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.
I'm just glad I have friends who are instructors and don't charge me for a BFR. (Other than a cold homebrew or two afterwards).

What a bunch of stuff and nonsense...leave it to the FAA to booger up a perfectly fine system.
 
FAA Right Hand: "I have to do everything I can to increase aviation safety"

FAA Left Hand: "I have to do everything I can to make the right hand's job harder"

:mad:
 
Do you like people ignoring the regs? Because this is how you convince people to ignore the regs.

Typical FAA--doubling down on a bad interpretation rather than fix the problem.
 
Sounds like every experimental aircraft owner in the country should submit a LODA application immediately...
 
A mess.

What it amounts to is that they’re finding a solution to which there is no problem!

Furthermore, they’re encouraging pilots and flight instructors to flaunt the law and train secretly.

Cheers,
 
Crazy.

Corollaries to follow?

Those DPEs who have been willing to give checkrides in experimentals?

CFIs instructing under Basic Med? (Not related to experimental aviation per se, but this seems to change the interpretation that CFIs were being paid to teach, not fly, but now they are "operating".)

Lets just hope they don't compound bad interpretations by starting to write FARs that lack logical bases, e.g. allowing T&Gs for currency during the day but not at night. No...wait...
 
Upper Level Management Decision definition

Definition: A decision made without any regards to the facts.

FAA decision maker Gods, answer this: How does the builder/owner of a newly completed or just purchased E-AB airplane obtain transition training? The insurance companies all require transition sign-off by an instructor, sometimes with a minimum number of hours of instruction. Correct me if wrong, isn't the promotion of transition training something that came down from the FAA ivory towers? Go left, no go right, no forget it we don't allow you to go either direction. Or is transition training not considered 'instruction'. Can transition training be done for compensation?

Now the only way to obtain a CFI endorsement is to know one that will do the transition training and sign-off without compensation. Maybe a donation to their favorite charity - could the donation be made in the CFI's name? Or would that be prohibited by the FAA?

I'm sure that the FAA is planning to keep close track on safety related incidents and accidents in E-AB aircraft, especially during early flight operations. Yea, right.

How can they be so . . . , FAR up in the proverbial dark space.
 
FAA Mission statement

Reminds me of a Quote from many years ago: FAA Mission Statement: "WE ARE NOT HAPPY TILL YOU ARE NOT HAPPY !!
 
Per the draft policy, as a CFI I could request a LODA to provide instruction in a particular make/model. Rhetorical question: what are the odds that the FAA policy authors realize the make and model of an Experimental - Amateur Built is chosen by the builder….therefore unique. smh. Fly safe!
 
Hopefully they will come to their senses before I need to hire a CFI for a Flight Review...

I guess requesting a LODA shouldn't be very difficult, based on the EAA article.. The people that should really be pissed are the people that work at the FSDOs!!! I just now followed the below information and submitted for a LODA.. Hope to have it in hand when the time comes..

---------------------

Under the new LODA system, applicants can send an email to [email protected] with their name, address, email address, pilot certificate number, flight instructor number (if applying as a CFI), aircraft registration number (if applying as an owner), aircraft make and model, and aircraft home base (if applying as an owner). The request will then flow to the local FSDO, who will issue the LODA.
 
Last edited:
Had a little chuckle at this:

"Both instructors and those receiving training will require a LODA."

...and then...

"Either the owner/operator of the aircraft or the instructor can have the LODA, as long as one person in the cockpit has one."

So, uh, which one is it? Or is it "Either the owner or instructor, PLUS the student"
 
Per EAA:
1. The FAA hopes to have an on-line LODA application process available by Monday. But it will flow thru the FSDOs, expect a log-jam.
2. The FAA hopes to have a permanent solution within FOUR YEARS (!!). No comment, per Doug’s rules.

Just two days ago I made an appointment for a Basic Med physical, after years of maintaining a second class (I’m a cfi). Now I’m not sure what to do.
 
Had a little chuckle at this:

"Both instructors and those receiving training will require a LODA."

...and then...

"Either the owner/operator of the aircraft or the instructor can have the LODA, as long as one person in the cockpit has one."

So, uh, which one is it? Or is it "Either the owner or instructor, PLUS the student"

I caught that, too. The only thing consistent is the inconsistency. I'm a CFI, the way this reads is that I can still instruct someone in their EAB without a LODA, but I cannot be compensated. Why would I do that, when I assume risk and carry insurance? I'm curious how difficult getting a LODA will be.
 
