I haven’t owned an airplane for nearly two decades. But like many of you, I’m watching the goings-on of the FAA’s new policy on flight training.
The new policy confirms the FAA’s assertion that, without exception, no compensated flight training can take place in Experimental, Limited, and Primary Category aircraft without an exemption or letter of deviation authority (LODA).
“For as long as can be remembered, the FAA rules were interpreted as an instructor could usually not charge for the use of the aircraft, but could charge for flight instruction services. FAA’s own policy on LODAs backed this up, explicitly stating that such private individuals did not require a LODA to pursue training in their own aircraft. While a commercial flight training operation could not provide the training, an individual instructor could provide training for a private owner, co-owner, flying club member, or lessee,” officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) officials explained.
But in the new policy, FAA officials said the agency’s previous policy on the topic was “erroneous.”
I’ve been turning this over in my head, trying to get it to make sense.
It feels like Mom changed my curfew…while I was on my date.
And then one of my favorite columnists – Jamie Beckett – wrote about passing skills along from one pilot to another. While the transfer of knowledge is most often proper, other times, not so much.
Jamie writes, “To put the relationship between ourselves and the FAA in proper context, it might help to think of the FAA as your parent and yourself as a young teen. When mom leaves the house and tells you she’d like to see the kitchen cleaned up when she returns, or when dad says it’s time for you to mow the lawn, there is an assumption on their part of what will happen in the very near future. Their expectation is, of course, that they’ll return to a house with a clean kitchen and a freshly cut lawn.”
The context for Jamie’s thought is the application of guidance in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). While the AIM is not regulatory, it is written by the same folks who brought us the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR): The FAA.
“Obviously, you don’t have to do either one of those things,” continues Jamie. “You can simply lay on the couch, watch television, and drop potato chip crumbs all over the carpet. There is no law prohibiting you from doing that. However, there very well may be a price to pay for flaunting your unfettered independence in the face of the folks who are charged with your oversight and protection.”
For me, this is where Jamie’s analogy starts to break down when applied to the current flight training fiasco.
I’m no longer a teenager nor do I live in my parent’s home. While I’m sure my teenage self failed to accomplish many tasks my parents asked of me, I know I followed through on the majority. The reason I know this is the unfailing trust they’ve placed in me as an adult.
My Mom (before dementia took hold) and Dad (before his death) drove into me their expectations for the management and disposition of the assets they’d accumulated over their lifetimes. Those expectations are the guiding light I follow in how I handle everything connected to them.
Trust and understanding built over decades.
We are far beyond a request that I clean the kitchen and mow the lawn.
Much of the flight training issue appears to hang on the term “compensation” as relates to flight training. No longer is the FAA viewing flight training – in Experimental, Limited, and Primary categories of aircraft – as it has in the past.
ByDanJohnson.com published a great piece by Powered Sport Flying’s Roy Beisswinger from the perspective of the light end of aviation.
“The Court of Appeals agreed and stated that, “the aircraft (Warbird Adventure’s P-40) is not certified for paid flight instruction and substantial evidence supports the order.”
“And then they said “Instead, Warbird argues that §91.315 does not prohibit paid flight training. We disagree. A flight student is a “person.” When a student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student is “carried.” And when the student is paying for the instruction, the student is being carried “for compensation.”
It appears the FAA is taking the court’s view over the FARs and running with it. Hard.
Perhaps the FAA is within the bounds of the law as relates to compensation for flight training, but they certainly aren’t honoring the spirit of the last several decades on the same.
Maybe the FAA has changed its stance because of a dramatic spike in accidents and incidents.
And yet, from a new report from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) about BasicMed, “The AOPA Air Safety Institute reported that the GA accident rate, based on National Transportation Safety Board data, is at its lowest level in decades, continuing to drop every year since the 1990s. The GA community has never had a stronger focus on safety, and the FAA continues to make U.S. airspace the safest in the world.”
Maybe the FAA is just looking for something to do.
“This entire episode is a scary example of how new interpretations of the regulations can upend the entire community,” said Jack Pelton, EAA CEO and chairman of the board.
This feels like, “Mommy may I give flight instruction in a client’s airplane, like I have for the last 20 years so the owner maintains currency and is up to date on safe practices? You know, so they can stay safe.”
Instead of Mom saying yes, like she has for 20 years, she is now responding with a whole new process. One that seeks to maintain control over flight instructors, pilots, and aircraft owners.
We’re all adults here. We are way beyond “Mommy may I?”
unelected bureaucracy drunk with power, have been for years doing things for no reason other than they can
The FAA gives and takes away. It is their job to do it. We pilots and aircraft owners traverse a myriad of regs, procedures, licensing and certifications to obtain the PRIVILEGE of flight. Whining about it accomplishes nothing.
That’s a fine attitude…in a country with an authoritarian government. But, the last time I checked, the US government was still (supposed to be), “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. In that regard, the FAA exists to regulate and *facilitate* fair and safe access to the shared, public resource that is US airspace. It is NOT their job to hold that public resource hostage from the public with onerous regulations and policies, particularly when those policies could be argued to be in contradiction to the goal of encouraging safe and responsible aviation activities, as is the case here.
In my opinion, questioning illogical edicts issued by people that are every bit as human and prone to mistakes as I am is not “whining”. Rather, it is doing my duty as an independent-thinking, informed, intelligent, and engaged citizen. As such, I entirely agree with Mr. Sclair in this matter. And, for whatever it is worth to you, I happen to also be a federal government employee and I can assure you that the “government” is indeed prone to mistakes in issuing and interpreting policy and it is exceedingly resistant to admitting those mistakes unless pressed.
So, in this case, I think some public pressure is warranted to encourage a more rational solution than creating needless, repetitive, and unending “make work” for the FAA, at taxpayer expense, and without contributing to anyone’s safety.
In addition to the flight training aspect regarding the experimental category situation is the dichotomy introduced with the two recent ‘space’ flights. These are experimental aircraft which according to regs are not supposed to be used for commercial carrying of passengers. So what’s with the announcement of plans for them to do just that. Seems like another case of elites getting special privileges to me. Or do they make some claim about ‘sharing expenses’?
When a commercial space vehicle is scheduled to fly, FAA uses regulatory and operational means to segregate launch and reentry operations from other flights in the National Airspace System (NAS) to ensure safety. Both FAA and ATC have LOAs with the space companies.
While they are experimental in nature, the space flight systems do not fall under the regulations for experimental aircraft in any way. They fall under and entirely different FAA office and set of regulations for experimental space flight systems that require permits to be obtained under §437. Commercial operations are allowed under these regulations, with considerations for public safety and crew/passenger acceptance of risk per §460.
Nothing to do with elites, privileges, or anything similar, and everything to do with referring to the correct sections of the federal regulations.
The fact that these regulations are established smacks of ‘special privileges’. Certainly the nature of the aircraft for space flight is different. However. there is an element of risk, and this aspect of safety is ignored for special exemptions of these useless flights for the wealthy. Meanwhile, more ordinary citizens are restricted, pursued, or are forbidden to take risks by flying in experimental category airplanes without needless regulatory interference. For what reason? Has the IRS discovered that such operations are a tremendous illegal profit center? Are those flying in such aircraft either as students or passengers being kept totally unaware of safety concerns of flying in either very old aircraft or one-of-a-kind manufacture? What is the reasoning for restrictions of these operations, especially in void of public hearings before any rule making?
I love the way you addressed this issue. Really well done. Kudos, Ben.
Well said
I think You’re right, Mr. Ben Sclair
Very well said Ben.