 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
brubakermal(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:05 am Post subject: club planes? |
 |
|
Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
To: <fly-ul(at)yahoogroups. com ([email]fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com[/email])>
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 10:45:26 AM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
There has been some significant discussion on the topic of training in ELSA aircraft on some other forums which I am involved in. CGS Hawk, FLY UL, and LINKDIN are a few. The responses in those forums spurred me to write this in response. Please check out those forums if you are interested!
sent to LINKDIN
I want to keep the focus. What we will be doing is essentially taking hamburger and putting it all back together to make a steak.
Ultra light flying is getting more difficult because of the non-availability of training. No one is going to give hours of training time and the use of an aircraft for free. Ultra lights therefore, literally, fly under the radar.
Sport pilots can't do that quite so readily, but unfortunately, many are trying. While an ELSA built to SLSA standards is an appropriate aircraft, many experimentals simply do not fit the bill for appropriate training aircraft. I make this statement to have it understood that I do not advocate training in ALL experimental aircraft.
Back to the focus of this discussion.
I do not have the background I believe is required for developing the type of format needed here. I came up through the ranks of ultra lights as a self taught pilot. I received my BFI, trained several people in ultra lights, then received the training I needed when Sport Pilot came to be to transition to a sport pilot license.
I have passed the first step - the FOI test - toward getting my CFI. But I do not have the legal background or the depth of knowledge regarding the FARs I feel is needed to produce this format in a viable and usable program for the Sport Pilot training arena.
Mark, if you or someone else who is following this thread, or even a group of others, have the knowledge to pull this together, I would be willing to contribute what I can.
This subject has spurred a lot of discussion as you know here and in other forums.
Let's see if we can take it to a desired completion.
There are some people who would be comfortable training with only a verbal contract.
Others will require a written contract with the basics of cost and damage deposit and a disclaimer of liability in the event of an accident included. Still others will want a written contract in triplicate spelling out every possible nuance, required insurances, and a liability waiver signed by the trainee's family before they feel comfortable taking on the responsibility. And, yet others, will require a corporation development, corporate insurance, an aircraft meeting specified standards.....
We now need to develop a format that can easily be adapted to allow each instructor to use their own level of comfort as a guide to what type of contract they want to use.
From hamburger .... to steak.
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 5:19:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: club planes?
We have established the need. We have proven viability. We even have an apparent precedent. So, what next?
An easy to follow format with all the "legal" jargon included for the average "layman" CFI or old BFI properly providing for that "equity position". Could such a "position" be covered by something so simple as a "damage deposit" on the aircraft??
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 9:27:30 AM
Subject: RE: Re: club planes?
> The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is owned by the person receiving the instruction. > --------
Thom, & knowledgeable 'regs' guys,
Your statement above is excellent information, but what about the situation
where a plane is just given it's airworthiness certificate?
I get the impression what you said is fine for a fully built, previous flown
airplane, but what about a brand new one?
Once a plane is finally finished, aren't you supposed to fly off a certain
number of hours before someone can be in the plane also?
How does that work? I never have clearly understood how this part works.
After rereading your statement, I think I'm getting more confused. If a person
had a CFI teach him to fly, OF COURSE he could be taught in ANY (legal) airplane.
My question is; How can a guy learn to fly his brand new, never flown, just
licenced, experimental airplane? Can he have an instructor go with him on his
maiden flight? Does anyone know how this works??
We've had a few recent incidents where lowtime Kolb pilots bent their planes
(and themselves). What does the FAA regs say to address this problem?
Thanks.
Mike Welch
MkIII
[quote][b][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:26 am Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
I think you ought to tell him to contact his Congressional representatives. I wrote a fairly large detailed letter to my reps and others a while ago explaining the strangulation the FAA is placing on aviation. So far I have heard zeep from the over 40 letters that I sent. My take is that the mostly old gizzers in DC there would not know how to approach that, since the FAA is executing policy via a congressional mandate. I suppose if enough people contact their Reps, it may create enough pressure to have them look at the overly broad mandate that they gave the FAA, or conversely discover that the FAA is way overreaching, which is what I think.
