Hugely problematic court ruling

[RyanShort1]

For someone that buys a new warbird, it is often important that they get instruction... and their new plane may not have dual controls. A court recently ruled against a group for providing instruction in a P-40... personally, I think we should be helping fund an appeal.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...lds-faa-order-in-warbird-flight-training-case

Instead, Warbird argues that § 91.315 does not prohibit paid flight training. We disagree. A flight student is a “person.” Id. § 91.315; see also id. § 1.1. When a student is learning to fly in an airplane, the student is “carr[ied].” Id. § 91.315. And when the student is paying for the instruction, the student is being carried “for compensation.” Id

Source:

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2...04.626716256.1617978172-1639342233.1617204215

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Apparently that was a panel and it may be re-heard en banc. That would be good.