What's new
Van's Air Force

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

FAA policy on training in experimental aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thing that gets me about this is can anyone think of a reason the FAA would even deny the LODA request? It seems everyone will be just going through the paper work motion for no need whatsoever. They aren't even looking for anything in the request.

I'll be joining the write your congressman train and hope others will too.
 
FAA plicy on training in experimental aircraft

Colin,

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I want to make a point. Because of this new rule, instead of getting your flight review in the airplane you fly regularly, you will do it in a rental airplane. The rental airplane has completely different flight characteristics. Instead of practicing stalls, slow flight, steep turns, emergencies in your airplane to prepare you for a real emergency (hopefully it will never happen), you will do that in a rental airplane. That does nothing to increase safety.

This whole thing is just stupid. I think that Van's, Ran's, Zenity, Sonex, and the other kit manufacturers need to get to work on this hard.
 
I’m just trying to figure out if, with three two-seat E-AB aircraft and two pilots in our household, I need to send two emails (one for each pilot), or six (one for each pilot/aircraft combination)….at least I shouldn’t have to worry about the two single-seat aircraft! ;)

Oh well - at least its all cut-and-paste after the first one!

BTW - I agree with the “write your representative” sentiment here. The FAA Legal department has wrapped themselves into an impossible web of contradictions, and the rank-and-file FAA inspectors (who can only implement policy handed out by HQ, not interpret or change it) are the poor folks who are going to disappear under an avalanche of emails.
 
The thing that gets me about this is can anyone think of a reason the FAA would even deny the LODA request? It seems everyone will be just going through the paper work motion for no need whatsoever. They aren't even looking for anything in the request.

I'll be joining the write your congressman train and hope others will too.

Yes. My guess is that they really wanted to close the warbird loophole (where this all started) and that is why they chose this approach. It allows them to pick and choose who gets a LODA and am quite certain that the warbird outfit in FL that started all of this will not get a LODA, along with any other type of operation that appears to be leveraging it outside of traditional owner training.

That said, the way that they wrote their policy, only the CFI needs the LODA and not the owner. That opens up the loophole again for the warbird opeation. Gotta love govt ingenuity. The policy is clear that both need a loda, but contradictory on the wording of this point, stating that only one or the other needs to have one, and expect they will clarify it in the near term.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Please go back and read this thread from the beginning. The whole thing is, the faa announced today, that they are accepting and enforcing a court ruling that interprets the FAR ‘EAB aircraft may not be used for compensation’ to mean, ‘no one on board an EAB may be paid.’ The FAA says they are gearing up to give out (100’s? 1,000?, 10,000?) LODAs to get around the rule, but that will take time. If you already have a LODA, you may continue to operate for hire within the constraints of that LODA. The problem is, the majority of issued LODAs are restricted to ‘transition training only’.

As to ‘sharing expenses’, that is another can of worms that is poorly understood by many pilots, but is not relevant to this discussion.
You will be pleased to know I read it and understand. I never said LODA are for other than transition training. That was the intent of this program which was and still not a regulation. It is an exception to the Regs and someone abused it and ruined it. The court disagreed. However to be clear the case involved blatant abuse if the intent of the Reg. The court ruled on that, in the process killed the legit use and intent of the LODA program.

I'm just in disbelief, but lawyers are involved. The FAA admits it's all screwed up, a huge mess with safety and the LODA is just a bureaucratic workaround.

You say they're getting geared up to send out LODA's by the thousands? It still will have to filter down to the local FSDO and that will take time. You do know this is the federal government right? I hope I am wrong and plesently surprised.

I did gloss over the court ruling. A vintage flight school in Florida giving warbird Joyrides for compensation calling it instruction, to get around the no compensation in limited & EAB aircraft rule. So they were told to cease and desist. The "school" went to court and lost. Giving a joyride in a P-40 is a lot different than the owner of an RV8 getting dual instruction.. So again the one ruins it for the rest of us. This apparently forced FAA's hand to take a ridge interpretation void of common sense and enhancing safety. FAA knows this but the lawyers got involved. [/B]

As to your comment about my comment sharing expenses. I fully understand the regulation and AC 61-142. Bob I was partly kidding and conceded above ot was a non sequitur. However if shared expenses (gas, oil, rental) is widely misunderstood as you say, then why is that? Aren't regs suppose to be clear? Read on.

