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
|
|||
|
|||
FSDO's and their varying intepretations...
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Justin Maas wrote:
I was wondering why the FAA hasn't cracked down on some of the ambiguity and differences in interpretation exercised by FSDOs. Good question Since we all have a Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized? It would be nice, provided it didn't develop into an "every question must be referred to Big Brother and we're still waiting for his response" situation Is there a good flow of communication from FSDO to FSDO? Apparently not Justin, lack of FSDO standardization has been an issue for years now, especially wrt airplane maintenance (one FSDO will sign off on a 337 for something another asserts is unairworthy) 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. What's wrong with this? It sounds like this FSDO is making up rules. If I fly with an MEI, he can log the time; why can't I log the time simply because I also am an MEI? Is the idea that instructors have nothing further to learn from other instructors? I say "bunk", and nothing in the regulations that I'm aware of prohibits this. But yes, it's another example of lack of standardization, and I agree, it's a problem Cheers, Sydney |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message ... What's wrong with this? It sounds like this FSDO is making up rules. If I fly with an MEI, he can log the time; why can't I log the time simply because I also am an MEI? Is the idea that instructors have nothing further to learn from other instructors? I say "bunk", and nothing in the regulations that I'm aware of prohibits this. The case I am familiar with involved to MEI's who co-owned an aircraft and both always logged PIC when flying together. After some incident this logging practice came to the attention of the FAA. Their argument was that they were giving each other instruction (instructors log PIC while instructing), but it was clear it was a sham as they never complied with the other requirements of giving instruction (making the instructional entries in the others logbook, etc...). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A certain student came and asked, "Master, what is the greatest of all the
laws of flying?" The Master replied, "Do not Crash. And the second is like unto it: Do not cause another to Crash. On these hang all the law and all the regulations." The student said, "But, Master, what does it mean to crash?" The Master replied, "A certain pilot went up from Kansas to Oshkosh to attend the pilgrimage there. Along the way his engine began to run rough and the pilot, suspecting fuel contamination, landed at a nearby airport. He checked his fuel and saw that it was good. He asked a local mechanic with IA what could the problem be, but the mechanic was busy conducting an annual, but he looked it over and could not find anything obviously wrong. He said he could not get to a more thorough check until next week. The pilot asked an FAA inspector who was passing through, but the inspector was late for a meeting and hurried on his way. Lastly, the pilot asked a flight instructor who suggested they take a short flight and see if they could determine what the problem was. The pilot agreed and they took off. The engine quit and the airplane fell from the sky and great was the fall of it, for the pilots had filed no flight plan." The Master asked, "Now, which of these people was responsible for the crash?" The student replied, "Master, it is difficult to determine this from just using the FARs." The Master said, "Thou hast gained wisdom, child. For no matter how clearly the law is given, there will always be different interpretations and unforseen circumstances. Go, and do the best you can, knowing that even your best will not always be good enough." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. The FAA doesn't view it as broken. Since we all have a Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized? It's a double edged sword. Some amount of local flexibility is often to the pilot's/owner's advantage. 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. What were they? What credentials did they use to sign off your log book? . 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 oine has some regulatory precedent. The MEI's can't just sign each other off. Instruction has to be given and you must meet the requirements for giving that instruction. I don't know exactly how you posed the question to the FSDO, but there's good reason why they'd be skeptical of such logging. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Justin Maas" wrote in message .. .
The FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the instructors weren't CFIs. How could this work? Don't the regs state that the BFR must be signed off by a CFI? I don't know how they could get around that one. Intepretation by a FSDO is one thing, but I don't think they can tell you it's OK to ignore a reg. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|