Couple of things come to mind: One FSDO allows the use of ATF-50 spray to
deter corrosion, another FSDO says its use makes the airplane unairworthy.
One FSDO says that chrome spinners are just fine, another grounds the
airplane until they are replaced.

We've been fighting this for forty years that I know of, with no solution in
sight.

Bob Gardner

"Justin Maas" wrote in message
...
Hey all,

I was wondering why the FAA hasn't cracked down on some of the
ambiguity
and differences in interpretation exercised by FSDOs. Since we all have a
Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized? Is there
a
good flow of communication from FSDO to FSDO?

Here's some background on why I'm up and wondering about this...

I took an unusual attitudes course in Phoenix about a year ago. The
FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
instructors weren't CFIs. Up here in NY, however, I was told that
wouldn't
"fly." Since I fly 3-4 times a week anyways, I picked up the usual hour
air/ground BFR in a day. However, it kind of irked me that if I weren't
such a frequent flyer and took FCI (the school in AZ) up on their BFR
offer,
I could possibly get violated here. Another example is the Orlando FSDO.
In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c
and
sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time. This was more of an
advisory, but it would be nice if the whole country could hear MCO's
comments. Does anyone agree, or am I going off on an rant here?

Justin