WHY are regulations misinterpreted? Even FAA has different interpretations for the same Reg and the courts contradict FAA from time to time. If you've been reading CFR's a long time you realize that they are written by lawyers for lawyers, and therefore can be ambiguous, vauge, subject to interpretation or historical precedence. That is intentional. Some FAR's are black & white and explicit, no interpretation needed.

The vague Regs can be interpreted and a common (sense) understanding becomes the norm if there is no court case. However once it goes to court and there's a ruling like this, that is the firm interpretation even if it doesn't fit with the previous spirit of the Reg orcommon sense understanding. I actually see the logic and why court ruled like this. They had no other legal opinion they could make. A regulation is needed to the no compensation rule for EAB and limited airworthiness aircraft with specific limits spelled out to enhance safety while prohibiting abuse.
 
Last edited:
I have a flight review due next month, does anyone understand exactly how many LODA's I'll need?
-one for my plane (I'm pretty confident that's for sure)
-do I need a separate letter for me as a pilot?
-does my CFI need a separate letter?
 
There has always been a process in place to allow a person or entity to get a LODA to allow for charging $ for the use of an experimental aircraft owned by them, along with their provided CFI services.

Anyone that has been providing transition training in the past has one of these (Van's Aircraft included).
The LODA's typically specify that it is valid for transition training of a certificated pilot only (can not be used for primary flight training).

The new issue will have no effect on what has been happening for many years regarding transition training in an aircraft provided by someone else.

The only change is for those of us that want to use a (paid) CFI in our own experimental aircraft for aero training, flight review, etc.
 
Will getting a LODA affect insurance rates? I thought the reason so few have LODA's now is because the insurance is so expensive?
 
Will getting a LODA affect insurance rates? I thought the reason so few have LODA's now is because the insurance is so expensive?

all policies that I have seen allow the owner to receive dual instruction in his/her own plane. Getting a LODA doesn't change anything in that regard. If you give training to others in your plane, you can expect a significant increase in insurance.

Larry
 
Question for Airplanes Still In Construction

Does anyone know about the new LODA rules regarding the experimental airplanes that are still being constructed but the owners/builders have reserved the FAA registration number? Since the registration number is not official, it is doubtful the LODA application will be approved until DAR signoff.

Another question regarding the hiring of test pilot for the first flight. Will the test pilot have to get an individual LODA for a specific registration since he/she will be compensated for the numbers of test flight in the builder airplane?
 
LODA requested

LODA requested and emails sent to congressman and senators!
let them know the FAA is jeopardizing SAFETY!

is the impact of this going to drastically reduce transition training and have a bunch of 172 and cherokee pilots hopping into RV's and Lancairs with no training? sounds scary to me!
 
There has always been a process in place to allow a person or entity to get a LODA to allow for charging $ for the use of an experimental aircraft owned by them, along with their provided CFI services.

Anyone that has been providing transition training in the past has one of these (Van's Aircraft included).
The LODA's typically specify that it is valid for transition training of a certificated pilot only (can not be used for primary flight training).

The new issue will have no effect on what has been happening for many years regarding transition training in an aircraft provided by someone else.

The only change is for those of us that want to use a (paid) CFI in our own experimental aircraft for aero training, flight review, etc.
Thanks for that clarification, Scott. The bold section confirms what I thought I read - and requested a LODA accordingly.

Question: is the LODA typically in-force until rescinded or only for specific events?
 
Question: is the LODA typically in-force until rescinded or only for specific events?

The EAA article suggests that the "new" owner training LODAs are valid for a period of 48 months.

There are strange inconsistencies in what has been published, so I wouldn't count on anything until we actually start receiving LODAs.
 
This rule is counterproductive to the FAA's own mission of safety. I agree with all the previous comments but especially those that say they've created a regulation for a problem that did not exist. Talk about mudding the waters.
 
I have a flight review due next month, does anyone understand exactly how many LODA's I'll need?
-one for my plane (I'm pretty confident that's for sure)
-do I need a separate letter for me as a pilot?
-does my CFI need a separate letter?

The answer is none: You don't need a LODA to do a flight review.