It's a political struggle that we in aviation cannot afford to ignore or loose, we are already seeing the results of us deferring to AOPA and EAA, who in general are no better than the FAA itself, or to express it clearly they are just as much of an "Organization Men" as the drones at the FAA are. They see things in "terms of control" not the way most of us see it as in "terms of freedom".
I think it ought to become more obvious that part of our flying will have to start incorporating personal involvement in the political process to truncate FAA budget (most effective) and FAA power (somewhat effective), or else sooner or later they will start coming after our Kolbs Challengers or whatever we fly. The FAA is an agency that is running amok intoxicated by its own power and hubris.
---- Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
=============
Ok Group. This was posted on the CGS hawk forum. I want to say Thank You to
Danny Dezauche for a well thought out and candid statement. I agree. So, after
you all have read it, chime in here and let's figure out what we are going to do
about it!
To whom it may interest
I was told by the FAA that clubs were considered a commercial
Entity and therefore were only legal for training with "certified
Aircraft". I was also told "primary" training such as a sport pilot
License has to be in a certified aircraft. I have been a member
Of the oldest club in mobile ala for several years which used
Cessnas etc for rent and training. These of course were certified
Aircraft
We here at cgs have lived with the loda and club question for
Several years now. The belief and hope that training can and will
Be allowed in Elsa aircraft has existed since the advent of the
Light sport category
Cgs has only sold 2 slsa models since 2005 and none since
April 2009 since I purchased the business. I too see the need
For trainers of the ultralight type. Remember. Two seat ultralights
Were only allowed by waiver for training purposes only from the start
The sale and use of two seaters outside the waiver was one of the reasons for
the faa to
implement this grand experiment in the U.S.known as
Sport pilot. The word from the FAA now is that they will not
Allow any More lsa models into the market without prior
Audit by the FAA as to their qualifications and engineering
Those of us in the lsa market can also expect to be audited
By the FAA In The near future to make sure we are in compliance
With all astm standards.
The confusion over the elsa training issue has had a detremental effect on this
segment of aviation obviously.
i want to make it clear what my personal and business position is on this issue
once and for all i have also said this to the faa
we as manufacturers cannot force people to buy slsa aircraft. however if no
trainers are available either slsa or elsa no new customers
are trained or exposed to our aircraft. i would rather see training in elsa
aircraft instead of not at all and that is where we are today
we can build slsa's all day long but if no one buys them whats the point an
elsa aircraft built by an individual puts most legal ramifications
on the owner builder not the factory
so i support any measures that will get this segment going and training again
however faa is not happy with the results of their audit on the lsa industry
which was done over the past two years. So we manufacturers await
the future with some fear of the unknown.
in a further effort to get slsa trainers out in the field cgs is putting on a
sun n fun sale which will be posted on the web site
i implore the group to choose someone whom is respected among you to contact the
faa and report on their findings
i dont expect anyone here to take my word for it and i prefer another voice to
concur what ive said
sincerely
danny dezauche
president/cgs aviation
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Thom Riddle <riddletr(at)gmail.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 8:49:22 AM
Subject: Re: club planes?
Dana,
The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is owned by
the person receiving the instruction. My FSDO said that partial ownership or
indirect ownership (share holder in a corporation that owns the aircraft)
qualifies as long as there is an equity position in the aircraft.
--------
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Kolb Slingshot SS-021
Jabiru 2200A #1574
Tennessee Prop 64x32
Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are
wonderful.”
—Ann Landers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=329948#329948
====
--
kugelair.com
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
I have an old article maybe a year old. In it it cites EAA exemption #7162 where a person is allowed to rent and instruct in experimental. If that exemption has not been revoked which I don't see where that happened although it may?
