“Levy Interpretation” overtuned

JimNtexas

JimNtexas

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
2,259
Location
Austin, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
The FAA has taken the unusual step of issuing a change to part 61 without the normal comment period.

Effective November 15 the so called 'Levy Interpretation' issued by the notorious FAA Chief Counsel's office is overturned. The new change to part 61

... eases certificate requirements by permitting an airman who passes a practical test for a flight instructor certificate, by allowing additional rating to an existing flight instructor certificate and the renewal of the certificate or reinstatement of flight instructor certificate to meet the 24-month flight review requirements.
Click to expand...

Aviation Week

Change to part 61

It only took five years for this change to happen.

What needs to happen now is:

1) The FAA needs to start charging people for chief counsel opinions, based on the number of hours the counsel requires to research and answer the question.

2) Chief Counsel opinions should be issued as drafts with a comment period. In order to be come official the Administrator should be required to review the comments and then either approve or disapprove the interpretation.
 
It's actually the "Levy Regulation" -- I put the flea in the ear of the guy recently put in charge of that. He said it was absurd the way it was, but it took him a while to get it fixed. Isn't it nice to see that reasonability is seeping into the FAA?
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
It's actually the "Levy Regulation" -- I put the flea in the ear of the guy recently put in charge of that. He said it was absurd the way it was, but it took him a while to get it fixed. Isn't it nice to see that reasonability is seeping into the FAA?
Click to expand...

That is indeed nice. Sadly, I suspect the Counsel has many more absurd answers just waiting for someone to ask a question to which they can't stand the answer.
 
JimNtexas said:
That is indeed nice. Sadly, I suspect the Counsel has many more absurd answers just waiting for someone to ask a question to which they can't stand the answer.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. If you read those Part 61 interpretations, they always say at the end that their answer was coordinated with AFS-800. The new head of AFS-800 was the driver for this rule change. I suspect that if some of these past interpretations were coordinated with AFS-800 today, many of them would come out differently. But as noted, it's not easy to change an interpretation without changing a reg, and that takes time, so correcting past interpretations is a difficult and time-consuming task. I'm just hoping that in the future, when AGC-200 calls AFS-800 and asks what a reg is supposed to mean, they'll get more reasonable answers than in the past so we don't have to rewrite the rules to do something reasonable.
 
You know what would be nice?

If when you hit that interpretation letter on the FAA site there was a note that it had been superseded by subsequent regulatory amendment...just so someone down the line doesn't use the letter to win an argument at a pilot bar!
 
Ron Levy said:
. I'm just hoping that in the future, when AGC-200 calls AFS-800 and asks what a reg is supposed to mean, they'll get more reasonable answers than in the past so we don't have to rewrite the rules to do something reasonable.
Click to expand...

Most of the staff in -800 don't have a clue. It boggles the mind that the CC would even consider asking those guys to clarify anything. :nonod:
 
Like the extension of the medical, it appears to be fully retroactive too, so if you did a CFI checkride in September of 2011, it's good for your FR today.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Most of the staff in -800 don't have a clue. It boggles the mind that the CC would even consider asking those guys to clarify anything. :nonod:
Click to expand...
I've known two of them personally for a long time, and one of them is now the boss -- and he's the one who pushed this one through, so maybe things are better now than you thought.
 
This opinion change was really improper. The existing reg clearly supports the previous opinion and the reg should have been re-written to reflect the change.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've known two of them personally for a long time, and one of them is now the boss -- and he's the one who pushed this one through, so maybe things are better now than you thought.
Click to expand...

Two very good friends of mine worked up there, one was in my String class. The horror stories were endless. HQ has always had a problem attracting people to take jobs there because no one wants to live and work in DC or play the silly politics that are endless in HQ.

Personal experience by many in the field dealing with -800 is less than favorable. Like I said, the CC actually depending on those guys to give an interpretation is comical at best.
 
Clip4 said:
This opinion change was really improper. The existing reg clearly supports the previous opinion and the reg should have been re-written to reflect the change.
Click to expand...

Um...that's precisely what they did.
 
Excellent.

I for one though the opinion saying "no" was correct based on the regulation as it existed, even though it was, practically speaking, pretty stupid. Nice to see the change.

I'll be looking forward to reading the official publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Excellent.

I for one though the opinion saying "no" was correct based on the regulation as it existed, even though it was, practically speaking, pretty stupid. Nice to see the change.
Click to expand...

Concur.

Interpreted the reg correctly, and now taking the proper steps to fix the problem.
 
The effective date is November 15. I just did a CFI checkride and my flight review currency expires at the end of October. I guess I can either get a flight review or not fly between Nov. 1st and Nov. 14th.
 
Mangiamele next?

Ron Levy said:
I've known two of them personally for a long time, and one of them is now the boss -- and he's the one who pushed this one through, so maybe things are better now than you thought.
Click to expand...
 
So let me get this straight... when I meet up with an inspector in a week to get my gold seal, I'll be good for another 24 months before I need another FR? Online FIRC's count, too? That might almost be going too far. I could easily see some folks taking advantage of that by taking an online FIRC every two years and hardly ever touching an airplane.
 
bbchien said:
...complete with comment period....
Click to expand...

Nope.

It has to wait for time to pass after publication in the Federal Register for it to take effect, but they bypassed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this and went straight to a Direct Final Rule, so no comment period.
 
Yes, if they believe the change just fixes a wording problem they can just publish it. When I submitted my petition to fix "night" in 1.1, they just published the fix without comment.
 
JeffDG said:
Nope.

It has to wait for time to pass after publication in the Federal Register for it to take effect, but they bypassed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this and went straight to a Direct Final Rule, so no comment period.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is a comment period. Just works differently with a "direct" rule than it does with a proposed rule:

==============================
Submit comments on or before October 16, 2013. If the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, the FAA will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of this direct final rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part.
==============================
 
midlifeflyer said:
Nope. There is a comment period. Just works differently with a "direct" rule than it does with a proposed rule:

==============================
Submit comments on or before October 16, 2013. If the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, the FAA will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of this direct final rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part.
==============================
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top