|
Off Topic Off Topic - General non-Corvette related discussion. |
|
Share | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
05-11-2021, 2:30pm | #1 | ||||||
A Real Barner
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,076
Thanks: 82
Thanked 1,356 Times in 530 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $500
|
FAA/ Court Ruling Threatens Flight Training
This is unfolding as a legal issue right now. If you care about Aviation and Warbirds, take time to read and share it. It's from Flying magazine, not some weird third party fake site. If you've ever dreamed of flying a P-51 or P-40...then read it for sure.
https://www.flyingmag.com/story/trai...zd4uGOxnUB7Z1c Interpretation of the FARs Threatens Flight Instruction Turning misunderstanding into law, from the Warbird Adventures ruling. By Gretta Thorwarth 4 hours ago Aircraft such as the P-40 Warhawk operate in the limited category and were directly affected by the court’s ruling, though other ramifications remain to be seen.Clarence Alford/Pixabay The flight training industry—and aviation as a whole—suffered a blow whose full ramifications still remain to be seen when on April 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made its ruling on Warbird Adventures, Inc., et. al. v. FAA. The ruling declined to reverse an emergency cease-and-desist order meted out by the FAA in July 2020 barring Warbird Adventures, a Kissimmee, Florida-based boutique flight school, from providing flight instruction for compensation or hire in a dual control World War II P-40 fighter training aircraft certificated in the limited category. The FAA’s entire case rested upon an interpretation of 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.” However, flight instruction is not, and never has been until now, considered the “carriage of persons…for compensation or hire.” The order and ensuing case in Warbird Adventures centered around whether the flight school was required to obtain an exemption from 91.315 in order to provide instruction in the P-40 for “compensation or hire.” The only reason an exemption to 91.315 would be necessary to provide compensated flight instruction would be if paid flight instruction was considered the “carriage of persons.” And until now, the answer to that question has been a definitive “no.” Historically, the “carriage of persons” has referenced such operations as those in which people are paying for the privilege of air carriage from one place to another, or a “ride”; whereas with paid flight instruction, as referenced by the 1995 Fretwell FAA Legal Interpretation, the trainee is compensating the instructor not for piloting the aircraft, but for the instruction they are providing. In 1949, the Civil Aeronautics Board (predecessor to the FAA) adopted the original regulations pertaining to commercial operators, 14 CFR Part 45; in which 45.1, “Applicability,” stated that “for the purpose of this part, student instruction…shall not be considered as the carriage of goods or persons for compensation or hire.” The current commercial operator regulations under 14 CFR Part 119, “Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators,” similarly denote the flight operations that do not fall under air carrier requirements, stating specifically that “this part does not apply to…Student instruction.” [14 CFR 119(e)(1)] This distinction is what has allowed flight instructors to teach and be compensated for their time without having to hold commercial-level medical certificates or operate under commercial air carrier rules. However, the FAA is now essentially arguing that, for regulatory purposes, “paying-passenger” carriage is exactly what flight instructors are doing every time they take a student into the air for a lesson for “compensation or hire”—lumping all such training activities, regardless of aircraft certification, into the same general category as a commercial air carrier operation. Prior to the issuance of the court’s decision, a group of aviation organizations including AOPA and EAA filed a joint amicus (i.e., ‘friend of the court’) brief, warning the court against making a broad-reaching decision that may have serious ramifications for the entire flight training industry. Unfortunately, the court did just that when it decided: “A flight student is a ‘person’…When a student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student is carr[ied]…And when the student is paying for the instruction, the student is being carried ‘for Compensation.’” That decision has now placed a substantial roadblock in the path of those seeking type-specific transition training in such specialty aircraft when compensation is involved. Additionally, the court’s decree has now effectively rendered all compensated flight training, as it is currently conducted, illegal. The Court of Appeals’ opinion that its decision against Warbird Adventures was not precedential—therefore deciding not to publish it in the federal case register—underscores the court’s lack of understanding of the industry-wide ramifications of its determination. However, despite not being a published determination, the FAA can still reference the decision as precedent in future proceedings held in DOT, NTSB, and federal district courts—meaning that the door