I'll try to simply reference some things here, which are at least partially better at explaining what this is about. So, first, an article:

https://generalaviationnews.com/2021/06 ... er-attack/
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... tures-case

Give that a read and it'll give you the background. This is a case of "Unintended Consequences", though. Clearly, the FAA was trying to get this gent in the P-40 to comply with their policy regarding offering instruction for hire in a Limited Category airplane.

The Unintended Consequence is that, FAA Legal seems to have adopted the policy now that ANY flight instructor, in ANY airplane, is offering "Common Carriage for compensation or hire".

So, why should you care? First off, if this policy directive stands, the basic premise defining what flight instruction "Is" will change. And, that may and probably will have an effect on insurance, rental rates, and who knows what else.

The other unintended consequence is that, while much of primary instruction is conducted by young relatively inexperienced flight instructors, many of whom are seeking employment with air carriers, or other flying jobs that require a second or first class medical any way, there are also a lot of retired professional pilots out there, who offer specialty training, including backcountry flight training, stall/spin awareness training, etc. Many of those folks, present company included, moved to Basic Med versus continuing to go through the Medical Certification game.

Under historic policy, a Flight Instructor is not viewed by the FAA as carrying a "passenger", even if the person in the other seat has no pilot certificates. The FAA's long time policy on this is that the CFI is a required crewmember, but he/she is being reimbursed for the instruction, NOT for flying the airplane.

Where I'm going with this long ramble is that the new, perhaps about to be cast in stone, FAA opinion is that a CFI is providing carriage for hire.

Which means a CFI must possess at least a second class medical certificate.

A lot of the high time, very experienced flight instructors who I know are operating under Basic Med nowadays.....why hassle with the FAA's bizarre medical certification system if you don't have to? I'm one of those.

AOPA has been working with Senator Jim Inhofe and Representative Sam Graves to prepare and introduce companion bills in the House of Representatives and the US Senate. Both bills go by the same name: "Certainty for General Aviation Pilots Act of 2021".

The Senate bill is S. 2458

Senator Inhofe's summary of that bill: "The Certainty for General Aviation Pilots Act provides certainty that pilots engaged in flight training and flight testing are not considered as “carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.”

FAA has recently reinterpreted long standing policy related to flight training. Because of this change, pilots now face additional burdens having to comply with new bureaucratic steps to fly aircraft tomorrow that they were able to fly yesterday. The directive also imposes new barriers for owners seeking instruction to fly aircraft they purchase and actively discourages qualified flight instructors from providing training to pilots.

This bill fixes this misguided FAA directive that will require thousands of experimental aircraft owners to jump through needless bureaucratic hurdles before offering flight instruction. By removing new and unnecessary regulations, pilots can safely get back to the skies.

Original cosponsors of this bill include: Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Angus King (I-Maine).

The House Bill, submitted by Representative Sam Graves, is: H.R. 4645. The summary is: "To clarify that individuals engaged in aircraft flight instruction or testing, including phased testing of experimental aircraft, are not operating an aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire."

At the AOPA display area at OSH, the FAA Administrator gave a talk wherein he announced that he was just as upset by this ridiculous situation as his audience was. But, of course, it was HIS Legal Department who decided to adopt this new policy.

Like many older CFIs, I don't charge for flight instruction. So, question was asked: "What if a CFI receives no compensation for flight instructing?" FAA Legal promptly responded essentially that being permitted to fly was considered "compensation".

You can see how fast they've gone down that rabbit hole.

Anyway, the essence of my request is this: I STRONGLY encourage you all to contact your Congressional Representatives for your state and ask them to support these two Bills.

Thanks,

MTV

mtv wrote:
Anyway, the essence of my request is this: I STRONGLY encourage you all to contact your Congressional Representatives for your state and ask them to support these two Bills.

Thanks,

MTV

Appreciate you bringing awareness to this subject and more importantly what actions we can take. Basic Medical is a far less stressful way to obtain a medical and unless I start flying something heavy or fast - I do not intend on dealing with an AME. None of us old instructors are getting rich teaching. We do it for love of aviation. I will be contacting my representatives.


Josh

Dog is my Copilot wrote:

mtv wrote:
Anyway, the essence of my request is this: I STRONGLY encourage you all to contact your Congressional Representatives for your state and ask them to support these two Bills.

Thanks,

MTV

Appreciate you bringing awareness to this subject and more importantly what actions we can take. Basic Medical is a far less stressful way to obtain a medical and unless I start flying something heavy or fast - I do not intend on dealing with an AME. None of us old instructors are getting rich teaching. We do it for love of aviation. I will be contacting my representatives.


Josh

Thanks, Josh!