In FAA-2021-0592] the FAA has announced a new policy regard instruction in experimental aircraft. Basically it says for an instructor to be compensated for the instruction in an experimental aircraft (not the use of the aircraft) both the CFI and the owner must have a LODA. There is a new electronic process to obtain a LODA.

This is pure stupidity!

I think every owner of an experimental aircraft should immediately apply for a LODA using the new procedure. Every CFI who gives instruction in experimental aircraft needs to apply for a LODA also.

Since I am both an owner and a CFI, I am applying for two.

The FAA does not have the people or time to perform the important tasks much less to create this mountain of paperwork that will accomplish nothing.

Please apply for LODA's as soon as that link is operative and let's let the FAA wake up Monday to a tsunami of applications.
 
To follow up my last post, I just submitted two e-mails to [email protected] asking for LODA's. One as an owner of an RV-12 and one as a CFI to give instruction in RV-12's.

The e-mails have not been returned.

I strongly suggest that every owner of an experimental aircraft submit a request for a LODA this weekend.
 
From the yet to be published policy "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."
 
From the yet to be published policy "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."

Is it just me, or does this translate to you can't training towards a regular SEL outside of a certified aircraft?
 
Is it just me, or does this translate to you can't training towards a regular SEL outside of a certified aircraft?
Thats how I read it. My guess is that the LODA will not authorize flight training in you own experimental to obtain a rating.

I wonder if "or operating privileges" include a flight review.
 
The old LODA's only allowed transition training. They went so far as to say if transition training was received in a tailwheel aircraft, it could not include a tailwheel endorsement. Also it could not include a flight review. Only transition training was allowed.
 
What I would like to know is who lobbied for this, and what was the motivation?

No one lobbied for this. It came from a court case where the judge ruled that the FAA was mis-reading/mis-interpreting its own regulations. And now the faa has rolled over, and agrees with the judge. e.g., this mess was of the faa’s own doing.
 
Help me out here. I've got several buddies who are CFI's. They have never asked for (or even accepted) compensation for the BFR's they have given me.

Will they need LODA's to give free BFR's in my airplane going forward, or, since there is no compensation involved, will this activity be free and clear of the LODA nonsense?
 
From the yet to be published policy "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."


Did you read this in the FAA document?? I say just submit for the LODA and see what happens... I did... I think FAA is really trying to craft the order to make sure businesses like Warbird Adventures aren't able to continue to operate they way they have in past..

"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. The FAA has long emphasized the importance of pilots being trained and checked in the aircraft they will operate. Specifically, it is critical that pilots understand and are familiar with the particular systems, procedures, operating characteristics, and limitations of the aircraft they will operate."
 
Last edited:
Can somebody explain to me if that impacts BFRs or only flight training. The language only mentions flight training.

Thx

Oliver
 
No one lobbied for this. It came from a court case where the judge ruled that the FAA was mis-reading/mis-interpreting its own regulations. And now the faa has rolled over, and agrees with the judge. e.g., this mess was of the faa’s own doing.

Interesting. Where can I read more about this and the corresponding court action? Who sued whom, and for what?
 
Help me out here. I've got several buddies who are CFI's. They have never asked for (or even accepted) compensation for the BFR's they have given me.

Will they need LODA's to give free BFR's in my airplane going forward, or, since there is no compensation involved, will this activity be free and clear of the LODA nonsense?

The issue is ‘compensation or hire’. If instruction given is truly free, there are no issues.
 
Please apply for LODA's as soon as that link is operative and let's let the FAA wake up Monday to a tsunami of applications.

There is no link I have seen.. It's just an email address. I already sent my email request for LODA..
 
Last edited:
The issue is ‘compensation or hire’. If instruction given is truly free, there are no issues.

In the past, the faa interpreted the flight time itself as compensation. This came up when people were looking to ferry planes for free, as they only had a private certificate. The faa claimed that the flight time itself was compensation. I don't have a link to substantiate this though.
 
Can somebody explain to me if that impacts BFRs or only flight training. The language only mentions flight training.

Thx

Oliver

The answer to your question is that a flight review (no longer considered a "biannual") is training. Straight from the regs:

§ 61.56 Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.
 