All FAA approved!!!!!
Ron (at) KFHU
=============================
---- Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
=============
Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different
concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
To: <fly-ul(at)yahoogroups. com>
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or
ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or
used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be
ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the
purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from
the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational
chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft.
This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits
qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any
specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the
model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long
as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed
in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the
stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N
number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly
that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you
built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified
flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that
aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has
not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental-
--EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any
kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle
vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and
not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his
or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an
experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight
then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where
the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I
suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an
experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 10:45:26 AM
Subject: Re: Re: club planes?
There has been some significant discussion on the topic of training in ELSA
aircraft on some other forums which I am involved in. CGS Hawk, FLY UL, and
LINKDIN are a few. The responses in those forums spurred me to write this in
response. Please check out those forums if you are interested!
sent to LINKDIN
I want to keep the focus. What we will be doing is essentially taking hamburger
and putting it all back together to make a steak.
Ultra light flying is getting more difficult because of the non-availability of
training. No one is going to give hours of training time and the use of an
aircraft for free. Ultra lights therefore, literally, fly under the radar.
Sport pilots can't do that quite so readily, but unfortunately, many are trying.
While an ELSA built to SLSA standards is an appropriate aircraft, many
experimentals simply do not fit the bill for appropriate training aircraft. I
make this statement to have it understood that I do not advocate training in ALL
experimental aircraft.
Back to the focus of this discussion.
I do not have the background I believe is required for developing the type of
format needed here. I came up through the ranks of ultra lights as a self taught
pilot. I received my BFI, trained several people in ultra lights, then received
the training I needed when Sport Pilot came to be to transition to a sport pilot
license.
I have passed the first step - the FOI test - toward getting my CFI. But I do
not have the legal background or the depth of knowledge regarding the FARs I
feel is needed to produce this format in a viable and usable program for the
Sport Pilot training arena.
Mark, if you or someone else who is following this thread, or even a group of
others, have the knowledge to pull this together, I would be willing to
contribute what I can.
This subject has spurred a lot of discussion as you know here and in other
forums.
Let's see if we can take it to a desired completion.
There are some people who would be comfortable training with only a verbal
contract.
Others will require a written contract with the basics of cost and damage
deposit and a disclaimer of liability in the event of an accident included.
Still others will want a written contract in triplicate spelling out every
possible nuance, required insurances, and a liability waiver signed by the
trainee's family before they feel comfortable taking on the responsibility. And,
yet others, will require a corporation development, corporate insurance, an
aircraft meeting specified standards.....
We now need to develop a format that can easily be adapted to allow each
instructor to use their own level of comfort as a guide to what type of contract
they want to use.
| Quote: | From hamburger .... to steak. Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
|
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 5:19:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: club planes?
We have established the need. We have proven viability. We even have an
apparent precedent. So, what next?
An easy to follow format with all the "legal" jargon included for the average
"layman" CFI or old BFI properly providing for that "equity position". Could
such a "position" be covered by something so simple as a "damage deposit" on the
aircraft??
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
________________________________
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 9:27:30 AM
Subject: RE: Re: club planes?
| Quote: | The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is owned by
the person receiving the instruction. > --------
Thom Riddle
|
Thom, & knowledgeable 'regs' guys,
Your statement above is excellent information, but what about the situation
where a plane is just given it's airworthiness certificate?
I get the impression what you said is fine for a fully built, previous flown
airplane, but what about a brand new one?
Once a plane is finally finished, aren't you supposed to fly off a certain
number of hours before someone can be in the plane also?
How does that work? I never have clearly understood how this part works.
After rereading your statement, I think I'm getting more confused. If a
person
had a CFI teach him to fly, OF COURSE he could be taught in ANY (legal)
airplane.
My question is; How can a guy learn to fly his brand new, never flown, just
licenced, experimental airplane? Can he have an instructor go with him on his
maiden flight? Does anyone know how this works??
