What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Court Ruling on Flight training

It will have no impact at all. The issue before the court concerns flight instruction in an aircraft in the limited category. Flight instruction in an eab is well defined. A flight instructor can give instruction for hire as long as he does not supply the aircraft. To give instruction in an aircraft supplied by the instructor a letter must be obtained as a some of the instructors in this group have done.

That’s not the issue. The issue is that the court went further, and stated that a cfi giving instruction was also ‘carrying persons for compensation or hire’. This is contrary to previous faa rulings, which ruled the cfi was ‘teaching’, not otherwise engaged in air commerce. If the ruling stands, then (1) cfi’s would need current second class medicals, and (2) they would need an additional waiver (the no commercial use rule) to give instruction in ANY EAB.
 
That’s not the issue. The issue is that the court went further, and stated that a cfi giving instruction was also ‘carrying persons for compensation or hire’. This is contrary to previous faa rulings, which ruled the cfi was ‘teaching’, not otherwise engaged in air commerce. If the ruling stands, then (1) cfi’s would need current second class medicals, and (2) they would need an additional waiver (the no commercial use rule) to give instruction in ANY EAB.

Bob is correct, and the EAA has written a letter (along with other alphabet groups) to the FAA protesting the interpretation. I can tell you that there is a lot of concern over it.
 
Can a court, or a judge, or a panel of judges, re-define a regulation?

I thought courts decided if an action complied with a law or regulation, rather than re-define one.

Or, they could declare it unconstitutional I suppose.......

<Sigh> ... :(
 
Can a court, or a judge, or a panel of judges, re-define a regulation?

I thought courts decided if an action complied with a law or regulation, rather than re-define one.

Or, they could declare it unconstitutional I suppose.......

<Sigh> ... :(

The courts can and do decide if a regulation issued by a government entity does or does not comply with the law.
For example, when I got my CFI in 1990, I was required to possess a class II medical. And ATP applicants were required to have a first class medical. These are no longer true. No laws changed, just the FAAs interpretation of them. A court could say that the faa interpretation is not in agreement with the law, and require them to change their regulations. In this particular case, the court could rule that instructors are carrying persons for compensation or hire (as opposed to the current faa interpretation, which is instructors are ‘teaching’, not engaged in air commerce). If so, then cfi’s would need a class II medical for exercising their commercial privileges. And another, different waiver if in an EAB.
 
If instructors are carrying persons for compensation or hire. Wouldn't that then require a Part 135 certificate because the cross country requirements exceed 25 nautical miles and include landings at a second airport. Thus regardless if the instruction was in an experimental or not?
 
Bob is correct, and the EAA has written a letter (along with other alphabet groups) to the FAA protesting the interpretation. I can tell you that there is a lot of concern over it.

This is a situation where the FAA used a shotgun approach to take down a warbird operator. It shot down the warbird operator and put holes in the entire flight training industry.

Unintended consequences, but extremely predictable.
 
Wow, what a mess. Just imagine the blow back the FAA would get if every A/B aircraft owner (not a small population any more) had to rent an airplane just to get a BFR. A strong case could and likely is being made that this discourages aircraft owners from getting supplementary training and is counter to one of the FAA's biggest efforts - flight safety. I suspect once they realize they'll have to issue 1000's of waivers in the near term it may influence their decisions. Just imagine how difficult it would be to get transition training for folks buying EAB planes. A nasty catch 22, as you can't get insurance without some CFI time. I'm a strong believer that a few hours is critical for many pilots to insure safety. This would like force many to go without the training and insurance and take the risk -ouch! Still only one Mike Sieger floating around and a pretty limited number of CFIs with a LODA and still maintaining insurance to use it.

Not an attorney, but can't help but wonder if an unpublished opinion truly sets a precedence. I always understood that only published opinions set precedence. I suspect that is does not and therefore doesn't change anything. Though it is still up to the FAA if they want to change their interpretation. It seems much of the FARs are dictated through published FAA interpretations of those laws, often forced by court rulings and precedence.
 
Last edited:
That’s not the issue. The issue is that the court went further, and stated that a cfi giving instruction was also ‘carrying persons for compensation or hire’. This is contrary to previous faa rulings, which ruled the cfi was ‘teaching’, not otherwise engaged in air commerce. If the ruling stands, then (1) cfi’s would need current second class medicals, and (2) they would need an additional waiver (the no commercial use rule) to give instruction in ANY EAB.
It would only affect a small number of pilots, but (3) a pilot flying with Sport Pilot privileges with a CFI-S certificate would be screwed, because he or she can't "carry persons for compensation or hire" without at least a CP certificate and second class medical -- neither of which they are otherwise required to have.

And yes, that would affect me personally. I have a PP certificate, but no medical... and one of my goals for this year is to earn my CFI-S cert. If this ruling means what it looks like it means, then that certificate would be useless to me.

As lr172 says, what a mess.
 
I was thinking about the CFI-S aspect as well. But then I’m still looking for the regs that spell out the a CFI-S can be monetarily compensated without a commercial license.
 
Any Updates

Has anyone gotten any other updates on this? I contacted my local FSDO, and they seem to be unaware of this. I sent them the letter the FAA sent to AOPA, EAA, etc. A few days went by, I follow up asking how to get the process going and they send me a copy of 8900.1 from May 2011, so they dont really understand what’s going on at the local level.

I contacted EAA today and the gentleman that I spoke to, who was fantastic, said that nothing has been set in stone yet and they should be getting an update from the FAA in the next week or so.

Charlie
 
Back
Top