A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FSDO's and their varying intepretations...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 10th 03, 09:12 AM
Justin Maas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old July 10th 03, 01:23 PM
Sydney Hoeltzli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 10th 03, 05:06 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 10th 03, 03:45 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 10th 03, 05:04 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 10th 03, 07:11 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 10th 03, 09:03 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.