We've had a few recent incidents where lowtime Kolb pilots bent their planes
(and themselves). What does the FAA regs say to address this problem?
Thanks.
Mike Welch
MkIII
============
--
kugelair.com
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hauck
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:59 am Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
I have an old article maybe a year old. In it it cites EAA exemption #7162
where a person is allowed to rent and instruct in experimental. If that
exemption has not been revoked which I don't see where that happened
although it may?
All FAA approved!!!!!
Ron (at) KFHU
Ron/Kolbers:
Try this one:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2007/2007-11-01_exemption.asp
Folks, see if you can clean up your posts prior to hitting the send button.
Leave enough of the previous post as a reference to know where you are
coming from. Helps a whole bunch when we are searching for info in the Kolb
List Archives.
Thanks,
john h
mkIII
Titus, Alabama
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickofudall
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:56 am Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
"ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA."This statement is true at the time the DAR or FAA inspector is examining the aircraft for issuance of the airworthiness certificate. At that time the aircraft must be exactly like the qualifying S-LSA ORthere must be Letters of Authorization from the manufacturer listing the change and the specific N number of the aircraft with the change. Once the airworthiness certificate is issued, an E-LSA is no different than an E-AB. Any modification the owner wishes to do may be done. As Edsel Ford of the FAA's Light Sport Branch told me, "experimental is experimental".
Rick Girard
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com (brubakermal(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:
| Quote: |
Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
To: <fly-ul(at)yahoogroups. com ([email]fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com[/email])>
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com (brubakermal(at)yahoo.com)>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 10:45:26 AM
Subject: Re: Re: club planes?
There has been some significant discussion on the topic of training in ELSA aircraft on some other forums which I am involved in. CGS Hawk, FLY UL, and LINKDIN are a few. The responses in those forums spurred me to write this in response. Please check out those forums if you are interested!
sent to LINKDIN
I want to keep the focus. What we will be doing is essentially taking hamburger and putting it all back together to make a steak.
Ultra light flying is getting more difficult because of the non-availability of training. No one is going to give hours of training time and the use of an aircraft for free. Ultra lights therefore, literally, fly under the radar.
Sport pilots can't do that quite so readily, but unfortunately, many are trying. While an ELSA built to SLSA standards is an appropriate aircraft, many experimentals simply do not fit the bill for appropriate training aircraft. I make this statement to have it understood that I do not advocate training in ALL experimental aircraft.
Back to the focus of this discussion.
I do not have the background I believe is required for developing the type of format needed here. I came up through the ranks of ultra lights as a self taught pilot. I received my BFI, trained several people in ultra lights, then received the training I needed when Sport Pilot came to be to transition to a sport pilot license.
I have passed the first step - the FOI test - toward getting my CFI. But I do not have the legal background or the depth of knowledge regarding the FARs I feel is needed to produce this format in a viable and usable program for the Sport Pilot training arena.
Mark, if you or someone else who is following this thread, or even a group of others, have the knowledge to pull this together, I would be willing to contribute what I can.
This subject has spurred a lot of discussion as you know here and in other forums.
Let's see if we can take it to a desired completion.
There are some people who would be comfortable training with only a verbal contract.
Others will require a written contract with the basics of cost and damage deposit and a disclaimer of liability in the event of an accident included. Still others will want a written contract in triplicate spelling out every possible nuance, required insurances, and a liability waiver signed by the trainee's family before they feel comfortable taking on the responsibility. And, yet others, will require a corporation development, corporate insurance, an aircraft meeting specified standards.....
We now need to develop a format that can easily be adapted to allow each instructor to use their own level of comfort as a guide to what type of contract they want to use.
From hamburger ... to steak.
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Malcolm Brubaker <brubakermal(at)yahoo.com (brubakermal(at)yahoo.com)>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 5:19:27 PM
Subject: Re: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
We have established the need. We have proven viability. We even have an apparent precedent. So, what next?
