If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
c. Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has -- Sorry... I can usually decode the FARs but my decoder ring broke trying to unravel this one. I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA usual "last day of the month". i.e. Last BFR December 12, 2007 - Next BFR before December 31, 2009? -- Dallas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
Dallas wrote:
c. Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has -- Sorry... I can usually decode the FARs but my decoder ring broke trying to unravel this one. That sort of language is a result of someone trying to cram too many things into one sentence. I've noticed a mix of good and bad writing styles in the FAA regulations. But I doubt they'll rewrite that regulation just to make it easier to understand. Anyway, assume the pilot wants to act as PIC on December 24, 2009. One month before December 2009 is November 2009. So 24 months before December 2009 is December 2007. So if the pilot had a BFR anytime on or after December 1, 2007 (e.g. December 12, 2007) they may act as PIC any day of calendar month December 2009. Hence till December 31, 2009. I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA usual "last day of the month". i.e. Last BFR December 12, 2007 - Next BFR before December 31, 2009? Your understanding appears correct and as far as I can tell, and is equivalent to the tortured FAA language. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
On Oct 5, 4:48*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Dallas wrote: c. *Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has -- Sorry... I can usually decode the FARs but my decoder ring broke trying to unravel this one. That sort of language is a result of someone trying to cram too many things into one sentence. I've noticed a mix of good and bad writing styles in the FAA regulations. But I doubt they'll rewrite that regulation just to make it easier to understand. Anyway, assume the pilot wants to act as PIC on December 24, 2009. One month before December 2009 is November 2009. So 24 months before December 2009 is December 2007. So if the pilot had a BFR anytime on or after December 1, 2007 (e.g. December 12, 2007) they may act as PIC any day of calendar month December 2009. Hence till December 31, 2009. I've been assuming that the BFR had to be accomplished like the FAA usual "last day of the month". *i.e. *Last BFR December 12, 2007 - Next BFR before December 31, 2009? Your understanding appears correct and as far as I can tell, and is equivalent to the tortured FAA language. In my dealings with the FAA over 50 years in aviation I have discovered what I call the FAA regulatory syndrome. :-)) I'll try and sum it up this way for any uninitiated among us :-) "If you understand Part A, you haven't yet read Part A-1b which negates Part A...IF....you qualify under Sub Part B, but ONLY if you haven't yet read and complied with Sub Part C which refers you to Part 57g in another regulation ." It has to do with authority. You see, if THEY understand it and YOU don't, the purpose for establishing the term "governing authority" has been satisfied and the proper structure of power is in place and they are at peace when they arrive at the FAA office for work each day. YOU are now completely subservient to the regulations by the fact that your ability to function in the environment covered by the regulation requires that you spend the rest of your life and possibly a bit more trying to understand it. Therefore, the FAA is ALWAYS there to look down upon you from their perch of complete authority and understanding, to advise you and perform other actions suitable to be performed by those "in charge" for "those less fortunate". The quality of this assistance I have noted on occasion, unfortunately seems to be directly related to the proximity of the FAA person asked a question about the regulations to a rather large and heavy book that explains the regulations to THEM, for you see............THEY don't understand the damn things either!!!!!!!!!!!!" :-)) Dudley Henriques |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
It has to do with authority. Yep... and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life. Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private sector salary. When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish grey desks that were in surplus after WWII. Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble lobbies and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary can provide. If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up. -- Dallas |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
On Oct 5, 8:11*pm, Dallas wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote: It has to do with authority. Yep... *and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life. Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private sector salary. When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish grey desks that were in surplus after WWII. Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble lobbies and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary can provide. If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up. * -- Dallas Trust me, you wouldn't have liked it. :-)) D |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
"Dallas" wrote in message ... Yep... and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life. Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private sector salary. When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish grey desks that were in surplus after WWII. Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble lobbies and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary can provide. If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up. Do you just make this crap up? I am a government (State) employee, and have worked very hard at it for 14 years. Including benefits, I still don't make comparable salary to the same job in the private sector. It was close some time ago, but due to numerous factors over the last 8 or 9 years, our salaries have fallen well behind. For an idea of the total government jobs, you can read this: http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/governme...Employment.pdf I work on average 50 - 60 hours a week, and am salaried so get no overtime. Believe me, I earn every dollar I make. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Ęslop wrote:
Do you just make this crap up? Nope. "Federal wages and benefits have been rising quickly, and by 2004 the average compensation of federal workers was almost twice the average in the private sector." http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf -- Dallas |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
Ęslop wrote:
"Dallas" wrote in message ... Yep... and how they hang on to their "phony baloney" jobs for life. Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private sector salary. When I was a kid, government jobs were for underpaid losers, performed in offices constructed in the 1930's and executed behind those big greenish grey desks that were in surplus after WWII. Now, they office out of brand new gleaming glass towers with marble lobbies and fountained courtyards, and retire in a style that 90% of their salary can provide. If I had only known that when I was 20 years old I would've signed up. Do you just make this crap up? I am a government (State) employee, and have worked very hard at it for 14 years. Including benefits, I still don't make comparable salary to the same job in the private sector. It was close some time ago, but due to numerous factors over the last 8 or 9 years, our salaries have fallen well behind. For an idea of the total government jobs, you can read this: http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/governme...Employment.pdf I work on average 50 - 60 hours a week, and am salaried so get no overtime. Believe me, I earn every dollar I make. I believe the post would be more appropriate to the elected officials in Washington. I thought once for running for one term in Congress. My platform is "I just want a piece of your pie. I will give you 100% for one term, take my benefits, and go back home." -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP Sold KSWI |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
In article ,
Dallas wrote: Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private sector salary. I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd. 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private employees. And that is just the minimum. You're claiming "more than 50%", which would mean more than 67% of total salaries are paid to government employees, and less than 33% to the private sector. Did you stop and think about what your claims meant before you made them? These numbers simply don't line up. How are they getting enough money from that 33% pool to pay for the 67% pool? It simply doesn't pass the smell test. If you think about it for a moment, I bet you'll agree. When you claim big numbers, stop for a moment and see if they actually make sense. It will save much silliness and conflict if you do so. If you still believe them, then do us all a favor and actually back up crazy numbers with sources when you post them. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
61.56 BFR Whaaaat?
Mike Ash wrote:
In article , Dallas wrote: Government sector jobs are now more than 50% of total employment in this country and considering benefits, they now make double the average private sector salary. I usually stay out of these discussions but this is just absurd. 50% of total employment and 2x the average private sector salary would imply that 67% of total salaries in the US are paid to government employees, and only 33% of total salaries are paid to private employees. Just for the record, historical federal income and expenditures are available he http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html Obviously not included are state and local taxes (typically income, sales, and property taxes being the most well known.) Federal outlays alone accounts for ~19.4% of GDP. Including such state and local taxes, I think it is reasonable to assume that government burden approaches a third of GDP - could be even one half. I leave the actual research on the local government burden to someone who isn't about to go to bed, as I am. ;-) Also, because not all U.S. federal government expenditures are on direct labor to government employees (think all that capital expenditure and use of private services,) it is plausible (even if it may not be true) to claim double salary compensation over private sector without having government salary account for 67% of all salaries, public and private. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|