The answer to your question is that a flight review (no longer considered a "biannual") is training. .

“Biennial”
It doesn’t matter. The issue is a change in the interpretation of using an EAB airplane for ‘compensation or hire’. The new interpretation is that no one can get paid, even if there is no specific charge for the airplane. If a cfi is being paid while in an EAB, as of today, that is illegal (without a LODA, or waiver). If he is doing a Flight review or training for honest-to-God free, then it’s legal.
 
Pandora’s Box

Tom is correct. The FAA has long held that flight time IS considered compensation. This really puts CFI’s in a predicament. How far to push this, wondering how far the FAA will push it?

jimmyB
RV6
N699JB
CFI-IA
 
The answer to your question is that a flight review (no longer considered a "biannual") is training. Straight from the regs:

§ 61.56 Flight review.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.


So $0 for flight training hours and 2 times previous hourly rate for ground hours...............
 
I think we might be reading into this too much.

Scenario 1 - Plane Owner & Student gets Dual in their RV-7. The CFI chargers for training not the plane. The plane is not being used for compensation or rented, and should be allowed without a LODA. Now they are saying get a LODA... OK get one. It is just paperwork. Sadly this process will take weeks or months.

Scenario 2 - The CFI is experimental plane owner and has LODA and is giving dual in this plane. Can't charge for plane? Ha ha. OK so I'm going to charge $160/hr as a CFI. It is for my services not the plane. The plane is not being "rented" for hire. Plane is provided free.

I just can't believe FAA is saying you can't "share cost". I did cost break down of teaching in my RV. Fuel, Oil, Tires, Brake, Insurance, Hanger adds up. I was going to have to charge $120/Hr (based on 100hrs dual given) plus my CFI time $40/hr. You should be able to charge for operating cost (breakeven). There is no profit only sharing cost. Even a Pvt Pilot can charge passengers for fuel and cost. The term "share" is subject to interpretation. Bottom line you can only charge cost directly related to operations.

Contact FAA, and your Congress and Senate Reps. Squeaky wheel gets the oil. I have to read this EAA statement again front to back, back to front, and sideways, then refer it to my legal team of Dewey Cheatem and Howe to interpret. :D
 
Last edited:
GOOD GOSH.... This is no big deal.

Scenario 1 - Plane Owner & Student gets Dual in their plane The CFI chargers for training.

Scenario 2 - The CFI is experimental plane owner and has LODA. Can't charge for plane? Ha ha. OK so I'm going to charge $160/hr as a CFI... Plane is provided free.
pe.

You miss the point, you’re quoting the “old rule”. The “new rule”, announced today, is that ‘EAB not to be used for compensation’ means that no one on board the airplane can be paid, for anything.
‘Cost sharing’ requires a ‘common purpose’ where the flying is ‘incidental’. Definitely does not describe flight instruction.
 
Last edited:
You miss the point, you’re quoting the “old rule”. The “new rule”, announced today, is that ‘EAB not to be used for compensation’ means that no one on board the airplane can be paid, for anything. ‘Cost sharing’ requires a ‘common purpose’ where the flying is ‘incidental’. Definitely does not describe flight instruction.

I revised my post, and your point on cost sharing is noted. I knew it was a stretch and not relevant. It does not matter what we say. It is what the FAA says (even if not in the FAR's). Not my first rodeo, not even the FAA folks agree with each other. However it is clear you just need a LODA now? OK. Just make it EASY to get online with short turnaround. I am good with it. Never mind it will take weeks or months to get a LODA especially with 1000's of them now being requested.

If we take the strict dogmatic orthodox interpretation, a RV owner/CFI gets a LODA for their plane to give training in their plane. They can't charge anything for the plane? They just killed the intent of the whole program. Who would do that unless for family member. Can't charge for CFI time? That is unreasonable and not regulatory. It is authoritarian overreach. :eek:

Not going to argue, since it does not affect me. FAA has canceled training in homebuilt aircraft for all intent and purposes. Accidents will go up. You can go from a C-152 to a 220HP RV-8 with no training.

If I do free training I am sure they will buy me lunch (for the whole year). :D Oh that is illegal too? Ha ha. I think this will get "re-interpreted" again with more common sense. After all the authoritarianism going on it is spreading. PUSH BACK.... We are in the right. All give your respectful opinion. They will back down.
 