An easy to follow format with all the "legal" jargon included for the average "layman" CFI or old BFI properly providing for that "equity position". Could such a "position" be covered by something so simple as a "damage deposit" on the aircraft??
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com (mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com)>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com (kolb-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Mon, February 7, 2011 9:27:30 AM
Subject: RE: Kolb-List: Re: club planes?
> The FAA regs allow instruction in any experimental aircraft which is owned by the person receiving the instruction. > --------
Thom, & knowledgeable 'regs'guys,
Your statement above is excellent information, but what about the situation
where a plane is just given it's airworthiness certificate?
I get the impression what you said is fine for a fully built, previous flown
airplane, but what about a brand new one?
Once a plane is finally finished, aren't you supposed to fly off a certain
number of hours before someone can be in the plane also?
How does that work? I never have clearly understood how this part works.
After rereading your statement, I think I'm getting more confused. If a person
had a CFI teach him to fly, OF COURSE he could be taught in ANY (legal) airplane.
My question is; How can a guy learn to fly his brand new, never flown, just
licenced, experimental airplane? Can he have an instructor go with him on his
maiden flight? Does anyone know how this works??
We've had a few recent incidents where lowtime Kolb pilots bent their planes
(and themselves). What does the FAA regssay to address this problem?
Thanks.
Mike Welch
MkIII
| Quote: |
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
|
|
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:01 pm Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 11:01 AM, Malcolm Brubaker wrote: | Quote: | Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
To: <fly-ul(at)yahoogroups. com ([email]fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com[/email])>
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
|
A couple of thoughts:
quote
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
unquote
I've never seen that in the form that it's written. I wonder if it is specific to the 'exemption' for transition training in a homebuilt experimental. That exemption isn't for what most would consider flight training; it's an exemption to provide *transition* instruction for a qualified pilot to get comfortable in *that particular design*, new-to-him/her experimental a/c. For example, a 5000 hr ex-military pilot who's only flown C-130's & never a light plane, would need instruction to handle a taildragger homebuilt like a Thorp T-18 (or Kolb).
On the overall question of 'club' a/c: people may be getting the wrong (undesirable) answer because they are asking the wrong question. The word 'club' probably does trigger a reaction from the FAA, because most clubs operate as businesses, charging monthly dues, etc. If the question was phrased as 'multiple owners', or 'partnership', there would probably be a different answer. If you search FAA records, you'll find many experimental homebuilts registered to partnerships, and even corporations. As the EAA said, any experimental can be used for instruction, as long as there is no payment to the owner for the use of the a/c (commercial use). I have read about (but have no direct experience) that an experimental can even be loaned to a non-owner for training. Memory is less clear on whether a third-party instructor can be paid in that scenario. The question of 5 owners 'renting' to the 6th owner probably wouldn't come up as long as most of the owners fly at least occasionally, & all share more or less equally in fixed costs like insurance & annuals.
I'd bet that a more likely problem is going to be finding an instructor whose liability insurance will cover him while instructing in a homebuilt. Not saying it makes sense; it's just an unfortunate reality.
Charlie
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brubakermal(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:49 am Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
for those following this thread in-depth and looking toward a solution, please read this article and give your feed-back. also, looking into templates for agreements..
Co-Ownership: Navigating Airplane Partnerships - Plane & Pilot...
21 Oct 2008 … This is the simplest multiple-owner arrangement. … There are several agreement templates online (for example, try AOPA's … indirect operating costs like pilot training, hangars, etc. …
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 2:58:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: club planes?
