What's new
Van's Air Force

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

So how are you going to deal with this?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Letter of Deviation Authority

I always assumed a L.O.D.A. would need to be in place, or that the aircraft be manufactured by the rated manufacturing authority and so certificated.

If I am not wrong then that is how Mike Seager passes the letter of the law, since his training aircraft are built by Van's as a manufacturer.

The rest of us need the L.O.D.A. It's a hoop to jump but not impossible.
 
Wow, this is wild. So if I want to hire an instructor to shoot some approaches in my airplane, I need to get a LODA now? Doesn't sound like it'll advance flight safety at all.
 
Guys, this is a huge deal, which is why ALL the alphabet groups have gotten together to challenge the FAA on it. What can YOU do about it? Support the alphabet groups and write your representatives.

Doug’s Rule #3 applies - We’re not going to solve it here.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Not a Lawyer

I didn't see what was in the originating letter or the events that lead to this discussion.

But I think there is a distinction between 'Operating' for hire and operating an aircraft legally while at the same time hiring somebody else. In other words the RV owner/operator who hires somebody to take their picture while flying or provide advice isn't themselves being compensated, or at least not in the way most flight instruction takes place.

Any legal beagles out there?
 
Not a lawyer, but is says this at the bottom:
Owners of experimental aircraft may obtain deviation authority from section 91.319(a)(2) in accordance with section 91.319(h) for the purpose of receiving flight training from flight instructors in the owner's aircraft

Which to me basically means if you own an airplane, you still can't hire an instructor to be with you in the airplane and teach you unless you have a LODA (they can be on the ground and coach you on the radio).

Their reasoning is that when an instructor is teaching you in the airplane, this airplane is carrying a person for compensation or hire, and this is forbidden. Which to me sounds contrived, but here we are.

Surprised I haven't received an email from EAA with all caps heading about it.
 
Last bullet of Letter from Ali Bahrami

May vs Must

Must/(Shall) are the stipulating words. FAA docs even go as far as pointing out that Shall is being challenged. So much so that they stipulate that until their binding regulations can be changed Shall shall also mean Must.

But May is not a binding word.

I think it is important to read up on the Warbird's friction before we begin to make more of the response than what it actually says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top