View Single Post
Old 05-12-2021, 7:10am   #13
Giraffe (He/Him)
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905

Bantayan Kids '13,'15
Points: 110,810, Level: 100
Activity: 0%
 
Giraffe (He/Him)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: My butt's been wiped.
Posts: 30,980
Thanks: 5,226
Thanked 16,607 Times in 7,133 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $1009320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chemtrails99 View Post
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".
Let me try it this way. Forget the ruling and it's implications for the sake of this question.

Given the what the CFR states, how is the owner of a limited category aircraft able to offer rides -not training- to the public? See my example; 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
Giraffe (He/Him) is offline   Reply With Quote