What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Did we over-react to the LODA requirement?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P40

The P40 operator is not the cause of this. He is merely an easy target for the FAA.
I believe the proper target is Collings. It is hard to imagine anyone operating in the manner that the Collings B17 was operated. Bad magnetos and bad spark plugs on two engines. Shade tree operation. The report is very long. very detailed and very damaging to Collings. I believe the FAA is scared of Collings because of their deep pockets and chose Warbird Adventures as an easy target.
In 1991 the FAA imposed a moratorium on all new Experimental Exhibition certification. It did not last long but I have always believed they would go after Experimental again including EAB.
 
The P40 operator is not the cause of this. He is merely an easy target for the FAA.
I believe the proper target is Collings. It is hard to imagine anyone operating in the manner that the Collings B17 was operated. Bad magnetos and bad spark plugs on two engines. Shade tree operation. The report is very long. very detailed and very damaging to Collings. I believe the FAA is scared of Collings because of their deep pockets and chose Warbird Adventures as an easy target.
In 1991 the FAA imposed a moratorium on all new Experimental Exhibition certification. It did not last long but I have always believed they would go after Experimental again including EAB.

My point stands. They didn’t need to do this to stop him.
 
So when I receive training in my EAB should I write in my log book Aircraft specific training and then what we did?

Well, presumably the cfi will do the writing. Most logbooks already have a space for ‘aircraft type’ where you write RVxx and N123, so there is no need for anything further on that. Your cfi should just note the training received, as he/she always has.
Edit. Maybe I should be more clear. The phrase ‘aircraft specific’ training means (owner only-not cfi) the LODA covers only the airplane listed in Table 1.
 
Last edited:
My point stands. They didn’t need to do this to stop him.

Please explain what, in your opinion, they should have done. The FAA sanctioned Warbirds under the old interpretation. Warbird appealed to the courts. FAA prosecuted under the old interpretation. The judge then ruled in favor of the FAA, but then added that that old interpretation was not correct. How would you have prosecuted differently?
 
In an ideal world, there would be no LODA, the FAR itself would be re-written as originally intended and approved in two hours.

In an ideal world, perhaps, but we live in the world where the APA is the law, and changing rules requires going through the process (NPRM, etc.). I've said before that the FAA *could* have appealed that portion of the decision, but chose not to, thus partially creating this maelstrom. If they're serious about fixing it, then an NPRM should be issued forthwith (fat chance).

I believe they also have some emergency rule-making authority which can be used to greatly shorten the process, but it's hard to argue that this is an "emergency".

But, as always, IANAL.
 
I've said before that the FAA *could* have appealed that portion of the decision, but chose not to, thus partially creating this maelstrom.

I think the issue is that, after the ruling, the faa’s own legal department agreed with the judge, that the FAR was never written properly, and needed to be fixed. You’d think that new hires would be assigned to read thru the regs and find things like this, but maybe not.
 
Anytime the FAA is going to give me something just for the asking, I'll take it- Thank you very much! My glass isn't half full; My cup runnith over!

But as I said in another thread, there are so many ways for me to legally comply with the regs regarding BFRs, ICPs etc., it's not a problem.

-Marc
 
As to those worried about the phrase ‘aircraft specific training’, it simply means training in a specific aircraft, nothing more or less. I hold one of the older LODAs which allowed me to charge for the airplane: it says, “…aircraft specific TRANSITION TRAINING ONLY…” (emphasis added). See the difference?

Oh, I get it (I think). You are saying that it is simply referring to the specific aircraft named later in the LODA. Now, I also see another basis that the "aircraft specific" words in the issued LODAs are not of concern:
Going back to the Federal Register 2021-14765 discussion that gave me heartburn, it says "The FAA generally limits LODAs to training that can only be accomplished in aircraft with experimental certificates and directs its inspectors that, with FEW exceptions, LODAs should not be issued to permit flight training in experimental aircraft leading to the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege." I was seeing this wording as logically linked and consistent with the "aircraft specific" words in the actual LODA, which would then prevent the LODA from being used for a "certificate or rating". I also couldn't see where "few exceptions" could equate to thousands of LODAs. However, I think perhaps they consider this WHOLE REGULATORY MESS as 1 exception. That interpretation is consistent with subsequent discussion in the federal register to why they have to make that single exception, namely a single inconsistency in the regulation (that led to thousands of LODAs). My Gosh, how could they make their intentions less clear?

I am now very relieved. Thank you.
 
