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

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 --

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?

Yep...that's what paragraph (c.) says. If the Flight Review (not BFR)
takes place on any day in Dec 2007, you're good to go throughout Dec
2009.

Bob Moore
ATP
Flight Instructor ASE-IA

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.

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

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:48:44 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

Your understanding appears correct and as far as I can tell, and is
equivalent to the tortured FAA language.

Thanks Robert and Jim... and thanks for commiserating.
--
Dallas

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

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

"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.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:20:07 -0700, Æslop 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

Æslop 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