has been opened for the initiation of violations against any entity or individual who provides flight instruction for compensation or hire. Under the new interpretation of “carriage of persons for compensation or hire,” any student in a typical paid flight training scenario is now a “person” being “carried” by their instructor for “compensation or hire.” This would make the flight in question subject to air-carrier certification and regulatory requirements for the pilot, aircraft, and operator (the flight school). In short, any operation by a for-profit flight school would require a Part 135 or similar commercial air carrier certificate. Additionally, any flight lesson with an independent instructor who is being paid for his or her instructional services would be considered the “carriage of persons for compensation.” This effectively nullifies the standalone validity of a flight instructor certificate, as no individual instructor will be able to meet the qualification requirements for commercial air carriers. Also, if paid flight instruction is now considered “carriage of persons for compensation or hire.” an entire sector of flight instructor licensure—the sport pilot flight instructor —has now been rendered null and void. A pilot need not hold any more than a sport pilot certificate and a driver’s license in order to be eligible for the sport pilot instructor designation; consequently, according to the new decision, they do not meet the commercial medical and pilot certification requirements necessary to receive compensation for the ‘carriage’ of their students. Similar limitations would apply to CFIs using third-class medicals or BasicMed. Further, with paid flight instruction being “illegal” unless operated under an air carrier certificate, the only other option for “legally” providing training is to offer free flight instruction. This creates a scenario in which no additional recurring inspections of aircraft providing such free flight instruction would be required outside of annual inspections. Theoretically, an operator could legally provide 700 hours of free flight instruction in a calendar year without ever being required to inspect or service the aircraft until the annual inspection is due, whereas the traditional “for compensation or hire” flight school operator would have completed at least seven inspections in the same operation interval. Without industry unity and mutual understanding of the ramifications of having paid flight instruction defined as the “carriage of persons for compensation or hire,” the recent decision in Warbird Adventures has the potential to drastically change the foundation of aviation knowledge and safety—flight instruction—as we know it. |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Chemtrails99 For This Useful Post: |
05-11-2021, 3:20pm | #2 | ||||||
Latin American Goat Roper
Barn Stall Owner #101 Bantayan Kids '13
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Orange Park Florida
Posts: 60,710
Thanks: 32,894
Thanked 11,561 Times in 5,701 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $1138393
|
Eternal stupidity on part of the judiciary Unbelievable.....products of modern edjemakashunal institutions........run by commies to upset this entire nation.....
|
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to mrvette For This Useful Post: |
05-11-2021, 3:45pm | #3 | ||||||
A Real Barner
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 19,015
Thanks: 9,674
Thanked 7,050 Times in 3,110 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $46272
|
This guy is cranky, but spot on about all of it.
Poor maintenance, old pilots, bad decisions, etc...I have to agree with him now. Look back at all the warbird crashes and you can see a pattern. The B17 (9o9) that killed the guys riding along was all done by the old pilot bad decision...gear down too soon and it slowed the plane to a stall. Bad maintenance, etc... I LOVE old warbirds, but these 'foundations' are treating flying a aircraft like a carnival ride. And the poor public is too dumb to comprehend the dangers. |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Grey Ghost For This Useful Post: |
05-11-2021, 4:09pm | #4 | ||||||
Barn Stall Owner #103
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: North Cackalaky
Posts: 25,517
Thanks: 11,887
Thanked 31,430 Times in 10,893 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $108939
|
Had a friend die on maiden flight of his rebuilt P-51 ~ 10 yrs ago in Tx
|
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to MadInNc For This Useful Post: |
05-11-2021, 5:28pm | #5 | ||||||
Barn Stall Owner #6969
NCM Supporter '11, '12,'17,'20
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Somewhere in GA
Posts: 25,177
Thanks: 11,313
Thanked 11,500 Times in 5,024 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $1071547
|
If it absolutely, positively needs ****ed up overnight, let the government run it.
|
||||||
05-11-2021, 5:42pm | #6 | ||||||
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905 Bantayan Kids '13,'15
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
|
I'm a little unclear on something. The limited category states among other things; “no person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.”
