WINGS program...

Tom L. wrote:

I don't think we should start panicking just yet.

I am not panicking, just calling a lawyer and getting myself a BFR (that's
called a** covering, panic comes later :-)

61.56(e) talks about "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency award program".
Both old and new WINGS were/are exactly that, so either one qualifies.
Whether the AC is updated or not does not matter.

Well, my local FSDO (and AOPA) disagree, and both told me that the old
WINGS phases no longer qualify. And since that all I have to show today,
I am worrying. They might very well be both wrong though, this wouldn't be
the first time, but I don't want to be the guy having to argue that in a
court of law, or with my insurance company, or with the FAA after a ramp
check...

As for the faasafety web site, it says:
"Pilots participating in the WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program to at
least the Basic Phase need not accomplish the flight review
requirements of 14 CFR part 61, if since the beginning of the 24th
calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in
command, he or she has satisfactorily completed or currently holds the
Basic or higher WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program phase in an aircraft
(reference 61.56(e))."

Here is the thing: on the one hand, something that I can read on the
interwebs, on the other hand an advisory circular still in effect that
says otherwise. I know that I am splitting hair here, but hair splitting,
longitudinally and diagonally, is precisely what lawyers and civil
servants and insurance assessors do. If your new Wing phase does not
include three phases of training, of one hour each, as described in AC
61-91H paragraph 7.a (if you are an airplane pilot) and a safety meeting or
equivalent as described in paragraph 7.h of the same document, with the
required signatures and logbook endorsement, etc. that go with it, then you
have not met the requirements of 61.56(e).

....and call me a wimp, but I have a problem with that.

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...

What's the problem? Get a BFR and fly on. Maybe they will have it sorted out
in two years.

"Tim" wrote in message
...

"Sylvain" wrote in message
t...

What's the problem? Get a BFR and fly on. Maybe they will have it sorted
out in two years.

That's basiclly the same thing that I've been thinking.

There's really nothing wrong with the wings program, and it has a lot of
outstanding virtues--for example, it gives pilots, students, and anyone who
might be interested an opportunity stay more current on both services and
regulations and also a friendly environment to ask questions about any
procedure, service, or regulation.

OTOH, the BFR issue has always been amusing--if you attend the prescribed
number of wings seminars and also fly a little more with an instructor than
the BFR would have required; then you don't have to separately fulfull the
BFR requirement. In other words, you would only accomplish twice as much
continuing education with the Wings program than without it and would [have
ben] permitted to split the BFR ride into two annual segments instead of a
single bienial segment.

It's still an excellent program, even if it has actually changed.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:46:27 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

Tom L. wrote:

I don't think we should start panicking just yet.

I am not panicking, just calling a lawyer and getting myself a BFR (that's
called a** covering, panic comes later :-)

Well, you do whatever makes *you* feel comfortable, what your legal
personal limits tell you to do

ACs are advisory. I'm sure the courts would use them to clarify FARs
if needed, but in this case FARs are clear enough:
61.56(e) wants "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency program". FAA's web
site says "this is a pilot proficiency program". Good enough for me.

- Tom

Tom L. wrote:

ACs are advisory. I'm sure the courts would use them to clarify FARs
if needed, but in this case FARs are clear enough:
61.56(e) wants "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency program". FAA's web
site says "this is a pilot proficiency program". Good enough for me.

In fact there are two issues:

(1) Whether the new program does indeed qualify to fulfill the requirements
of 61.56(e); and I would tend to agree with you that it does, even though
it does not follow the description of the still current AC 91-61H; it is
indeed probably still good enough to satisfy a ramp check, but I wouldn't
like to test that in a more serious situation... (would it be good enough
in a court of law?)

(2) The other issue, my current problem, is whether or not having
completed a Wings phase with the old system qualifies as well; and
apparently, according to both the FSDO dude and the AOPA, it does not...
i.e., someone who, in good faith, did everything right, may still get
screwed royally.

There are two possibilities he someone who has completed said Wing phase
before the unofficial -- because it is not written anywhere in any official
publication from the FAA, unless someone can prove me wrong -- sunset date
of December 2007, and someone who did the same after that date (which
would be reasonable enough, since AC 61-91H has not been superseded);

There might still be quite a few people in the former situation (a wing
phase 'bought' you 24 months of happy legal flying); and I know that there
are quite a few folks out there in the latter situation. People, pilots
and instructors alike, who keep themselves up to date regulation wise, but
might not be aware of the latest (unofficial) goodies put online by our
dear administration... it could be argued that if it is not available in
print from your local FSDO, that it does not exist.

ok, no flying for me today; BFR scheduled tomorrow.

--Sylvain