-Marc
 
I assume that if a CFI may not charge for flight training, s/he can also not LOG the time? After all, the time itself is compensation and has value to the CFI or others building toward an advanced certificate of flying commercially.
 
This rule is counterproductive to the FAA's own mission of safety. I agree with all the previous comments but especially those that say they've created a regulation for a problem that did not exist. Talk about mudding the waters.

I would argue that a problem did exist, but they picked a poor way of addressing it. They wanted to shut down the guys that were giving joy rides in warbirds under the umbrella of training in a limited category.

Larry
 
The answer is none: You don't need a LODA to do a flight review.

-Marc

according to the FAA's own documents, a flight review requires "1 hour of flight training and one hour of ground training." Not sure why you think a LODA is not required if the CFI is compensated for that flight training.

Larry
 
Last edited:
As I read it, I have to apply for a LODA for each individual aircraft I wish to provide instruction in, since E-AB 'Make' is unique to the aircraft. Brilliant!

And asking for the home base for Owner LODA requests makes me think there will be some sort of geographic restriction incorporated into this. No more flying your plane to an available instructor to receive the particular training you might need.
 
Last edited:
As I read it, I have to apply for a LODA for each individual aircraft I wish to provide instruction in, since E-AB 'Make' is unique to the aircraft. Brilliant!

according to the release, Make model and registration number was listed only for owners applying for a LODA. CFI's need only provide their certificate number and flight instructor number.
 
according to the release, Make model and registration number was listed only for owners applying for a LODA. CFI's need only provide their certificate number and flight instructor number.

Nope. Per the actual FAA document to be published, applicaiton line item #7, emphasis added:

Aircraft make/model in which you will receive or provide instruction
 
It seems a lot of folks are blaming the FAA for a problem created by a judge in a specific court case. As I read it, the judge went beyond the question at hand and expanded his ruling to include the part about the instructor acting as a commercial pilot ("operating the aircraft for compensation"). That not only blew up the experiential regulation, it also blew up the CFIs without a 1st/2nd Class medical because they are now considered commercial pilots receiving compensation for aircraft operation.

At least the FAA acknowledged the issue is the regulation the judge based the ruling on supersedes FAA policy guidance that has allowed the status quo we enjoyed. The LODA is a temporary patch being offered as an out for the experimental community, and yes I can believe it will take four years to change the Regulation via the Rule Making process. Contacting your Rep/Senator is great, just remember that any law Congress passes still goes through the FAA rule process for implementation, and that will take years. Look at the history of BASIC MED if you want to see how long it takes the FAA make rules to comply with the law as passed by Congress.

One other item not mentioned is the impact on the FAA Wings program that has flight profiles with a CFI as part of the phase progression in that program. Hopefully the FAA policy guidance will be that LODAs cover not only transition and flight review training, but will include those wanting to use their aircraft for IFR and Commercial ratings as well.

A LODA is now just another piece of paper you need along with your registration, SAWC, and OLs to keep some judge or the FAA from dumping on you when bad stuff happens.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
 
I called the EAA this morning at the number located at the end of the article, 800-564-6322 and expressed my concern. I spoke to several people there, and a Tom with governmental affairs, he said they are working on it. He indicated that they wanted to hear from “us” but not sure how much good it will do if we all called them, EAA?

I’m currently working towards the end of my instrument training, just what I need if it results in a delay of training and possibly the check ride. I’ve got a lot of time and money invested in this training.

Mike
 
Go to a restaurant, get food, Pay bill, But left a tip on the table.
Guess the tips are going to be a lot larger on the flight training and BFR end for sure.
It's not compensation just a tip that is of free will.
Art
 
And asking for the home base for Owner LODA requests makes me think there will be some sort of geographic restriction incorporated into this. .

They ask for home base because all these loda requests will be routed to your local FSDO. The FSDOs will become a huge bottleneck in this process.
 
It seems a lot of folks are blaming the FAA for a problem created by a judge in a specific court case. As I read it, the judge went beyond the question at hand and expanded his ruling to include the part about the instructor acting as a commercial pilot ("operating the aircraft for compensation"). That not only blew up the experiential regulation, it also blew up the CFIs without a 1st/2nd Class medical because they are now considered commercial pilots receiving compensation for aircraft operation.

