SonexBuilders.net

Understanding Transition Training and a LODA

Your Sonex Builders and Pilots Foundation often fields queries about how to get transition training. This is intended to explain some of the answers to commonly asked questions.


The question of how to get transition training to prepare for your first flight in a newly completed project, or as a non-builder who is purchasing a flying airplane is often a confusing one to answer.

Remember two important facts:

1. A Certified Flight Instructor can charge for their time regardless of the type of airplane that is being flown.

2. An experimental aircraft’s Operating Limitations prohibit that airplane from being used for compensation or hire, and this includes flight training.

It is important to understand the purpose of a LODA.

Simply put, a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority) is written permission from the local FAA FSDO that permits the AIRCRAFT OWNER to charge other people for the use his/her experimental airplane, and normally only for limited flight instruction purposes.

In general, if specific flight training is available in a certified airplane, a LODA will not cover those areas of flight training. As examples, an experimental aircraft renter cannot use the experimental for Private Pilot training or a tailwheel endorsement because those training events can be accomplished in a certified airplane. A LODA will only allow limited training which may include aircraft specific transition training and flight reviews.



Just remember, without a LODA an EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft cannot be used for compensation or hire, and this includes charging others for flight training.

Unfortunately, at this time there are no known LODA holders for Sonex, Waiex, or Xenos aircraft.



Let’s look at a few examples:

Example 1: I own my Sonex and my CFI is going to give me instruction that I compensate the CFI for.
In this case, no LODA is required.

A CFI can charge for their time regardless of the aircraft being used, and the owner of the airplane is not charging someone else for the use of their airplane.

An owner can use their own experimental airplane for any type of training event they desire.



Example 2: My friend owns a Sonex and my CFI is going to give me transition training dual instruction in that airplane. I will compensate the owner for the use of their airplane and the CFI for their time.

Here, the CFI can charge for their time, but with regards to the aircraft, a LODA will be required on the part of the aircraft owner. If the aircraft owner wants to charge others for the use of their airplane for flight training, they must obtain a LODA.


Example 3: I own my Sonex and am getting a flight review or WINGS training.

No LODA is required since aircraft is not being used for compensation or hire.



Example 4: I am getting transition training for my soon to be completed experimental and I have asked the CFI for a tailwheel endorsement as part of the transition training.

Remember that LODA’s will only cover certain training events. In this example, the student requesting the training would first need to obtain their tailwheel endorsement in a certified airplane before beginning their transition training.



Example 5: A Sonex owner halfway across the country is offering transition training in their airplane and I need to obtain 5-10 hours of time in type for my own insurance needs.

Assuming the owner of the Sonex being used for training has obtained a LODA, they can charge you for the usage of their airplane for specific training events which include transition training and flight reviews. Not all training is allowed however, so prior to beginning the transition training, you would need to obtain all licenses and endorsements necessary to fly the airplane.


This just discusses the FAA regulations. Insurance is an entirely different subject.

Additional information may he found at

http://www.sonexfoundation.com/Obtaining_a_LODA.html

http://www.sonexfoundation.com/Transition_Training.html

http://www.sonexfoundation.com/uploads/ ... _Final.pdf

These seem pretty clear cut to me. The real fuzzy one is: is a CFI allowed to lend me their airplane for free and then get paid for instructing me in it? It would seem to be no different than if it was my airplane, since no money is changing hands for the use of the airplane. But then what prevents the CFI from just charging me a very high rate for this time?

What you’re saying is certainly possible if the CFI also happens to be the aircraft owner. Remember a LODA is not required for the CFI to charge for their time, and if the airplane owner is not charging for the use of the airplane then the original aircraft Operating Limitations are not being violated.

These rules are written under the assumptions that the aircraft owner is a different person than the CFI who is providing the training, and that the aircraft owner wishes to charge others for the use of his/her airplane for training purposes. As long as the airplane itself is not being rented, there’s no need for the LODA.

Is that basically what you meant?

I suspect that if the FAA could show that the CFI charged a different "enhanced" rate when using only the Sonex that they owned - they would argue the CFI was charging for the use of the aircraft. The FAA can be pretty good at spotting "creative" rule interpretations and closing them down. The FAA's view would be that the plane was in commercial use and should be subject to 100 hour inspections etc. Never mind that it is an Experimental.

