VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:21 PM
Saber25's Avatar
Saber25 Saber25 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 258
Default So how are you going to deal with this?

Interesting bit from the FAA. Considering insurance dictates for getting insured, this letter could throw a wrench into transition training and initial training for the pilot just finishing his aircraft.


https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2...A_GAMA_EAA.pdf
__________________
Build 'em light, keep it simple

I'd rather fly than tinker.

"There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician, the other is an artist in love with flight."
- Elrey B. Jeppesen,
  #2  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:39 PM
wawrzynskivp wawrzynskivp is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Incline Village Nv
Posts: 86
Default 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.
  #3  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:51 PM
kaa kaa is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 135
Default

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.
__________________
Konstantin Azarov
RV-7
  #4  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:56 PM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 12,782
Default

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
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor at Large - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com

Last edited by Ironflight : 06-10-2021 at 02:24 PM.
  #5  
Old 06-10-2021, 02:03 PM
wawrzynskivp wawrzynskivp is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Incline Village Nv
Posts: 86
Default 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?
  #6  
Old 06-10-2021, 02:11 PM
kaa kaa is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 135
Default

Not a lawyer, but is says this at the bottom:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Konstantin Azarov
RV-7
  #7  
Old 06-10-2021, 02:23 PM
wawrzynskivp wawrzynskivp is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Incline Village Nv
Posts: 86
Default 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.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:06 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.