transition training). Or if the airplane owner (who is not the cfi) has allowed the use of his airplane for absolutely no cost.

FWIW The Milwaukee FSDO will not grant LODAs for E-LSA RV-12s since there are S-LSA RV-12s.
 
todehnal, I opened another thread to discuss this.
I believe what Kahuna meant is that it is legal to use an E-LSA or any experimental for paid flight instruction if certain conditions are met.

Thanks Joe.
I guess I misunderstood Kuhuna's intentions with his slam to the discussion..........Tom
 
His intentions were to be sensitive to the families and friends of the accident victims and to ask that the discussion of regulations be taken to another thread. Wasn't slamming discussion. Politely asked that it take its own thread. Which it did thank you.
That discussion can quickly move to who was doing what with that plane which would have been inappropriate speculation. Better to just have a general discussion about compensation for instruction without it being tied to a specific accident, pilot, company, or person.
 
His intentions were to be sensitive to the families and friends of the accident victims and to ask that the discussion of regulations be taken to another thread. Wasn't slamming discussion. Politely asked that it take its own thread. Which it did thank you.
That discussion can quickly move to who was doing what with that plane which would have been inappropriate speculation. Better to just have a general discussion about compensation for instruction without it being tied to a specific accident, pilot, company, or person.

Point well taken, Sorry for the misunderstanding.........Tom
 
Back
Top