--

And more to the point - a CFI who did this without being completely up front with their insurers in advance, is likely to find themselves in a world of hurt in the event of a claim.

It’s the insurance loopholes that seem to be the biggest challenge. The LODA rules are fairly straightforward.

We face a real challenge with the loss of the factory T-flight program. We continue to brainstorm ideas and solutions, but none are easy or affordable, much less manageable.

One minor correction here. The original post states...

Sonex Foundation wrote:2. An experimental aircraft’s Operating Limitations prohibit that airplane from being used for compensation or hire, and this includes flight training.

And...

Sonex Foundation wrote:Just remember, without a LODA an EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) aircraft cannot be used for compensation or hire.

This is not entirely correct. The operating limitations issued to amateur-built (and most other) experimental aircraft prohibit carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Not all compensation is prohibited. For example, a person could be compensated for flying their experimental aircraft in an airshow. This happens all the time. Another example would be, a person could be compensated for taking aerial photographs using their experimental aircraft (as long as a third-party photographer did not hire the flight). There are others, but you get the idea.

But in the context of this thread, when an owner charges a fee for the use of the aircraft by others, the aircraft is indeed carrying persons (and property) for compensation or hire. Thus, when providing an aircraft to be used for transition training for which a fee will be charged for the use of the aircraft, a LODA must be obtained by the owner of the aircraft.

As an aside, it has been determined by the FAA that cost-sharing in an experimental aircraft runs afoul of the operating limitations. Even though it is only partial compensation to share costs, it is still compensation, so is prohibited by the aircraft's operating limitations even though the regulations allow private pilots the opportunity to share costs.

I know it's a bit of a nit to pick, but it is a widely spread misconception that experimental aircraft can't be used at all for compensation or hire, but in fact there are ways. You just can't carry a third party or their property for compensation or hire. A small but important distinction.

Sonerai13 wrote:As an aside, it has been determined by the FAA that cost-sharing in an experimental aircraft runs afoul of the operating limitations. Even though it is only partial compensation to share costs, it is still compensation, so is prohibited by the aircraft's operating limitations even though the regulations allow private pilots the opportunity to share costs.

Not calling you a liar. I never ask folks to pro-rate anyway. But my OL's contain no such specific limitation about EXPENSES. The do reiterate - FAR 91.319 (a)(2) which prohibits compensation.

But I've never read anywhere that legitimate COST SHARE is considered "compensation". It's an "expense"..

Best I can find is:

a PPL may prorate
but I can't find anywhere that says a Light Sport Pilot can prorate.

Might that be the difference? The pilot qualification - rather than the aircraft category...

Got a reference to the Letter of Interpretation on the prohibition on cost share?

Thanks for the reply and clarification Joe!

(I was hoping you’d chime in on this subject!)

GraemeSmith wrote:Not calling you a liar. I never ask folks to pro-rate anyway. But my OL's contain no such specific limitation about EXPENSES. The do reiterate - FAR 91.319 (a)(2) which prohibits compensation.

Well, Graham, I think are are calling me a liar. But that's OK. read on.

Regardless of whether you are fully compensated for your expenses or not, it is in fact compensation. I have posed this this specific question to the FAA, and their HQ people gave me the info I posted earlier.

Regardless of what your personal definition of "compensation" and "expenses" is, the FAA says that if you are receiving money toward the operation of the airplane, you are being "compensated". They even feel that the flight time you log can be considered "compensation" under certain circumstances. Your opinion, and mine, don't count. The FAA legal team has spoken.

Now, having said all of that, I know of no case where the FAA has ever violated a pilot of an experimental aircraft solely on the basis of this operating limitation. (Note that I said SOLELY.) They aren't out looking for violators of this particular limitation. But if you were ever brought under the scrutiny of the FAA for some other issue, they could easily use this one as an "added value" violation. Something to keep in mind.

As I get closer to finishing my Onex #0179 it has been my hope that Sonex will be reinstating their transition program. Is this wishful thinking? Is Sonex attempting to help us solve this problem or are we on our own? John