SonexBuilders.net

The FAA has issued a clarification of the court ruling on flight training in limited category aircraft. Taken as written, this has a bad omen for transition training where owners pay for instruction in their own aircraft.

Hopefully this is resolved quickly.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... dium=email

https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/faa ... -aircraft/

A key part of the AOPA article:

The June 8 letter specifically addressed four potentially negative implications of the FAA’s current stance:

Prohibiting owners of experimental aircraft from receiving flight instruction in their own aircraft without specific FAA permission to do so in the form of a Letter of Deviation Authority.

Prohibiting owners of over 300 limited category aircraft from receiving flight instruction in their own aircraft without an exemption.

Prohibiting owners of primary category aircraft from receiving flight instruction in their own aircraft without an exemption.

Limiting access to flight training in a specific make and model of an aircraft.

The letter claims that the FAA’s perspective is contrary to the agency’s longstanding commitment to policies, practices, and procedures that have made and kept this nation’s national airspace system the safest in the world.

Talking to the Boston FSDO this morning about this. I can't see a solution for people who would NOT be acting as PIC while they get their transition training.

I'm trying for my Flight Review - where I will be PIC and the CFI is there to assess me. They are not carrying me. I am carrying them. Well that's what I'm going to ask.....

Otherwise there are going to be a ton of us looking for LODA,s

First of all, this is all because of my friend Thom. He provides warbird instruction, specfically P40, through his flight school. The FAA came down on him, he sued, the courts ruled in FAA favor and here we are in a huge fight that will greatly hurt flight training in special and unique aircraft. Spits right in the face of safety culture...

Second, this is just the beginning. A lot of this is being driven by pressure from the current NTSB board. They are pushing hard for a lot more heavy handed regs. The high profile Kobe helicopter crash only added fuel to the fire. They are pushing to end all part 91 revenue flights. They want to make all part 91 rev ops into basically part 121 or 135 ops, with safety reporting systems etc. Its crazy. For instance my balloon ride business would need to follow these guidelines. Basically I would need to develop a SRS so that I can report myself for unsafe practices since I am the sole owner/operator, which is the same for many balloon rides, sightseeing trips, banner towers, etc... WTF.

GraemeSmith wrote:
Otherwise there are going to be a ton of us looking for LODA,s

This is the recent push by the NTSB. They got congress involved and are coming down heavy handed. LODA's for everyone is basically what they want. That and safety reporting systems in place for all these part 91 revenue operations. They want any of these to run as a part 121 or 135 operation, which isn't realistic for the majority since they are small, single operator flight operations.

Its just another ridiculous thing from the current NTSB board and FAA.

GraemeSmith wrote:Talking to the Boston FSDO this morning about this. I can't see a solution for people who would NOT be acting as PIC while they get their transition training.

I'm trying for my Flight Review - where I will be PIC and the CFI is there to assess me. They are not carrying me. I am carrying them. Well that's what I'm going to ask.....

Otherwise there are going to be a ton of us looking for LODA,s

Since a Flight Review is logged as "instruction" it would seem to me that a LODA would be necessary for the CFI to be legal unless the CFI doesn't charge for the review. We have a CFI at our airpark that doesn't charge for flight reviews given to our residents so I assume we are still good to go. What a mess.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261

Hi all,
Very sorry to see it come to this. As a retired FAA 25 yr employee, i always saw turf wars between the FAA and NTSB. the NTSB can only suggest things, not mandate them. the same for maritime, or rail, or highway. Many items are just not implemented due to the cost. The NTSB ‘s intention is for safety , but its just not reasonable due to restrictions, cost, and side effects.
Yes when tragic high profile accidents happen they get traction when congress gets an earful. then congress TELLS the FAA to do something.
i.e. the colgan air crash in buffalo, the recent B-17 accident , waiting for the fallout from kobe bryants helo crash.
i get my biennial from a flight school in santa rosa , ca. every 2 yrs. in a C-172. They’ve known me for 30 yrs.
We’ve kept the insurance for our waiex with the same company the last six yrs. $700 liability only. never changed. Taking my father (87) off the policy didnt help. We are building him a zenith cruzer, something easy to get in/out of.
Transition training for new folks hard to find.
insurance for new folks hard to get.
Lots of accidents everyday posted on kathrynsreport.
high accident rate in our community. weve got to do better. most are engine failure with no reason given.
most are vw . this is fact. look up the accidents in sonex and research the engine type. If you fly a vw you may need more attention and tinkering than lets say a jabiru.
Fix all squawks before flight.
Make sure YOU are mentally & physically ready before flight. we all are getting older.
consider joining any alphabet soup groups you wish. such as eaa & aopa. They do they heavy lifting when interacting with the ntsb and faa. its our only hope.
See you at oshkosh. i feel its safe to go. I’ve had the vaccine.
FLY SAFE!

WaiexN143NM
Michael

IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL FAA POSITION OR STATEMENT ON THE MATTER. IT WAS A DISCUSSION WITH NO OFFICIAL FAA STAMP AT THE END OF IT. PLEASE DON"T QUOTE THIS AS AN "FAA SAYS" - BECAUSE IT DOES NOT. I was interacting with a highly experienced FAA Inspector who has the best interests in small GA and Safety in their mindest

This is the gist of the interaction I had.

