Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

Yes, but it is just the same as the FAA page, same content.
Still looking for all the comment and explanation pages.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
in message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:B6GJg.6498$SZ3.2538@dukeread04...
|
| Give that link again, I'll try it again.
|
|
|
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...l=%2Findex.tpl
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:lKIJg.6515$SZ3.5920@dukeread04...
Since you seem to think that the regulations need to be
re-written.

No, I never said that. If anything, I think it would make slightly more
sense for the FAA to keep the existing wording and adhere to it. But I don't
think it matters much either way.

--Gary


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:L6GJg.6502$SZ3.992@dukeread04...
| 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.
|
| Right, so why would I bother to make that request? Why do
you suggest it?
|
| --Gary
|
|

They do follow their rules on 61.57. The only change has
been to tighten up on the content of an IPC [and the name
change].


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:lKIJg.6515$SZ3.5920@dukeread04...
| Since you seem to think that the regulations need to be
| re-written.
|
| No, I never said that. If anything, I think it would make
slightly more
| sense for the FAA to keep the existing wording and adhere
to it. But I don't
| think it matters much either way.
|
| --Gary
|
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in
message
| . ..
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:L6GJg.6502$SZ3.992@dukeread04...
| | 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.
| |
| | Right, so why would I bother to make that request? Why
do
| you suggest it?
| |
| | --Gary
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news7JJg.6518$SZ3.3885@dukeread04...
They do follow their rules on 61.57.

Yes Jim, I get that you think so. But here's a constructive suggestion, in
the event that you'd like to make progress on this question. You've
mentioned you have friends who are lawyers. Why not show some of them my
message of 8/25 12:47PM (the one with the "not-P unless Q" analysis that you
refuse to address, even though it's the crux of the whole disagreement). If
they agree with me, perhaps they can explain the argument to you.
Alternatively, if they disagree with me, perhaps they could say why and you
could post their analysis here.

--Gary

Why address a premise that is wrong. Why bother lawyers, it
is your argument, you disagree with the answer you've been
given. It is up to you to resolve the issue. You contact
the FAA Regional office and ask for a legal opinion. They
have staff that will do that for you.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news7JJg.6518$SZ3.3885@dukeread04...
| They do follow their rules on 61.57.
|
| Yes Jim, I get that you think so. But here's a
constructive suggestion, in
| the event that you'd like to make progress on this
question. You've
| mentioned you have friends who are lawyers. Why not show
some of them my
| message of 8/25 12:47PM (the one with the "not-P unless Q"
analysis that you
| refuse to address, even though it's the crux of the whole
disagreement). If
| they agree with me, perhaps they can explain the argument
to you.
| Alternatively, if they disagree with me, perhaps they
could say why and you
| could post their analysis here.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Gary, I have just been lurking this thread. As it winds down (we hope), I
will just comment that you are absolutely correct, regarding what the
words of the regulation actually say, independent of how they may be applied
or interpreted or intended by the FAA. I have beat this horse a bit from
time to time myself.

Stan


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news7JJg.6518$SZ3.3885@dukeread04...
They do follow their rules on 61.57.

Yes Jim, I get that you think so. But here's a constructive suggestion, in
the event that you'd like to make progress on this question. You've
mentioned you have friends who are lawyers. Why not show some of them my
message of 8/25 12:47PM (the one with the "not-P unless Q" analysis that
you refuse to address, even though it's the crux of the whole
disagreement). If they agree with me, perhaps they can explain the
argument to you. Alternatively, if they disagree with me, perhaps they
could say why and you could post their analysis here.

--Gary