On 2/11/2011 11:01 AM, Malcolm Brubaker wrote: | Quote: | Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
To: <fly-ul(at)yahoogroups. com ([email]fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com[/email])>
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
|
A couple of thoughts:
quote
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
unquote
I've never seen that in the form that it's written. I wonder if it is specific to the 'exemption' for transition training in a homebuilt experimental. That exemption isn't for what most would consider flight training; it's an exemption to provide *transition* instruction for a qualified pilot to get comfortable in *that particular design*, new-to-him/her experimental a/c. For example, a 5000 hr ex-military pilot who's only flown C-130's & never a light plane, would need instruction to handle a taildragger homebuilt like a Thorp T-18 (or Kolb).
On the overall question of 'club' a/c: people may be getting the wrong (undesirable) answer because they are asking the wrong question. The word 'club' probably does trigger a reaction from the FAA, because most clubs operate as businesses, charging monthly dues, etc. If the question was phrased as 'multiple owners', or 'partnership', there would probably be a different answer. If you search FAA records, you'll find many experimental homebuilts registered to partnerships, and even corporations. As the EAA said, any experimental can be used for instruction, as long as there is no payment to the owner for the use of the a/c (commercial use). I have read about (but have no direct experience) that an experimental can even be loaned to a non-owner for training. Memory is less clear on whether a third-party instructor can be paid in that scenario. The question of 5 owners 'renting' to the 6th owner probably wouldn't come up as long as most of the owners fly at least occasionally, & all share more or less equally in fixed costs like insurance & annuals.
I'd bet that a more likely problem is going to be finding an instructor whose liability insurance will cover him while instructing in a homebuilt. Not saying it makes sense; it's just an unfortunate reality.
Charlie
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundred[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brubakermal(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:55 am Post subject: club planes? |
|
|
There has been a lot of discussion, mostly positive, and it has all been interesting, much of it very helpful.
From the Sport Pilot Instructors forum Phil Dietro, Arlynn McMahon, and a few others have discussed the options they have utilized. Thom Riddle has posted some inciteful questions and possible solutions.
This is what we are looking for : other "outside the box" forward thinking groups or individuals who can help us generate a solution to the growing problem of SPCFI shortages and the costs involved in being able to operate.
Arlynn has offered to share info regarding how an SPCFI might go about "affordably" operating without the backing of a "regular" flight school. This is not a sarcastic statement.
Phil mentioned the addition of PPC & WS training - are there existing LODAs in force to provide for that training in ELSAs?
Having come up through the ranks of Ultralight to Sport Pilot, I also know many new UL flyers who are desperate for training they can't get.
Our focus is how to go about establishing an LLC and fractional ownership plan centered around ELSA craft & EABs to use for the additional purpose of training SP & UL student pilots; and making this information available to all SPCFIs.
I have priced even the USED (aka- well flown) SLSAs, there aren't many available, and they are still in the $70,000 to $100,000 range.
Not exactly within the "affordable" range of even a school with more than 1 instructor.
There has been response from the NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) that has been on a positive note. They are very interested in working on this solution as well.
As a group, Sport Pilot may simply need to do the same thing that other minorities have done in the past, Stand up, be counted, be recognized, and not take NO for an answer. It will take time. We all realize this. But with more of us working toward the same goal, we will obtain it sooner rather than later.
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 2:58:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: club planes?
On 2/11/2011 11:01 AM, Malcolm Brubaker wrote: | Quote: | Another point of view, same basic subject - flight training in ELSA, a different concept of dealing with it.
Roger Mills has posted this following a conversation with EAA.
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 11:58 am
To: <fly-ul(at)yahoogroups. com ([email]fly-ul%40yahoogroups.com[/email])>
Per EAA---(as of 1 hour ago)
An E is an E is an E! Regardless of whether it is kit or plans built, EAB or ELSA.
An experimental category aircraft of any type cannot be formally rented out or used by anyone "for hire" in any way!!!!!
Cost sharing for 'friendly' use by other than the owner is OK to a point--be ready to prove it.
A group of people can form a "club" as an LLC, corp or partnership for the purpose of building, owning and flying any experimental aircraft.