Giving rides to John Q. Public certainly falls into this category doesn't it? |
||||||
05-11-2021, 6:41pm | #7 | |||||||
Barn Raising II,III
NCM Supporter '13 Bantayan Kids '17
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: I could never live there.
Posts: 339,934
Thanks: 200,281
Thanked 30,508 Times in 14,293 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $108033784
|
Quote:
Edit: Similar to visiting the Jack Daniel's distillery. Situated in a dry county, they can't, by law, sell you Jack Daniel's. What they can do though, is sell you a commemorative bottle, and as a free gift, they fill it with their signature product in liquid form. |
|||||||
05-11-2021, 9:37pm | #8 | ||||||
A Real Barner
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 19,015
Thanks: 9,674
Thanked 7,050 Times in 3,110 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $46272
|
I think they have crashed and destroyed enough war birds over the last few yrs. Now, innocent people are getting killed. I'm kind of glad they are putting more restrictions on them.
Flying is dangerous. In anything that lifts you off the ground and at any speed. Had a friend that bought a powered ultralight thing once. He was showing off around his neighborhood, stalled it, and crashed into the ground. Killed him and his wife. Poor decisions, skill, hours, etc...people think they are going for a ride in a safe aircraft like an airliner or such when they do these warbird rides. I don't think they are safe at all from what I've heard from people with experience with those foundations. If you have plenty enough $$$ and donate it...they will let you fly them scenario. |
||||||
05-12-2021, 3:37am | #9 | |||||||
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905 Bantayan Kids '13,'15
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
|
Quote:
“No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.” Yep, I understand your explanation but how *doesn't* this also include taking John Q. up for rides at an air show? If I own a P-40 Warhawk and charge John Q. Public $200.00 for a 10 minute ride, isn't that operating the limited category aircraft for compensation? |
|||||||
05-12-2021, 5:50am | #10 | |||||||
Barn Raising II,III
NCM Supporter '13 Bantayan Kids '17
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: I could never live there.
Posts: 339,934
Thanks: 200,281
Thanked 30,508 Times in 14,293 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $108033784
|
Quote:
|
|||||||
05-12-2021, 6:51am | #11 | |||||||
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905 Bantayan Kids '13,'15
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
|
Quote:
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. |
|||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Giraffe (He/Him) For This Useful Post: |
05-12-2021, 7:04am | #12 | |||||||
A Real Barner
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,076
Thanks: 82
Thanked 1,356 Times in 530 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $500
|
Quote:
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". |
|||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Chemtrails99 For This Useful Post: |
05-12-2021, 7:10am | #13 | |||||||
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905 Bantayan Kids '13,'15
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
|
Quote:
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 |
|||||||
05-12-2021, 9:12am | #14 | ||||||
A Real Barner
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,618
Thanks: 646
Thanked 1,013 Times in 481 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $500
|
Shitty court ruling. Standard. As an aviation enthusiast (and a direct supporter of current combat aircraft), this really stinks? But, it sounds like this can be fixed by just changing the licensing and some of the procedures for flight instruction. Almost like just a change in name.
|
||||||
05-12-2021, 1:17pm | #15 | |||||||
Barn Stall Owner #55
Island14 Cardio Team
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: A sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory
Posts: 14,753
Thanks: 3,748
Thanked 9,192 Times in 4,365 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $23236
|
Quote:
Limited is targeted at surplus equipment, but not all surplus equipment is "Limited". |
|||||||
05-12-2021, 1:19pm | #16 | |||||||
Barn Stall Owner #55
Island14 Cardio Team
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: A sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory
Posts: 14,753
Thanks: 3,748
Thanked 9,192 Times in 4,365 Posts
Gameroom Barn Bucks: $23236
|
Quote:
|
|||||||
05-12-2021, 1:48pm | #17 | ||||||
Goldilocks
Barn Stall Owner #905 Bantayan Kids '13,'15
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
|
Gotta be, it’s the only thing that makes sense given the CFR. I lumped all warbirds into the limited category which on the surface seems a given but probably isnt the case.
|
||||||
|
|
Support the Barn: |
Download the Mobile App; |
Follow us on Facebook: |
||