Last edited:
It irks me that the FAA is claiming that they need their guidance to match the letter of the law so they're requiring EAB owners and CFIs to get LODAs.

Then they suggest that they will have a way to fast track LODAs when 91.319(h)(2) clearly states that you need to request a LODA 60 days in advance.

Ok... so basically the FAA is fine with strictly enforcing one rule and creating a workaround for the other?


Here is the letter I wrote my Senator if anyone wants to use it to inspire their own:


I am writing to ask that 14 CFR 91.319 (rules for operating experimental aircraft) be modified to allow an owner of an experimental aircraft to receive flight training in their own aircraft.

This had been the case under FAA Guidance on Flight Training for Compensation in Experimental Aircraft FAA Order 8900.1, however the current administration has decided that this order has been out of compliance for the past 14 years and is implementing a change to require that both the aircraft owner and a flight instructor receive a Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) for instruction in an experimental aircraft.

The FAA has published a summary of their proposed change at this URL:
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-14765.pdf

The FAA's proposed path forward for their new change places a significant burden on experimental aircraft owners and flight instructors.

For example: Each pilot is required to complete a biennial flight review with a flight instructor to maintain currency to be able to legally fly. 14 CFR 61.56(a) defines a flight review as a minimum of 1 hour of flight training. However, the FAA currently requires in 14 CFR 91.319(h)(2) that a request for a LODA be submitted at least 60 days prior to the date of intended operations. It's not reasonable to have to find a flight instructor willing to have to request a LODA 60 days in advance before providing 1 hour of flight instruction. There are many other cases besides a flight review where a pilot simply needs 1-2 hours of flight instruction for currency purposes. It is not reasonable to require both the pilot and flight instructor to plan 60 days in advance and ask permission to do something they are already licensed by the FAA to do at any time in certified aircraft.

I actually agree with the FAA's motive behind making the change, to stop unsafe operators who were putting unlicensed individuals at the controls of powerful warbirds and calling it "instruction". But the FAAs method to change course on a policy that has been in effect for 14 years does nothing to increase safety. This change only implements significant paperwork and logistics to the exponentially more experimental owners that have been operating their aircraft safely and within legal compliance as well as the flight instructors that are the only mechanism to provide flight reviews to experimental owners.

As your constituent who is building an experimental aircraft and is affected by this policy change, I appreciate your attention to this matter.
 
You ADD "no one on board the airplane can be paid". Where the **** is that in the FAR's. It is not.

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.
 
Well, I have yet to get started building, so maybe this will get worked out before hand. Since I don't have a plane, transition training has to occur in someone else's plane, most reasonably the instructor's. It sounds like I'd need a LODA, even under the old rules.

Is this what Mike Seager does? I'm afraid to rock that boat.
 
Last edited:
LODA request SENT

I requested the following:

I am writing to request a LODA as a CFI to be able to conduct flight instruction in an owner's EAB aircraft.

I am also writing to request a LODA as an aircraft owner to be able to receive flight instruction in my personally owned EAB aircraft.

I am also writing to request a LODA to be able to conduct flight instruction in my personally owned EAB aircraft.


Let's see what happens!
 
1) This LODA requirement is not scalable, but being the only game in town...well it doesn’t matter. (Too bad there isn’t a competing regulator to do business with, I’d certainly take my business elsewhere)

2) I like the letter to Congress idea mentioned above. Congressional inquiries put pressure on Director’s, Managers, etc. to review decisions with more scrutiny.
 
I've applied for a LODA both to give and to receive, and have contacted the three CFIs who give me (B)FRs and IPCs. We will see...
 
I applied for the LODA yesterday. My BFR is currently expired, I was just waiting for my prop to be returned from service. Depending on how long this LODA process takes I could be grounded for months or just have to complete the BFR in a rental.
 
You might add . . .

<snip>
Here is the letter I wrote my Senator if anyone wants to use it to inspire their own:<snip>

That in self defense, every EAB owner will get a LODA to cover themselves. And if that LODA is for only a specific event, and expires, then there will be a continuous stream of requests that burden the FAA.

There are 10,000+ EAB aircraft flying produced from a single kit manufacturer alone. Is the FAA prepared to respond in a timely manner for this additional work?

With due (positive) credit to actual FDSO personnel I have encountered, nothing will be fast in the approval process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top