MTV

FAA going to FAA

I’ve already called my representatives, but politicians are pretty dumb as it stands, thinking they’ll understand, let alone stand up for aviation, well it was worth a try at least.

AOPA, basically the NRA of aviation, lots of marketing and hats and magazines, little substance and real lobbying and lawsuiting.


The climate nuts made a auto dialer, works for other uses too

“ (202)-318-1885 if you want to put it on your speed dial—that people can use to easily hit up their senators. Once you call the number, a voice asks you to punch in your zip code. When you do, it reminds you to make four demands for a bold climate bill.”

Sadly I really don’t think our representatives give a damn, I sent my congressman a letter about LODA and got a stupid canned response asking me to follow him on twitter, instagram, facebook and subscribe to his news letter. DEAF EARS

Thanks Mike for the info. We just can not by spectators watching the show. Just send an email- takes 5 minutes.

Guys, I cannot argue regarding the intelligence or concern of our “elected Representatives”. Too many of them, and too much “variety”.

BUT, I will tell you this: The less “controversial” a bill is, the more likely it is to pass. If a Representative sees a bill which really seems like no bug deal, they’ll often vote for it. On the other hand, controversial legislation makes them step back and evaluate risk….

Sooo, this legislation is really pretty non threatening to anyone.

Want an example: Look no further than Basic Med. introduced by the same two Legislators, BTW. It literally flew through Congress (forgive the pun). Why? Because, like this one, it represented looking out for the “little guy” and it was essentially non controversial.

As to AOPA: I don’t know how many pilots realize how hard AOPA is working for us. That is the organization which deserves your support, because they’re the ones helping prepare such legislation, counseling legislators on its importance…..in short, they’re getting things done that ultimately benefit us all.

If you’re not an AOPA member, I highly recommend that you join.

MTV

mtv wrote:Guys, I cannot argue regarding the intelligence or concern of our “elected Representatives”. Too many of them, and too much “variety”.

BUT, I will tell you this: The less “controversial” a bill is, the more likely it is to pass. If a Representative sees a bill which really seems like no bug deal, they’ll often vote for it. On the other hand, controversial legislation makes them step back and evaluate risk….

Sooo, this legislation is really pretty non threatening to anyone.

Want an example: Look no further than Basic Med. introduced by the same two Legislators, BTW. It literally flew through Congress (forgive the pun). Why? Because, like this one, it represented looking out for the “little guy” and it was essentially non controversial.

As to AOPA: I don’t know how many pilots realize how hard AOPA is working for us. That is the organization which deserves your support, because they’re the ones helping prepare such legislation, counseling legislators on its importance…..in short, they’re getting things done that ultimately benefit us all.

If you’re not an AOPA member, I highly recommend that you join.

MTV

What did AOPA do to fight the ADSB mandate?

I’d rather donate to the senators who are actually fighting the good fight, heck I’d wager EAA and NBAA do more to keep aviation free than AOPA.

https://jiminhofe.com/donate/

https://gravesforcongress.com/

Utah-Jay wrote:Sadly I really don’t think our representatives give a damn, I sent my congressman a letter about LODA and got a stupid canned response asking me to follow him on twitter, instagram, facebook and subscribe to his news letter. DEAF EARS

Maybe true but the more of us that speak out the more we will get their attention. It is a small step that cannot hurt and must be taken.


Josh

NineThreeKilo wrote:

mtv wrote:Guys, I cannot argue regarding the intelligence or concern of our “elected Representatives”. Too many of them, and too much “variety”.

BUT, I will tell you this: The less “controversial” a bill is, the more likely it is to pass. If a Representative sees a bill which really seems like no bug deal, they’ll often vote for it. On the other hand, controversial legislation makes them step back and evaluate risk….

Sooo, this legislation is really pretty non threatening to anyone.

Want an example: Look no further than Basic Med. introduced by the same two Legislators, BTW. It literally flew through Congress (forgive the pun). Why? Because, like this one, it represented looking out for the “little guy” and it was essentially non controversial.

As to AOPA: I don’t know how many pilots realize how hard AOPA is working for us. That is the organization which deserves your support, because they’re the ones helping prepare such legislation, counseling legislators on its importance…..in short, they’re getting things done that ultimately benefit us all.

If you’re not an AOPA member, I highly recommend that you join.

MTV

What did AOPA do to fight the ADSB mandate?

I’d rather donate to the senators who are actually fighting the good fight, heck I’d wager EAA and NBAA do more to keep aviation free than AOPA.

https://jiminhofe.com/donate/

https://gravesforcongress.com/

Interesting comments. First of all, there is NO "general" ADS-B "mandate". AND, NONE of the alphabet organizations fought ADS-B, not EAA, not NBAA. Put your eggs in NBAA's basket, they've been trying to force "little airplanes" out of "their airspace" for decades!! Look at a little history.