At least the FAA acknowledged the issue is the regulation the judge based the ruling on supersedes FAA policy guidance that has allowed the status quo we enjoyed. The LODA is a temporary patch being offered as an out for the experimental community, and yes I can believe it will take four years to change the Regulation via the Rule Making process. Contacting your Rep/Senator is great, just remember that any law Congress passes still goes through the FAA rule process for implementation, and that will take years. Look at the history of BASIC MED if you want to see how long it takes the FAA make rules to comply with the law as passed by Congress.

One other item not mentioned is the impact on the FAA Wings program that has flight profiles with a CFI as part of the phase progression in that program. Hopefully the FAA policy guidance will be that LODAs cover not only transition and flight review training, but will include those wanting to use their aircraft for IFR and Commercial ratings as well.

A LODA is now just another piece of paper you need along with your registration, SAWC, and OLs to keep some judge or the FAA from dumping on you when bad stuff happens.

John Salak
RV-12 N896HS

So the FAA is somehow prevented from appealing a court ruling?

I'll bet if it were something the FAA *wanted* to change in the rules, they'd be fast-tracking it and we'd see the change in the minimum amount of time legally allowable. We just have to make them "want" to change it.

In the meantime...I pity the folks at FSDOs who will now be inundated with unnecessary additional paperwork, thus slowing everything down. And I suspect a whole bunch of CFIs will suddenly be giving out "free" BFRs and such, and enjoying gratis expensive meals and drinks at a later time.
 
I called the EAA this morning at the number located at the end of the article, 800-564-6322 and expressed my concern. I spoke to several people there, and a Tom with governmental affairs, he said they are working on it.

Mike, did they give any indication that activities such as working towards additional ratings (e.g. IFR) are not intended to be excluded?

The most alarming part of this publication to me was the part where the FAA indicated they didn’t want people to get training for additional ratings using experimental aircraft:

“The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege.”


I can handle jumping through a few hoops to get an LODA if it’s good for 48 months and allows me to train for additional ratings, but if we can’t use our planes to pursue additional skills it’s a major impact.

Jerald
 
The LODA's under the old rule were only good for transition training. I explored one 3 years ago. The reading I did said that if a CFI was doing transition training in a tailwheel aircraft, he could not sign off a tailwheel endorsement also. It also said that while doing transition training, it could not include a flight review. It was very limited. It also does not make sense but that is the FAA.
 
Mike, did they give any indication that activities such as working towards additional ratings (e.g. IFR) are not intended to be excluded?

The most alarming part of this publication to me was the part where the FAA indicated they didn’t want people to get training for additional ratings using experimental aircraft:

“The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege.”


I can handle jumping through a few hoops to get an LODA if it’s good for 48 months and allows me to train for additional ratings, but if we can’t use our planes to pursue additional skills it’s a major impact.

Jerald

I wouldn’t panic yet. The above quote was issued under the ‘old interpretation’, and the LODA was needed for giving instruction to others in an airplane that was not theirs, e.g., there was no question the airplane was being used for hire, for commercial use, in the ordinary sense of the word. The FAA wanted to limit actual commercial use to just those circumstances when there was no alternative. Now they’re talking about something different, using the LODA process to return to the previous status quo.
 
The LODA's under the old rule were only good for transition training. I explored one 3 years ago. The reading I did said that if a CFI was doing transition training in a tailwheel aircraft, he could not sign off a tailwheel endorsement also. It also said that while doing transition training, it could not include a flight review. It was very limited. It also does not make sense but that is the FAA.

My concern is that they specifically included the statement:

“The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with a few exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading toward the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege.”

in this latest publication targeting LODAs for people getting instruction in their own plane.

This implies to me that they wouldn’t approve a LODA for an owner wanting to use their personal airplane to train for their pilot’s license or IFR rating.

Jerald
 
They ask for home base because all these loda requests will be routed to your local FSDO. The FSDOs will become a huge bottleneck in this process.

My current speculation is that they did the LODA thing so that they could separate the activity they support (like guys in RV's getting instruction) from the activity they don't support (guys giving joy rides in P-40's under the umbrella of instruction). I am thinking that the FSDO guys will rubber stamp the former and hoping there isn't too bad of a delay.

This creates a real hornet's nest for me, as my son is half way through PPL training in our 6 and am unsure how to proceed after Monday. I need to get him finished up before he goes back to school in August.

