Russ, kudos for a timely story. FWIW, the FAA legal department clearly won the battle with the erranrt warbird outfit… but lost the war of credibilty. Let’s hope the Senate follows through. Whomever the unnamed FAA litigation team might have been really screwed the pooch with their highly questionable strategy. I’m sure they were individually and collectively awarded large monetary awards and heartfelt commendations by the then head of the FAA.
I’m a bit confused here. It sounds like they are ending the work around without yet creating a new approval process. How is that a good thing?
2 replies
The article says the need for the approval process will end, once the bill with the necessary language to remove that requirement is signed into law.
I think the last paragraph of the article is talking about the longer-term issue of fixing the FAA reneging decades of precedent of how flight training has been treated to prevent future potential unnecessary paperwork (or worse) issues.
1 reply
They are changing federal law, so it would override the recently changed interpretation of an unchanged regulation. Basically the law over-rides the court interpretation of “for hire”.
If anyone wants the specifics, below is the text from today’s version of the bill (H.R. 7900). The last sentence would make it effective immediately and the FAA is directed to change the regs accordingly. There would be no need for a NPRM process of months to go through the Admin. Procedures Act steps usually needed for a new reg, since this law specifically grants authority to change regulations.
Of course, this is not in the Senate version, so if this ever becomes law will boil down to what happens in the conference committee when the two houses try to mesh the House and Senate versions.
"SEC. 5325. FLIGHT INSTRUCTION OR TESTING.
(a) In General.--An authorized flight instructor providing student
instruction, flight instruction, or flight training shall not be deemed
to be operating an aircraft carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire.
(b) Authorized Additional Pilots.–An individual acting as an
authorized additional pilot during Phase I flight testing of aircraft
holding an experimental airworthiness certificate, in accordance with
section 21.191 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and meeting
the requirements set forth in Federal Aviation Administration
regulations and policy in effect as of the date of enactment of this
section, shall not be deemed to be operating an aircraft carrying
persons or property for compensation or hire.
(c) Use of Aircraft.–An individual who uses, causes to use, or
authorizes to use aircraft for flights conducted under subsection (a)
or (b) shall not be deemed to be operating an aircraft carrying persons
or property for compensation or hire.
(d) Revision of Rules.–The requirements of this section shall
become effective upon the date of enactment. The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall issue, revise, or repeal the
rules, regulations, guidance, or procedures of the Federal Aviation
Administration to conform to the requirements of this section."
Reading the bill, I am not sure what Mr. Baker is referring to when he says this is only the first step in returning flight training to the status quo.
It looks like the law gives them exactly what they want
“…flight instructor providing student instruction, flight instruction, or flight training shall not be deemed to be operating an aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire”
Am I missing something, what else was he looking for, you think?
Aha, thanks.