Quote:
Originally Posted by Giraffe
Again, understood. But 14 CFR 91.315, titled “Limited Category Civil Aircraft—Operating Limitations,” which states the following: “No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.” was on the books long before this ruling. So how were they able to offer rides for compensation *prior* to this ruling?
We have an Air Show in a Minneapolis suburb every summer that offers rides in a B17. The only thing that might allow this is the B17 is NOT a Limited Category aircraft, therefore it's exempt from 14 CFR 91.315.
|
Therein lays your misunderstanding. Nobody was "giving rides" in decades. ALL flights were with a CFI that handed off controls to the other person, thus qualifying it as flight training. The flight goes down in a person's logbook afterwards. Even "Discovery Flights" given to non-pilots to entice them to take lessons are instruction. They are taken up, sometimes have controls and are instructed into the dynamics of flight and what it takes to take lessons.
While this lawsuit is aimed at Warbird Adventures, it has deep implications for all phases of flight training elsewhere. Don't focus on the individual type mentioned, but the overall issues involved. I suspect the suit was filed against them because they don't have big money for a horde of lawyers, and once tested in court everybody else will suffer as this becomes "Precedence".