Larry
 
There's a ton of ambiguity right now. A little patience is in order. I'm going to send the requisite information to the published email address, and see what comes back. (In fact, I have done so.) While I can't imagine that the FAA would intentionally seek to preclude an aircraft owner/operator from training in a specific aircraft that he or she has equipped and actually owns and operates under Part 91, they've done some things I didn't imagine, already. However, until we see the terms included in the actual LODAs that get issued under the new rules, everything is speculation. You can panic now, but it won't change anything in the meantime.
 
). I am thinking that the FSDO guys will rubber stamp the former and hoping there isn't too bad of a delay.
Larry

We can only hope. I currently hold the ‘old’ LODA, limited to ‘transition training only’ and ‘only for those with a bona fide need’. To get it, I:
1. Spent about two or three hours in reading the requirements, writing the required letters, training outlines, etc.
2. Spent 20 minutes on the phone with the FSDO, explaining their own rules to them.
3. Spent 30 minutes in person at the FSDO with an inspector, going over the five or so pages of legalese, signing in multiple places, etc.

IMHO this will be a painfully slow process.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the FAA cannot invoke their emergency rule making authority, and simply clarify 91.319(a)(2) by adding ‘this section does not apply to compensated flight instruction, as long as compensation is limited to direct payment for instruction only, and the cfi does not furnish the aircraft.’
 
Last edited:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the FAA cannot invoke their emergency rule making authority, and simply clarify 91.319(a)(2) by adding ‘this section does not apply to compensated flight instruction, as long as compensation is limited to direct payment for instruction only, and the cfi does not furnish the aircraft.’

Or even something as simple as, "this section does not apply to compensated flight instruction given in an aircraft owned by the person receiving the instruction." That would cover the vast majority of us.
 
Another "solution" is for every little group of RV friends to get one of their circle qualified as a CFI to give out BFRs. Or, I guess, make that 2...somebody has to give one to the CFI, right?
 
according to the FAA's own documents, a flight review requires "1 hour of flight training and one hour of ground training." Not sure why you think a LODA is not required if the CFI is compensated for that flight training.

Larry

I was answering Odens_14 request for how many LODAs he would need for a flight review. Anyone who needs a flight review can easily get one at pretty much any flight school. Yes you will be flying a Spam can, but is that such a big deal?

If I needed a flight review I would just ask my CFI friend to give me one. If I didn't have a good friend that would do it for free, then I'd use my C-172, (or a helicopter or a glider) I believe that you can even do a flight review in an ELB. Just pay the instructor double for the ground portion so he doesn't have to charge for the flight. Problem solved. Flight reviews are just not a big deal. Stepping off the soap box now.

-Marc
 
Another "solution" is for every little group of RV friends to get one of their circle qualified as a CFI to give out BFRs. Or, I guess, make that 2...somebody has to give one to the CFI, right?

Correct, 2. CFI's are explicitly forbidden to sign off themselves for Flight Reviews, etc.
They'l have to be really good friends, if you expect the CFI to work for free. A CFI friend of mine just added his instrument-instructor rating to his CFI certificate. The DPE charged $800 for the check ride. So just getting the rating is not cheap.
 
I was answering Odens_14 request for how many LODAs he would need for a flight review. Anyone who needs a flight review can easily get one at pretty much any flight school. Yes you will be flying a Spam can, but is that such a big deal?

If I needed a flight review I would just ask my CFI friend to give me one. If I didn't have a good friend that would do it for free, then I'd use my C-172, (or a helicopter or a glider) I believe that you can even do a flight review in an ELB. Just pay the instructor double for the ground portion so he doesn't have to charge for the flight. Problem solved. Flight reviews are just not a big deal. Stepping off the soap box now.

