True, but that's not the only regulation involved. See 14 CFR 61.51(g), which does specifically address use of both FTD's and ATD's to meet the 61.57(c) instrument recency experience requirement:
Further, AFS-800 is responsible for 61.51(g)(4), so if they don't like it, it's up to them to get it changed, not the Chief Counsel. But until they do, it's the Chief Counsel's job to make sure the FAA applies the regulations properly.
Yes, it is. Read those words you quoted more carefully, especially the part about "furnishing timely and responsive legal services to the FAA Administrator and all Agency organizations at the Headquarters, Regional and Center levels." That's part of the business of AGC-200, the International Law, Legislations & Regulations Division. See their web page for more.No it's not.
Please tell me what part of 61.51(g)(4) (quoted again since you apparently didn't read it the first time) you don't understand.
I'm taking about the actual plain wording of the regulation itself, and not even thinking about the Karas letter saying the reg means what it says.
Your point is taken. However, the Administrator relies on the Chief Counsel to provide the information and advice necessary to do that, and delegates those tasks to the Chief Counsel. And I know for sure that it was the Chief Counsel's office, not the Administrator himself, which told AFS-800 they can't write 61.4 certification letters authorizing people to use ATD's for recent instrument experience without an instructor present.Legal services yes, but saying "Chief Counsel's job to make sure the FAA applies the regulations properly" is inappropriate and it is not their job, that is the responsibility of the Administrator.
There are three basic categories of Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD, the name covering everything ground-based in which you can log time, take practical tests or other checkrides, or use for recent experience):
It is, nevertheless, as the paperwork says, an ATD, not a flight simulator.
I'm with you all the way. The problem is that AFS-800 issued some LoA's saying you could use an ATD to meet the 61.57(c) recent instrument experience requirements without an instructor present. That is contrary to the clear wording of 61.51(g)(4), and the Chief Counsel's office has told AFS-800 this is not allowed. Therefore, no matter what AFS-800 says, you cannot legally use one of those devices to meet the 61.57(c) requirements without an instructor. The Chief Counsel has told AFS-800 that if AFS-800 wants to allow this, they have to go through the rulemaking process and change 61.51(g)(4) accordingly -- something which AFS-800 has so far not done.
I do not believe that is true. The FAA RGL Library shows that requirement has been in there since at least 1997, and IIRC, further back than that. ATD's didn't even exist in those days.
Even if it was 1996, that was long before any of the LoA's in question were issued. I know for a fact that AFS-800 was deliberately attempting an end-run around 61.51(g)(4) with those letters, and that when the Chief Counsel found out what was going on, AGC-200 told AFS-800 that wasn't kosher. FAA internal politics at its best.
Even if it was 1996, that was long before any of the LoA's in question were issued. I know for a fact that AFS-800 was deliberately attempting an end-run around 61.51(g)(4) with those letters, and that when the Chief Counsel found out what was going on, AGC-200 told AFS-800 that wasn't kosher. FAA internal politics at its best.
Even if it was 1996, that was long before any of the LoA's in question were issued. I know for a fact that AFS-800 was deliberately attempting an end-run around 61.51(g)(4) with those letters, and that when the Chief Counsel found out what was going on, AGC-200 told AFS-800 that wasn't kosher. FAA internal politics at its best.
Exactly -- both from Flight Standards, both contrary to the regulation, and both in willful defiance of legal direction from AGC-200.
Even if it was 1996, that was long before any of the LoA's in question were issued. I know for a fact that AFS-800 was deliberately attempting an end-run around 61.51(g)(4) with those letters, and that when the Chief Counsel found out what was going on, AGC-200 told AFS-800 that wasn't kosher. FAA internal politics at its best.
I was not consulted, only informed about what happened.So AFS-800 consults with you on internally FAA policies?
My opinion based on the plain language of the regulations involved and their preambles in the Federal Register is that the clear intent of both 61.51(g)(4) and 61.195(i) is to have independent confirmation by an authorized instructor that training or simulated flight took place. Based on that, since an instructor "flying" a simulator is acting as a trainee/pilot, not as an instructor, an instructor can neither sign his/her own training nor certify the accomplishment of simulated instrument flight in a flight simulation device.
All correct, although I'd add that in addition to being present and observing, the instructor must also sign everyone's log book.
Per the Gatlin letter, IGI's are not "authorized instructors" for simulators. Only a CFI with instrument instructor rating is an "authorized instructor" for this purpose.So since it's not instruction what qualifies as an authorized instructor? Can an IGI do it?
Not much if you have a fairly modern sim. The only widely used sim I see being significantly affected by this will be the ATC 610/710 series, which can only qualify as ATD's under the current rules, not FTD's as they were certified 30 years ago. That means they'll only be good for 10 hours towards the IR instead of 20. Every other FTD I know should pass the current standards for FTD. That may be a costly process for outfits like Frasca, which have a lot of units in the field certified prior to the current rules, but should not be an issue for the users unless the manufacturers elect not to pursue recertification. Knowing Rudy Frasca, I doubt they will let their customer twist in the wind like that, but there may be other outfits which will. OTOH, if you are using something like a Redbird or FlyThisSim, or newer models from legacy companies like Frasca, which were certified under the current rules, there will be no effect at all.
Because they don't want people using equipment which doesn't meet the standards they want for FTD's to be getting the privileges that come with an FTD in a device which would only qualify as an ATD today.
No. They've been generous about allowing those ancient FTD's to be grandfathered for decades, but they've decided enough is enough.
Those places (like sim labs in university aviation programs) have systems in place to allow the instructor to monitor what each student is doing and confirm when they started and stopped. That's discussed in the FAA guidance on such set-ups.
That is exactly AFS-800's feeling, and why they started signing those letters authorizing that with some ATD's. However, the Chief Counsel pointed out to them that the Administrative Procedures Act does not permit anyone in the Federal government to say it's OK to ignore properly adopted regulations. Personally, I don't understand why they didn't just do it as required by law by changing 61.51(g)(4) from:
to read:
We really wouldn't like it if Flight Standards could change the rules by the stroke of a pen without going through the full rulemaking process.
I'm just quoting them, not being their spokesman.So now you are the spokesman for AFS-800???