IFR regulation interpretation change.

C

Clip4

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
10,277
Location
A Rubber Room
Display Name
Display name:
Cli4ord
On February 28, 2022, the FAA rescinded both the Glaser and Pratte legal interpretations, stating the regulation’s plain language requires three different types of approaches, not three different navigation systems. Certificated flight instructors (CFI) and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) should be aware that the requirements for an instrument rating may be met by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation.
 
Link? Just to make this thread complete.
 
If you are on the FAA email list.


Subject: "Changes to Instrument Rating Cross Country Approach Requirement" - FAASafety.gov

FAA Safety Team | Safer Skies Through Education

Changes to Instrument Rating Cross Country Approach Requirement
Notice Number: NOTC2305



The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently reviewed two legal interpretation and determined they were overly restrictive. The Glaser (2008) and Pratte (2012) legal interpretations focused on the requirements of an instrument rating under § 61.65. Specifically, the requirement to use three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems to meet the requirements of § 61.65(d)(2)(ii)(C). These interpretations inaccurately concluded that an applicant for an instrument rating must use three different kinds of navigation systems to meet these requirements.

On February 28, 2022, the FAA rescinded both the Glaser and Pratte legal interpretations, stating the regulation’s plain language requires three different types of approaches, not three different navigation systems. Certificated flight instructors (CFI) and designated pilot examiners (DPEs) should be aware that the requirements for an instrument rating may be met by performing three different approaches, regardless of the source of navigation.

More information is available at: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2022/Mar/61.65_Recission_memo.pdf
 
thito01 said:
Does anybody know if it's snowing in Hell today? I can't believe that the FAA reversed a legal interpretation and decided to use common sense instead.
Click to expand...
don’t worry, tomorrow is a new day. o_O
 
Been doing this already for years with no issues ever… ILS/LOC/LNAV and we have picky DPE’s and FSDO..
 
thito01 said:
Does anybody know if it's snowing in Hell today? I can't believe that the FAA reversed a legal interpretation and decided to use common sense instead.
Click to expand...
It is snowing in Hell, MI. Hasn’t frozen over yet though. And I’ve seen no reports of pigs flying sightings.
 
Do flying pigs like these count?
pig-on-plane.jpg

:D
 
Palmpilot said:
I previously saw it happen with regard to the meaning of "known icing."
Click to expand...
Note that "known icing" is the phrase in the regs. It is "known or forecast icing." It's the nuance of "forecast icing" that was the sticking point.

Now if the FAA which gets braod latitutde to wriet whatever they damn well please into the rules, would write the rules such that they wouldn't need to stretch the meaning of English in interpreting them.
 
flyingron said:
Note that "known icing" is the phrase in the regs. It is "known or forecast icing." It's the nuance of "forecast icing" that was the sticking point.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen either phrase in the regs. The phrase in 14 CFR 91.9(a) is "the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry." The operating limitations in Cessna manuals have the phrase "known icing." The Piper manuals I have just say "non icing."
 
A) I avoid icing not because of the laws of the FAA but because of the laws of physics

B) Despite having done my homework ahead of time, I’ve flown into mild icing conditions in my Warrior on rare occasions and ATC has been absolutely helpful in safely resolving the issue each time. And never have I gotten a “call this number” call for having done so. I’m glad to see, at least in the legal determination above, they got to the right determination.

I remain convinced most regs are responses to someone not having used common sense for something rather than making rules for rules’ sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top