-Marc

Herein lies the problem, it creates an expectation that you can solve the problem by just finding someone to do it for free! Certainly CFI's didn't have to spend time and money and undergo scrutiny to earn a professional level status in the industry, don't have extra continued qualification requirements and aren't placed under the microscope when a pilot they've trained has a violation or accident, so why should they be compensated fairly for their time? (sarcasm)

The real issue is that before this decision was handed down, I could legally train a pilot in their appropriately equipped experimental, anything from PPL to instrument to flight review to transition, be confident that I didn't have to play semantics games to log it legally, and not worry who had the correct paperwork and is what I'm doing considered acceptable use of the aircraft. Now, giant gray areas, as evidenced by all the confusions and questions. Yesterday safe, today illegal. If you own an RV, you shouldn't have to rent a 172 to train or review in (okay, unless it's a 3). This problem is the FAA using a sledgehammer to kill an ant, and the irony isn't lost on me that the root cause was a company exploiting a perceived loophole in the language in the regs pertaining to fight training, and some people are responding by trying to find more loopholes, instead of standing up for common sense.
 
From the FAA policy:

“The FAA finds that, for owners of experimental aircraft seeking flight training in the aircraft they will regularly fly in the national airspace, the standard under § 91.319(h)(2) for granting a LODA has been met.“

It seems that this will be a paperwork exercise.
 
Correct, 2. CFI's are explicitly forbidden to sign off themselves for Flight Reviews, etc.
They'l have to be really good friends, if you expect the CFI to work for free. A CFI friend of mine just added his instrument-instructor rating to his CFI certificate. The DPE charged $800 for the check ride. So just getting the rating is not cheap.

Of course Bob, if a person has spent a lot of money getting their CFI specifically to make money, then yeah….but let’s use you as an example. I know you (rightly) charge for your services, but you also have over 7,000 posts here on VAF giving advice and “eduction” away to thousands of pilots for free. I have spent fifty years in aviation and a day doesn’t go by when I don’t share my experience and knowledge with builders and pilots all over the world for no recompense….

There are a couple of thousand volunteer EAA Tech Counselors and Flight Advisors that “work” for free…..and I’ve got neighbors with their CFI’s that trade favors in aviation all the time. So yes, there are CFI’s that charge by the minute, and that is their right. There are also those who choose to find other paths.

Paul
 
Of course Bob, if a person has spent a lot of money getting their CFI specifically to make money, then yeah….but let’s use you as an example. I know you (rightly) charge for your services, but you also have over 7,000 posts here on VAF giving advice and “eduction” away to thousands of pilots for free. I have spent fifty years in aviation and a day doesn’t go by when I don’t share my experience and knowledge with builders and pilots all over the world for no recompense….

There are a couple of thousand volunteer EAA Tech Counselors and Flight Advisors that “work” for free…..and I’ve got neighbors with their CFI’s that trade favors in aviation all the time. So yes, there are CFI’s that charge by the minute, and that is their right. There are also those who choose to find other paths.

Paul


Hear hear. I got my sport CFI in April. So far I haven't charged one red cent for me or my airplane, and I've GIVEN about 50 hrs of instruction since......in my airplane.
 
Last edited:
. If I didn't have a good friend that would do it for free, then I'd use my C-172, (or a helicopter or a glider)

-Marc

I think you are missing the point. If I did my BFR in a c-172 or pa-28 what’s the benefit. I would spend most of my time trying to figure out where the flap switch is rather then using the time making me safer in the plane I actually fly. So yes I could get a BFR easily but it would be a total waste of time and money missing the intent of BFRs.

Oliver
 
I think you are missing the point. If I did my BFR in a c-172 or pa-28 what’s the benefit. I would spend most of my time trying to figure out where the flap switch is rather then using the time making me safer in the plane I actually fly. So yes I could get a BFR easily but it would be a total waste of time and money missing the intent of BFRs.

Oliver

I was waiting for someone to say that! Seriously, I would be careful about saying "I'm not safe because I did my BFR in a Cessna as opposed to an experimental." If I didn't feel safe to fly I wouldn't.

Remember, 1/2 of the BFR is ground instruction. If you happen to have a multi-engine rating, and you do your BFR in a twin, are you going to say that you are not safe to fly a single?

You can also satisfy the need for a BFR by adding a rating, such as a seaplane rating. ;)

-Marc
 
I was waiting for someone to say that! Seriously, I would be careful about saying "I'm not safe because I did my BFR in a Cessna as opposed to an experimental." If I didn't feel safe to fly I wouldn't.

Remember, 1/2 of the BFR is ground instruction. If you happen to have a multi-engine rating, and you do your BFR in a twin, are you going to say that you are not safe to fly a single?

