Is an IPC a substitute for 6 approaches?

But it was entered by the pilot, rather than being endorsed
by the CFI.



"Allen" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:IvDJg.6480$SZ3.18@dukeread04...
| If the CFI doesn't endorse, the FAA has no action on the
CFI
| as long as the rules were followed. If a CFI endorses
| without doing the IPC properly according to the PTS,
then
| the CFI is in violation. But if the CFI declines to
| endorse and the time spent includes basic 61.57 6 and 6,
| then that is the pilot's sole responsibility.
|
|
| That's the way I see it also, no violation, but, the CFI's
name is still in
| the pilot's logbook.
|
|

Your argument is just wrong, so why debate it? Whether you
call Pluto a planet, a dwarf planet, or just a damn big ice
cube or a tiny ice cube, it still has the same gravitational
effect on the Earth.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:KvDJg.6482$SZ3.3506@dukeread04...
| Actually, the FAR does say that, you just don't know how
to
| read law.
|
| Jim, it's pointless for you to make statements like that
while you refuse to
| address any of the details of my argument (for instance,
you still have not
| addressed my analysis of 'not-P unless Q' as it applies to
the current
| question). Either debate or don't.
|
| --Gary
|
|

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.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| Turn it around...
| example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| conditions less than basic VFR unless they have passed
an
| IPC.
|
| b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6 hours
and 6
| approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the IPC
| need not be completed.
|
| Yes, that would be totally different. In your hypothetical
rewriting of the
| FARs, the second clause explicitly states an *exception*
to a requirement
| ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
the second clause
| instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
serve *unless*").
|
| That's been my point all along: you're trying to construe
a *requirement* as
| an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
doesn't express an
| exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a good
illustration of
| how an exception would be worded; that wording is
precisely what's missing
| from the actual FARs in question.
|
| Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
years
| and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for part
141
| and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that is
| always covered.
|
| As I have explained many, many times, that just tells us
what the FAA's
| position is. But I've never disputed what their position
is. I just maintain
| that their position does not match what the FARs say.
Nothing about your 30
| years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
that question is
| addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I have
done here in
| detail.
|
| --Gary
|
|

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:43:51 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

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.


Jim: I am done now giving free ground school. How about you?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| Turn it around...
| example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| conditions less than basic VFR unless they have passed
an
| IPC.
|
| b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6 hours
and 6
| approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the IPC
| need not be completed.
|
| Yes, that would be totally different. In your hypothetical
rewriting of the
| FARs, the second clause explicitly states an *exception*
to a requirement
| ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
the second clause
| instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
serve *unless*").
|
| That's been my point all along: you're trying to construe
a *requirement* as
| an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
doesn't express an
| exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a good
illustration of
| how an exception would be worded; that wording is
precisely what's missing
| from the actual FARs in question.
|
| Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
years
| and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for part
141
| and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that is
| always covered.
|
| As I have explained many, many times, that just tells us
what the FAA's
| position is. But I've never disputed what their position
is. I just maintain
| that their position does not match what the FARs say.
Nothing about your 30
| years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
that question is
| addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I have
done here in
| detail.
|
| --Gary
|
|

Then I suggest that you write the FAA and your congressman
to require that the FAA clarify, in the regulations...

Be careful what you wish for.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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
news:F6GJg.6501$SZ3.4496@dukeread04...
Your argument is just wrong, so why debate it?

So you only debate against arguments you think are right?

If you were trying for self-parody here, you've certainly succeeded.

--Gary

"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

Yes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
learn. Or, don't waste your time teaching a pig to sing, it
annoys the pig and wastes your time.




"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:43:51 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| 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 $100,000 for public hearings, and printing.
|
|
| Jim: I am done now giving free ground school. How about
you?
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:JvDJg.6481$SZ3.2118@dukeread04...
| | Turn it around...
| | example 61.57 a. No pilot may my fly under IFR or in
| | conditions less than basic VFR unless they have
passed
| an
| | IPC.
| |
| | b. Not withstanding a., if the pilot has flown 6
hours
| and 6
| | approaches within the previous 6 calendar months the
IPC
| | need not be completed.
| |
| | Yes, that would be totally different. In your
hypothetical
| rewriting of the
| | FARs, the second clause explicitly states an
*exception*
| to a requirement
| | ("need not be completed"). But in the *actual* wording,
| the second clause
| | instead explicitly states a *requirement* ("may *not*
| serve *unless*").
| |
| | That's been my point all along: you're trying to
construe
| a *requirement* as
| | an *exception to other requirements*, but the wording
| doesn't express an
| | exception. Your hypothetical rewriting is actually a
good
| illustration of
| | how an exception would be worded; that wording is
| precisely what's missing
| | from the actual FARs in question.
| |
| | Gary, we have been doing this IFR thing for over 30
| years
| | and we have taken many checkrides from the FAA for
part
| 141
| | and 135 [and other parts] and this is a question that
is
| | always covered.
| |
| | As I have explained many, many times, that just tells
us
| what the FAA's
| | position is. But I've never disputed what their
position
| is. I just maintain
| | that their position does not match what the FARs say.
| Nothing about your 30
| | years of experience addresses *that* question. Rather,
| that question is
| | addressed by analyzing the wording of the FARs, as I
have
| done here in
| | detail.
| |
| | --Gary
| |
| |
|
|

Since you seem to think that the regulations need to be
re-written.


"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
|
|