On April 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a response to a petition that concludes, in relevant part, that compensated flight instruction constitutes carriage of a person for compensation, possibly giving rise to the FAA’s commercial operating regulations (e.g., FAR Part 135). According to a joint letter to the FAA from AOPA, the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the court’s judgment creates “significant confusion and concern in the aviation community regarding the impact of the decision on compensated flight training, in limited category aircraft” and others. The unpublished decision, while not setting a precedent, could be used to fundamentally alter the legal basis for flight instruction in any kind of aircraft.
In its judgment, the appeals court found that FAR 91.315 does not provide an exemption for limited category aircraft to be used for flight instruction. Its reasoning, at least in part, is that FAR 91.313, regarding restricted category aircraft, contains specific language allowing flight instruction and that the FAA “could have chosen to make an exception to this rule for flight instruction” but didn’t (emphasis in the original). Interestingly, FAR 91.313 comprises 744 words. By contrast, FAR 91.315 simply says, “No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.” Flight instruction in limited category aircraft usually is conducted under an FAA exemption granted by the FAA. But not in the case of this denial of a petition for review of an FAA cease and desist order.