The orgainization that functions as a fund raiser must be a separate entity from the one that owns the experimental aircraft.
The members or partners can be the same people, BUT, separate organizational chart etc.
(Even EAA chapters, as the rules stand now, can build but not own an aircraft. This is being worked on to correct.)
Plans or scratch built automatically qualify for the "51%", only approved kits qualify, ELSA can be any % but exacly like the SLSA.
A repairmans certificate for an EAB can be issued to only one person for any specific aircraft by N number only.
A repairmans certificate for an ELSA requires the course and MAY include the model???
Without a repairmans certificate only an AP or better can sign the annual.
Any flight instructor can be paid to teach in any experimental aircraft as long as they have the qualifications necessary.
The flight instructor may or may not be an owner/partner in the aircraft.
Flight instruction may be given to the level allowed by the equipment installed in the aircraft.
(I think this last one means that you can get full IFR if the aircraft has the stuff)
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
(I am not sure how to really works--on the surface it seems to mean that if you built it, flew off the restrictions and got an N number-you are a qualified flight instructor for that aircraft only?????, and can be paid to teach in that aircraft???)
(I was specifically told that since flight instruction is desired--the FAA has not restricted the ability of a flight instructor to teach in an experimental- --EAB or ELSA. You just CANNOT charge a fee for the aircraft itself.)
(I was also told that insurance is problematic in an experimental of any kind--Falcon insurance does it---rates are much different for a Christen Eagle vs a Pete etc. I have not spoken with them.)
Again, Per the EAA. (my comments)
One small item to add--my comment---based on the sum of the conversation and not specifically stated:
The way the rule is written it gets real grey if one partner pays more than his or her share of the hourly cost. Say 6 people form a partnership to build an experimental aircraft---If one partner pays the entire cost of a one hour flight then the others partners benefit. Confused me for a while but I can see where the FAA may see that as 5 owners renting the aircraft to the sixth partner. I suspect that this kind of thing is why the FAA frouns on "club" ownership of an experimental.
Posted by : Roger Mills on UL forum
Malcolm Brubaker
Michigan Sport
Pilot Repair
LSRM-A, PPC, WS
(989)513-3022
|
A couple of thoughts:
quote
The individual owner/builder of a two place aircraft, who has received an N number for that aircraft, is the only one who can "teach" anyone else to fly that aircraft until an otherwise qualified flight instructor has been "taught".
unquote
I've never seen that in the form that it's written. I wonder if it is specific to the 'exemption' for transition training in a homebuilt experimental. That exemption isn't for what most would consider flight training; it's an exemption to provide *transition* instruction for a qualified pilot to get comfortable in *that particular design*, new-to-him/her experimental a/c. For example, a 5000 hr ex-military pilot who's only flown C-130's & never a light plane, would need instruction to handle a taildragger homebuilt like a Thorp T-18 (or Kolb).
On the overall question of 'club' a/c: people may be getting the wrong (undesirable) answer because they are asking the wrong question. The word 'club' probably does trigger a reaction from the FAA, because most clubs operate as businesses, charging monthly dues, etc. If the question was phrased as 'multiple owners', or 'partnership', there would probably be a different answer. If you search FAA records, you'll find many experimental homebuilts registered to partnerships, and even corporations. As the EAA said, any experimental can be used for instruction, as long as there is no payment to the owner for the use of the a/c (commercial use). I have read about (but have no direct experience) that an experimental can even be loaned to a non-owner for training. Memory is less clear on whether a third-party instructor can be paid in that scenario. The question of 5 owners 'renting' to the 6th owner probably wouldn't come up as long as most of the owners fly at least occasionally, & all share more or less equally in fixed costs like insurance & annuals.
I'd bet that a more likely problem is going to be finding an instructor whose liability insurance will cover him while instructing in a homebuilt. Not saying it makes sense; it's just an unfortunate reality.
Charlie
[quote][b][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
