It irks me that the FAA is claiming that they need their guidance to match the letter of the law so they're requiring EAB owners and CFIs to get LODAs.
Then they suggest that they will have a way to fast track LODAs when 91.319(h)(2) clearly states that you need to request a LODA 60 days in advance.
Ok... so basically the FAA is fine with strictly enforcing one rule and creating a workaround for the other?
Here is the letter I wrote my Senator if anyone wants to use it to inspire their own:
I am writing to ask that 14 CFR 91.319 (rules for operating experimental aircraft) be modified to allow an owner of an experimental aircraft to receive flight training in their own aircraft.
This had been the case under FAA Guidance on Flight Training for Compensation in Experimental Aircraft FAA Order 8900.1, however the current administration has decided that this order has been out of compliance for the past 14 years and is implementing a change to require that both the aircraft owner and a flight instructor receive a Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) for instruction in an experimental aircraft.
The FAA has published a summary of their proposed change at this URL:
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-14765.pdf
The FAA's proposed path forward for their new change places a significant burden on experimental aircraft owners and flight instructors.
For example: Each pilot is required to complete a biennial flight review with a flight instructor to maintain currency to be able to legally fly. 14 CFR 61.56(a) defines a flight review as a minimum of 1 hour of flight training. However, the FAA currently requires in 14 CFR 91.319(h)(2) that a request for a LODA be submitted at least 60 days prior to the date of intended operations. It's not reasonable to have to find a flight instructor willing to have to request a LODA 60 days in advance before providing 1 hour of flight instruction. There are many other cases besides a flight review where a pilot simply needs 1-2 hours of flight instruction for currency purposes. It is not reasonable to require both the pilot and flight instructor to plan 60 days in advance and ask permission to do something they are already licensed by the FAA to do at any time in certified aircraft.
I actually agree with the FAA's motive behind making the change, to stop unsafe operators who were putting unlicensed individuals at the controls of powerful warbirds and calling it "instruction". But the FAAs method to change course on a policy that has been in effect for 14 years does nothing to increase safety. This change only implements significant paperwork and logistics to the exponentially more experimental owners that have been operating their aircraft safely and within legal compliance as well as the flight instructors that are the only mechanism to provide flight reviews to experimental owners.
As your constituent who is building an experimental aircraft and is affected by this policy change, I appreciate your attention to this matter.