AOPA is the one that got Basic Med done, by working with Graves and Inhofe. EAA wasn't on board, and certainly not NBAA.

EAA does a great job on issues relating to Experimental and homebuilt planes, no doubt, but they really don't seem to have much interest in other stuff, which is fine with me.....I'm also a member of that organization.

I'm all for supporting Inhofe and Graves, but they're already on board with this. We ALL need to encourage OUR individual Congressional representatives to support these bills, just like happened with Basic Med.

Let's git er done!

MTV

mtv wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

mtv wrote:Guys, I cannot argue regarding the intelligence or concern of our “elected Representatives”. Too many of them, and too much “variety”.

BUT, I will tell you this: The less “controversial” a bill is, the more likely it is to pass. If a Representative sees a bill which really seems like no bug deal, they’ll often vote for it. On the other hand, controversial legislation makes them step back and evaluate risk….

Sooo, this legislation is really pretty non threatening to anyone.

Want an example: Look no further than Basic Med. introduced by the same two Legislators, BTW. It literally flew through Congress (forgive the pun). Why? Because, like this one, it represented looking out for the “little guy” and it was essentially non controversial.

As to AOPA: I don’t know how many pilots realize how hard AOPA is working for us. That is the organization which deserves your support, because they’re the ones helping prepare such legislation, counseling legislators on its importance…..in short, they’re getting things done that ultimately benefit us all.

If you’re not an AOPA member, I highly recommend that you join.

MTV

What did AOPA do to fight the ADSB mandate?

I’d rather donate to the senators who are actually fighting the good fight, heck I’d wager EAA and NBAA do more to keep aviation free than AOPA.

https://jiminhofe.com/donate/

https://gravesforcongress.com/

Interesting comments. First of all, there is NO "general" ADS-B "mandate". AND, NONE of the alphabet organizations fought ADS-B, not EAA, not NBAA. Put your eggs in NBAA's basket, they've been trying to force "little airplanes" out of "their airspace" for decades!! Look at a little history.

AOPA is the one that got Basic Med done, by working with Graves and Inhofe. EAA wasn't on board, and certainly not NBAA.

EAA does a great job on issues relating to Experimental and homebuilt planes, no doubt, but they really don't seem to have much interest in other stuff, which is fine with me.....I'm also a member of that organization.

I'm all for supporting Inhofe and Graves, but they're already on board with this. We ALL need to encourage OUR individual Congressional representatives to support these bills, just like happened with Basic Med.

Let's git er done!

MTV

I agree and I’ll support anyone who supports my industry.

That being said, what AOPA has done for how much money and marketing they do is pretty sad, everyone just shrugging with ADSB, which did make a difference, as it required you to spend thousands to enter many airport or get near most big cities, didn’t help lower my MVA or anything, and sent my personal info to creeps, that wasn’t even a swing and a miss, they didn’t even try to swing.

But hey, if AOPA woke up and is actually
going to do something for all those dues, good! I still think overall they don’t put on a show worth their cost of admission.

AOPA did worse than nothing on ADS-B they supported it. For that I can never support AOPA. Don't care what they are up to, I will never give them a dime.

mtv wrote:.....AOPA is the one that got Basic Med done, by working with Graves and Inhofe. EAA wasn't on board, and certainly not NBAA. EAA does a great job on issues relating to Experimental and homebuilt planes, no doubt, but they really don't seem to have much interest in other stuff....

Go back in time a few more years, I think you'll find that EAA was the driving force behind sport pilot.

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote:.....AOPA is the one that got Basic Med done, by working with Graves and Inhofe. EAA wasn't on board, and certainly not NBAA. EAA does a great job on issues relating to Experimental and homebuilt planes, no doubt, but they really don't seem to have much interest in other stuff....

Go back in time a few more years, I think you'll find that EAA was the driving force behind sport pilot.

Yes, EAA worked on the Sport Pilot thing.....and look what a train wreck the whole LSA thing turned out to be! And, how much bandwidth is now being wasted on trying to get the maximum weight of LS increased!!

BUT, guys and gals, READ what I posted: I'm NOT asking you to support AOPA or EAA, or the Boy Scouts of America, fer cryin out loud!

What I'm asking you to do is to support two bills, which were submitted to Congress. Those bills, if passed, would continue what has been the "Standard" in flight instructing: That the instructor is NOT "operating the airplane by carrying a passengers for compensation or hire"

If you hate AOPA, that's unfortunate. They didn't invent ADS-B, the FAA did. But that has NOTHING to do with this issue.

This issue is being addressed by a couple of General Aviation Pilots who also happen to be Members of Congress.

How about supporting this for all of US?

