FAA Releases Policy on Training in Certain Categories of Aircraft

[Dave S]

Good evening,

I am attaching a document which may be important to many of us wishing to receive training in our experimental aircraft; particularly if the need is time sensitive.

Apparently, due to the crash of a warbird carrying paying customers, and a ruling by the DC court of appeals pertaining to LODAs (letter of deviation authority), the up to now policy, which did not object to training in an experimental aircraft where the instructor provided training in an owner's experimental could be done without a LODA, is being replaced on July 12 with a policy requiring a LODA for such operations.

Since the existing policy was apparently in conflict with the regulations, according to the court, the court determined that the existing policy (which we have all lived with quite well) was not valid.

The FAAs response to industry's (meaning in part EAA) requests, was to create a new policy which is what the attached document is that we will now need to comply with if we are receiving or giving instruction in an experimental aircraft.

The attached document provides a straight forward method for an owner or instructor to get a LODA via an e-mail request. The way to do this is on page 6 and 7 of the 8 page document. The LODA is valid for 48 months

The new policy is a stopgap and not a permanent solution. A permanent solution is likely going to require a revision of the regulations which affect this issue and that takes a while.

[rv9ralph]

Dave,
Thanks for posting this update. I have been following this policy change through other aviation news outlets. I have put the document on my reading list. This change of policy will affect me as I had planned on doing my Flight Review in my Kitfox. This now will depend on whether the CFI wants to go through the hoops to get a LODA.

Ralph

[desertdave]

I'm reading that if your buddy gives you a flight review without payment you are ok. If you pay your buddy then you both need a LODA. Compensation is what triggers the requirement of a LODA. Is that what you are seeing?

[Rodney]

Last week FAA prosecutors quoted FAA Advisory Circular 61-142, “defining ‘compensation’ as the receipt of anything of value that is contingent on the pilot operating the aircraft… [it] does not require a profit, profit motive, or actual payment of funds. … accumulation of flight time and goodwill in the form of expected future economic benefits can be considered compensation. Furthermore, the pilot does not have to be the party receiving the compensation; compensation occurs even if a third party receives a benefit as a result of the flight.”

What a mess

[Cherrybark]

It's that definition of "compensation" that really creates the problem. One of the FAA micromanaging terms is that anything of value will be considered compensation. Even the accumulation of flight hours triggers the rule.

An earlier FAA Advisory Circular 90-116, mine is dated 9/23/14, entitled "Addition Pilot Program for Phase I Flight Test is an example of a very useful thinking by the FAA. Under this policy, a "qualified" "Additional Pilot" can fly with the "Builder Pilot" from the very first take off. A rusty Builder Pilot could find an instructor, or other very experienced pilot, to fly with them until they were comfortable with the plane , then continue Phase I solo. The plane has to be built from a kit and the Addition Pilot has to complete a worksheet to calculate their experience qualifications. Generally speaking, someone with a lot of general aviation experience who has flown a variety of planes will qualify to assist.

With this latest FAA boondoggle, it's possible to have an instructor act as an Additional Pilot and there's nothing to prevent them from tossing out useful tidbits, drilling maneuvers, and so forth. But the time cannot be logged as dual and it appears you're going to have to find someone instructing in a factory built Kitfox to clear something like an insurance notation along the lines of "5 hours experience in make and model". I "self insured" for the first five hours and they went by fairly quickly.

[PapuaPilot]

Here is some good news. I'm due for a flight review by the end of the month so I applied for a LODA yesterday. I got an automatic reply within a couple minutes saying they would process it in the order received. I was thinking it would take 7-10 days.

To my surprise I got the LODA within an hour! I checked the times on the emails and it was actually 50 minutes.

[Maverick]

Was there any discussion at Oshkosh on this issue? Is the FAA working on a fix?

[desertdave]

It takes longer to read the instructions than it does to fill out the form and email it. The entire thing makes zero sense to me but hey, it's their house and their rules.
Do it now so when you need a flight review you can do it when you want instead of waiting on them.
Here is the form:
https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certifi...A_Template.pdf

It took 1:27 minutes to get my approval back.

[Eric Page]

Was there any discussion at Oshkosh on this issue? Is the FAA working on a fix?

Yes, Administrator Dickson gave a talk that included some comments on the issue.

Also, EAA has received a widely applicable exemption for training in Limited category aircraft.

EAA has a page on their website with an FAQ on the new requirements and the process to comply.

[DesertFox4]

Thanks DesertDave for assistance with getting a LODA for my upcoming Flight Review and all members posts in this thread. I submitted my request last night and it was in my morning E-mail traffic. 👍