Let’s hope they fix it, but we shouldn’t be pretending like it’s not a screw up, we should be continuing to press for a proper fix.

I suppose if we research your life we'll find that you have never screwed up. I am envious that you are the one exception that has never made a mistake. You need to cut the FAA some slack. They have done NOTHING to indicate a desire to take away your right to get training in your EAB. In fact, they have done exactly the opposite, showing a strong commitment.

It's the Govt. They can take away your rights at any moment and for any reason. This situation neither eases nor intensifies that ability.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Undefined

The phrase ‘aircraft specific’ training means (owner only-not cfi) the LODA covers only the airplane listed in Table 1.

Until the FAA issues an opinion on what "aircraft specific training" means, all of us are just guessing. Case in point -- look at the discussion about what is or isn't considered compensation. There's a wide variety of opinions here on that subject, and even folks who disagree with the FAA's documented and consistent opinion. It doesn't change how the FAA interprets (and enforces) that phrase.

It doesn't matter what any of us think aircraft specific training is, it only matters what the FAA says it is.
 
It doesn't matter what any of us think aircraft specific training is, it only matters what the FAA says it is.

I would argue that it does. If the FAA can't prove in a court of law that a reasonable person could understand that it means what they think it means, no judge will side with the FAA. Laws need to be clear and understandable in order to be enforceable. They can use certain amounts of legalease, but they must possess enough detail that the subject of interest can determine what is allowed and what is not.

The term aircraft specific training, in the context of the LODA language simply doesn't mean anything. It could mean a countless number of different things, depending upon your interpretation. It requires the reader to guess what they mean and that makes it unenforceable. If you study the FARs, you will see that they get very specific on what is allowed and what is not. This is done for a reason; our judicial system requires it.

Larry
 
Last edited:
Did we over-react to the LODA requirement

The FAA could have done nothing. Just like the federal government stopped prosecuting people for using and possessing marijuana. It is still against federal law, but the feds just don't arrest or prosecute. The FAA could have taken the same position. They could have just ignored this war bird case. From what I read because of the way that case was issued/published, it did not have any precedential value.

They have done a very good job of issuing LODA's in a very short period of time. But in my opinion, all that time and effort was wasted to generate a bunch of paper that accomplishes nothing and the labor could have been spent of activities that would enhance safety.
 
I suppose if we research your life we'll find that you have never screwed up. I am envious that you are the one exception that has never made a mistake. You need to cut the FAA some slack. They have done NOTHING to indicate a desire to take away your right to get training in your EAB. In fact, they have done exactly the opposite, showing a strong commitment.

It's the Govt. They can take away your rights at any moment and for any reason. This situation neither eases nor intensifies that ability.

Larry

I don't understand this response. My intent is not to point fingers. My intent is to not ignore how bad this situation is, and keep the pressure on until it's fixed properly. Pretending like it's fixed already is a very bad idea.
 
I don't understand this response. My intent is not to point fingers. .

Don’t take this too personally. There are all kinds of opinions, from ‘We must keep constant pressure on’ to ‘give them some time to do the right thing’. Historically there have been times when the former was correct (basic med). But I think most posters have expressed the opinion that the faa is trying to do the right thing, we should give them a break. We’ll only know which approach was correct 3 years from now. BTW, you never answered my question: If you were in charge of the faa, what would you have done differently, wrt the FL warbird case?
 
Don’t take this too personally. There are all kinds of opinions, from ‘We must keep constant pressure on’ to ‘give them some time to do the right thing’. Historically there have been times when the former was correct (basic med). But I think most posters have expressed the opinion that the faa is trying to do the right thing, we should give them a break. We’ll only know which approach was correct 3 years from now. BTW, you never answered my question: If you were in charge of the faa, what would you have done differently, wrt the FL warbird case?

It's ludicrous to think I could answer that question, and I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to attempt it.

My point is that if we do not make it clear that we are unhappy that training in our experimental aircraft is considered a deviation, we can't complain if they don't fix it, can we?
 
It's ludicrous to think I could answer that question, and I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to attempt it.

The reason I originally asked is that in an earlier post you were highly critical of their handling of this specific case. I don’t think it’s fair to be critical of an action when you cannot offer any alternative.
 
The reason I originally asked is that in an earlier post you were highly critical of their handling of this specific case. I don’t think it’s fair to be critical of an action when you cannot offer any alternative.

How about any other way that doesn't mean changing the rules dramatically and making 10's of thousands of people less safe? Pick one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top