MTV

Other than fear porn from AOPA is there anything suggesting the FAA is going to use this case to restrict flight instruction by less than 2nd class medical holders? For all their faults the FAA has been pro instruction. They solved the experimental instruction LODA issue pretty much immediately but you wouldn't have known it from the crying by AOPA and EAA.

GB wrote:Other than fear porn from AOPA is there anything suggesting the FAA is going to use this case to restrict flight instruction by less than 2nd class medical holders? For all their faults the FAA has been pro instruction. They solved the experimental instruction LODA issue pretty much immediately but you wouldn't have known it from the crying by AOPA and EAA.

How is the FAA pro instruction? They have dumbed down flight training and outlawed training in experimentals

I won’t give a dollar to AOPA to get their new jet a paint job or whatever else they blow the money on, but I did donate to the two senators I linked to, and I called the number I posted and let me elected idiots know my will.

That I fully agree with mtv on, showing support to the bills authors and those pushing it is VERY important, like a child they need positive reinforcement, also letting YOUR elected types know how important the two bills are, and that when it comes to your industry you’re a one issue voter.

So

Call this number (202)-318-1885 (ignore the enviro BS), enter your zip code to have it auto dial your elected officials

Say they MUST support senate bill is S. 2458, and house bill H.R. 4645

Tell them doing otherwise makes pilots have a harder time getting training, ask if they want pilots to have more or less training?

Mention words like safety, and say how the FAA is hurting the pilots who come out of pocket for training, ie the little guy.

I’d also mention that with the outlawing of training, and recent Boeing issues, they should push to replace the FAA leadership, based on FAAs actions they obviously don’t have the wellbeing of the flying public, and the pilots, at heart.


Also if you have a little jingle in your pocket, show these two some love

‪https://jiminhofe.com/donate/‬

‪https://gravesforcongress.com/‬

NineThreeKilo wrote:How is the FAA pro instruction? They have dumbed down flight training and outlawed training in experimentals

I guess they have dumbed down training, spin training was removed 70 years ago, you want to replace the current FAA because of a 70 year old decision, good luck.
Training in experimentals has not been outlawed, if you train people in or take training in an experimental you send an email wait a day get a response and you are good to go. The idea that training in experimentals has been harmed is fear porn pushed by nonsense organizations. I'm not a fan boy of the FAA nor of aviation's lobbyists. But often the FAA is more benevolent then the guys on 'our' side would have you believe.

GB wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:How is the FAA pro instruction? They have dumbed down flight training and outlawed training in experimentals

I guess they have dumbed down training, spin training was removed 70 years ago, you want to replace the current FAA because of a 70 year old decision, good luck.
Training in experimentals has not been outlawed, if you train people in or take training in an experimental you send an email wait a day get a response and you are good to go. The idea that training in experimentals has been harmed is fear porn pushed by nonsense organizations. I'm not a fan boy of the FAA nor of aviation's lobbyists. But often the FAA is more benevolent then the guys on 'our' side would have you believe.

They have made changes since the spin training

Also having to get a letter of DEVIATION to train in experimentals is unacceptable and not conducive with promoting pilots to get more training.

GB wrote:Other than fear porn from AOPA is there anything suggesting the FAA is going to use this case to restrict flight instruction by less than 2nd class medical holders? For all their faults the FAA has been pro instruction. They solved the experimental instruction LODA issue pretty much immediately but you wouldn't have known it from the crying by AOPA and EAA.

Ummmmm, it was the FAA Chief Legal Counsel who adopted as policy the new language….language that the court merely suggested.

The FAA Administrator addressed a SRO crowd at Oshkosh, which I attended, and said basically that this decision upsets him far more than it does us….us being pilots. Seriously, he was very outspoken against this.

But, he doesn’t have the yank to over ride Legal, apparently.

So, yes, at the moment, everyone is kinda ignoring that elephant in the room. It’s pretty apparent the FAA isn’t going to fix it, though…..but it is now policy according to their legal folks.

So, just cruise along till the axe falls. No sweat.

Oh, and BTW, this will apply to all those LS instructors, who have NO medical at all. So, bet your butt that EAA cares….

MTV

To me may AOPA may not be an ideal organization but in realty it is really the one of the only organizations with any lobbying power to fight the moving tide toward more restrictions in GA. If the powers that be had their way we would be flying under a system similar to Europe with user fees and substantial limitations as GA pilots. Contacting our local representative will help on this particular issue but we need lobbying power in DC to represent GA. I believe organizations like AOPA and the EAA provide some voice for GA resisting federal regulatory changes. While I do not agree with all of the actions AOPA has taken I do believe they have done more overall good than bad. I support them and compared to the amount of money spent in aviation over my life it represents a small infinitesimal amount of money.


Josh