Me To FSDO - referencing the FAA letter to AOPA/EAA etc wrote:So the attached letter seems to have firmly put paid to a CFI giving transition training to an owner where the aircraft is an EXPERIMENTAL. Unless they get a LODA.

--

But what about the other way around?

What if I am clearly agreed to be the owner and qualified to be the PIC of the EXPERIMENTAL? I am carrying the CFI and he is assessing me for WINGS credits?

In that test is seems to me that The CFI is not doing the carrying. I am doing the carrying.

--

Otherwise I have to go over to the school and rent their 150. Which doesn’t really prove much. I want a cross check of my abilities in my own plane.

FSDO to Me wrote:I suspect they are going to say OK for owner (not others) to receive instruction in their aircraft and pay an instructor for that instruction, no issues or requirements. (Graeme comments - this is what I was asking if I could do) The big issue, I personally believe, are circumstances, such as seen in the P-40 case, where others rather than the owner are using limited/primary/experimental for training....

....like say transition training into a Sonex. I suspect that is where the exemption is going to be required (this is what prior interpretations said). I.e. holding out to the Public (making available to the public) your aircraft for instruction and there being some compensation. Say you are an instructor and got your own Sonex, you can receive instruction in your Sonex…However, if you are teaching someone else in your Sonex, you will need a LODA.

.....letter was issued by a person ......who is not part of the legal department (although it may have been reviewed by legal)......

......This sounds like a “wait it out” and you will see things changed in the near future to make sense… I have seen things like this before. I strongly expect the EAA to roll in with missiles & guns locked on this one.

hi all, graeme,

i hear you graeme, wanting to fly in your own plane, but to simplify things i do the biennial in a C-172.
the master flt. instructor i fly with has bad knees. easy to get in/out of a C-172. flt school plane hes very familiar with.
dual controls. or center located. throttle, mixture, carb heat, brakes , flaps, fuel selector . And if an instructor flies in a sonex for only an hour or two each year, how good is he/she to evaluate you who flies it all the time. ? im sure you could school them how to fly a sonex well. Every year the faa has some focus items , so is good to review those on the biennial. then practice those items next time you fly your sonex. its more of a paperwork exercise, keep your logbook,
and license current. legal for flight two years , and keeps the insurance people at bay. i know some airports want to see your pilots lic., medical, insurance, a/w cert. to operate on the field. all about liability and coverage.
its todays world.
transition training, well thats been tough the last few years.
WaiexN143NM
Michael

Michael,

You make a good point about there being few CFI's with Sonex experience. Here is how I try and deal with that.

- I'm actually a volunteer FAA Safety Rep in the WINGS program - so I am up to speed with the monthly brief on focus areas.

- I'm flying for WINGS Credits. And get enough of them - I get flight reviewed. I aim for an "annual" flight review as a personal minimum. Insurers like that too.

- The reality is that I can only take small light CFI's - and GENERALLY that means young and not with a lot of experience - though I have come across some outstanding exceptions. And generally - most of those CFI's really want to try flying the silver bullet.

- There is the old saw about "the best way to learn something is to have to teach it". So when I fly a CFI in the Sonex - we treat it as a flying lesson. Only I teach it. We start from the top with the paperwork (AROW) and then do an incredibly thorough preflight. A blend of getting them familiar with what they are about to get into, making sure they are comfortable with it - and I strongly offer them a "walk away" if they are not comfortable.

- And then for the airwork parts - as I rarely fly the plane at maximum gross - this is MY learning opportunity. And I'm real clear about that. This is not an excuse for missing bank angles, airspeeds and the like - it's an opportunity to practice them at maximum gross - usually takes a few goes to start nailing the ACS.

It's fun and I let the CFI fly the plane as much as I fly it. I want them to have fun. And I hope it gets us more CFI's out there with some Sonex time.

WaiexN143NM wrote:hi all, graeme,

And if an instructor flies in a sonex for only an hour or two each year, how good is he/she to evaluate you who flies it all the time. ? im sure you could school them how to fly a sonex well.

WaiexN143NM
Michael

So true, Michael...........I've taken flight reviews with a couple of CFIs whereupon I demonstrate to them, to the best of my ability, what a Sonex is all about. There is nothing they can add to the experience. I actually fly more hours in a year than they do, in any plane. The best flight reviews I've had in recent years was with a CFI friend who gave instruction in his own Taylorcraft L2. He knew his plane extremely well and was an excellent instructor at the same time.

My flying experience goes back to the days way before flight reviews were a requirement. Initially the FAA was wanting to stop those pilots who hadn't flown for ten years and then they'd shoot three takeoffs and landings and load up the family and go flying with no recent experience or proficiency. This had merit but then the FAA made the flight review requirement apply to all pilots, even those who fly every day of the year. It became the CFI's full employment act. I have always wished they had made the flight review requirements more in line with instrument competency requirements. That is, with an appropriate amount of continuing recent experience, the flight review is waived but that's not the way it went. So here we are now, flight reviews required and few to give them, at least in our own planes.

Art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Sonex taildragger #95,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Jabiru 3300 #261