Yes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
learn. Or, don't waste your time teaching a pig to sing, it
annoys the pig and wastes your time.




"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:43:51 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Then I suggest that you write the FAA and your
congressman
| to require that the FAA clarify, in the regulations, what
| has been the regulation, policy and interpretation of FAR
| 61.57, so that you're pleased with the resulting text.
| Understand that nothing will change, just an expenditure
of
| a few $100,000 for public hearings, and printing.
|
|
| Jim: I am done now giving free ground school. How about
you?
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| | Turn it around...
| | example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| | conditions less than basic VFR unless they have
passed
| an
| | IPC.
| |
| | b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6
hours
| and 6
| | approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the
IPC
| | need not be completed.
| |
| | Yes, that would be totally different. In your
hypothetical
| rewriting of the
| | FARs, the second clause explicitly states an
*exception*
| to a requirement
| | ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
| the second clause
| | instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
| serve *unless*").
| |
| | That's been my point all along: you're trying to
construe
| a *requirement* as
| | an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
| doesn't express an
| | exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a
good
| illustration of
| | how an exception would be worded; that wording is
| precisely what's missing
| | from the actual FARs in question.
| |
| | Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
| years
| | and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for
part
| 141
| | and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that
is
| | always covered.
| |
| | As I have explained many, many times, that just tells
us
| what the FAA's
| | position is. But I've never disputed what their
position
| is. I just maintain
| | that their position does not match what the FARs say.
| Nothing about your 30
| | years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
| that question is
| | addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I
have
| done here in
| | detail.
| |
| | --Gary
| |
| |
|
|