You can also satisfy the need for a BFR by adding a rating, such as a seaplane rating. ;)

-Marc

Hm. I don’t think I ever said I wouldn’t be safe. I learned to fly in Germany. Germany at least at that time didn’t require a BFR. All they required was a minimum number of hours in a 24 month period. Might still be the same not sure haven’t been there in a while… . I felt perfectly safe flying without a BFR then and I feel perfectly safe now. So not sure the BFR has any impact on my safety.

In the US I am forced to take a BFR. Now I can take two attitudes toward that:

1. It’s just an annoying regulation requirement I have to fulfill the cheapest way I can.
2. I actually truly try to learn something from the experience of the CFI giving the BFR. I always learn something from flying with a CFI or other experienced pilot. If you don’t you are not paying attention… .

So all I am saying is that this new rule has made it substantially more difficult to learn something new in a context that’s relevant to me. I am sure I learn something (e.g. where the flap switch is in the c-172 :) ) but that’s not relevant to me.

I can always get my BFR with approach 1. and keep safely and happily flying ever after but that’s just a waste of resources to fulfill a random pointless regulation … .

Oliver
 
When I completed my RV4 32 years ago, I was getting proficiency checks on Boeings and those qualified as my bi-annual. Very little comparison between the two but good enough for me. The past 14 years I've been forced to do bi-annuals in spam cans, while all the rest of my flying is in the -4, Pitts and Laser.
Again no comparison and mostly irrelevant unless the instructor wanted to see a roll in a Cessna or Piper.

So unless you can find a diminutive instructor willing to fly in the rear of a tandem that lacks controls, you get to appreciate in an hour flying the Cessna or Piper, why you normally fly one of the above.:)
 
BFR

When I completed my RV4 32 years ago, I was getting proficiency checks on Boeings and those qualified as my bi-annual. Very little comparison between the two but good enough for me. The past 14 years I've been forced to do bi-annuals in spam cans, while all the rest of my flying is in the -4, Pitts and Laser.
Again no comparison and mostly irrelevant unless the instructor wanted to see a roll in a Cessna or Piper.

So unless you can find a diminutive instructor willing to fly in the rear of a tandem that lacks controls, you get to appreciate in an hour flying the Cessna or Piper, why you normally fly one of the above.:)

There was a short period of time in the late 70's when the BFR could be done in a single sear airplane with CFI observing from ground. I did at least one in my single seat Pitts.
Warbird "check rides" in single seat airplanes are still done that way.
In the Bob Buck era of the 30's all or part of a Private Pilot check ride was don with the CAA official observing from the ground.
 
BFR

A BFR in a 172 has absolutely no relevance to flying my Wittman Tailwind taildragger.
My last flight in a 172 was six years ago. If I could not perform to a Private Check Ride level today in a 172 it's time for me to give up and I don't intend to give up.
If EAA and AOPA do not seek an immediate injunction against this then they are proving they are worthless in dealing with the FAA.
I am now very concerned about letting someone touch the controls of my EAB.
Good to remember that the Crazy Horse operation decades ago voluntarily obtained an exemption for their operation. Lee Lauderback runs a better operation than many 135 operators and even some small airlines.
More recently Collings operated a real shade tree operation and had the audacity to get in a pi--ing contest with the FAA over P51 rides. I sincerely believe that Collings in the reason why we are where we are at today.
 
I was waiting for someone to say that! Seriously, I would be careful about saying "I'm not safe because I did my BFR in a Cessna as opposed to an experimental."
I've done a few flight reviews in unfamiliar aircraft that I've never flown again since. Beyond checking the box for legal purposes, I learned/retained almost nothing and spent most of the flight behind the airplane and just trying to adjust to flying something different in a different environment (towered field, unfamiliar area). I compare that to flight reviews I've done in RV's, where I was able to practice more challenging items and actually learn something useful because I had a lot more brainpower to spare.

Maybe those with more experience and a wider range of exposure to other aircraft don't have as much of a challenge adjusting to flying different types, but as someone who's prettyy inexperienced I feel that transition training (what flying an unfamiliar aircraft basically is, in a way) doesn't mix well with the basic one-hour flight review--there are other things that are probably more important for me to focus on, and the unfamiliar aircraft aspect reduces the amount of useful knowledge transfer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top