A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) from the FAA, “Public Aircraft Logging of Flight Time, Training in Certain Aircraft Holding Special Airworthiness Certificates, and Flight Instructor Privileges” was published June 23, 2023, in the Federal Register.
Among several rule changes, the NPRM proposes to codify the ability to train, without any further FAA authorization, in experimental, limited, and primary category aircraft when the use of the aircraft is not being offered for hire to a third party as part of the instruction.
Under the proposed rule, Letters of Deviation Authority (LODAs) would continue to permit certain types of training where the aircraft is offered for hire.
This has allowed — and would continue to allow — training operations to offer transition training to the flying public where the use of an experimental aircraft is compensated, officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association explained.
Another significant rule change proposed in the NPRM is the removal of a prohibition on experimental light-sport aircraft to be used in compensated training.
Over the years, this restriction has severely limited the availability of suitable aircraft for ultralight training, EAA officials noted.
With an appropriate LODA, these aircraft would once again be legal for training prospective pilots.
This is a long-awaited change first proposed in 2018 in an NPRM that was withdrawn and eventually combined with this new rulemaking initiative, according to EAA officials.
The NPRM, like most rulemaking documents, is complex. EAA officials said they are reviewing the document in detail and will provide appropriate comments.
The FAA is accepting comments on the NPRM until Aug. 22, 2023.
You can read the full NPRM at FederalRegister.gov, which is also where you can submit your comments.
I’m a little lost. I thought the FAA had ALREADY given the OK for flight training in experimentals earlier this year. Am I reading something wrong or taking something out of context?
They needs ADS-B out. Then we let them fly.
When the FAA did not support the AFI and the BFI instructors , that decision closed the chapter on teaching ultralight flight. CFI instructors argued that They would not do instruction in a aircraft of that type and would only teach in a certified conventional aircraft. That problem is still there.. teaching someone to fly an ultralight in general aircraft break the FAA rule already in force. Flying a aircraft of a different type means you have to be checked out in it. Where is that going to happen? Will the FAA ever support that program again. If you certify flight training in a two seat ultralight of that type will the CFI support this nes proposed rule. Ultralight industry died because of the lack of instruction. That was a loss of a lot of new pilots, thousands. That ultimately effects the job market in aviation.
Yes, I am in favor of allowing training in ELSA’s. Frank Dempsey, CFI, WSCL.
Making training difficult to obtain does not contribute to safety in any way.
This should absolutely be allowed! Legal flight instructors should be able to provide instruction in any aircraft that they are competent to instruct in! It’s just that simple…
Those “spam cans” make excellent trainers because they’re safer and more forgiving, even if they’re not sexy, cool, and cheap. It may attract more young flyers, but will all flyers and the skies (and homes and residents around the airport) be safer? Risk tolerance is different. An experimental CFI recently (this morning) unsuccessfully pushed to takeoff and fly in IMC (1/2 to 2-1/2 SM HZ, down since to 1-1/2) at a Class D, then pushed for a “minimum VFR” clearance, and ultimately an SVFR clearance that the Class C publishes as not available. Get-there-it is at its finest and most dangerous. Is that the kind of CFI role model and example setter we want teaching the acrobat-wannabe flyers of tomorrow? FAA should be careful here, or they’ll just be rolling back this policy in 10 years due to problems (and injuries, deaths) traced back to it.
“Marginal VFR”
Cheap?
Aircraft make doesn’t have much to do with poor flying ability or decision making.
The laws of physics don’t change because the aircraft is registered as experimental or LSA. As long as an aircraft is airworthy a person should be able to obtain instruction in it.
Your story is a CFI problem, an individual who made (or makes) poor decisions. This is NOT the norm, not even close. Most experimental aircraft are outstanding examples of qualified craftsmanship . . .so let’s not confuse craftsmanship with individual judgement.
An interesting proposal. I only registered my LSA as Experimental in order to take the 16hr inspection course so I could do my yearly Condition Inspection. Which raises the question, what about training for hire in an airplane with a self-certified annual?
Easy enough: training aircraft are required to have 100-hour inspections. Simply require those to be done by an FAA mechanic. You can still fly your plane using your own Annual Condition Inspection, but not instruct in it without the FAA 100-hour.
Yours is a reasonable suggestion. I hope that you will comment at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/23/2023-12600/public-aircraft-logging-of-flight-time-training-in-certain-aircraft-holding-special-airworthiness
This is a common-sense proposal. I suspect that most younger people would far prefer learning to fly in a modern aircraft like an RV-7, than an ancient spam can like a C152/C172/Cherokee.