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.