Interetation please

midlifeflyer said:
Sigh.

Regulitis. Disease which causes people of average or better intelligence to lose basic reading comprehension skills when looking at regulations. It is sometimes associated with the FAA-Anon movement whose followers believe all FARs have hidden meanings.
Click to expand...

It is precisely because I can read English and I have some experience in writing FAA procedures that I even mention the issue.
 
The month of the flight starts when the plane moves under its own power for the purpose of flight. A flight tomorrow (or at even 2 this afternoon) would be the start of a new month. Today (or this particular minute) is the month prior/preceding. A month isn't thirty(or 28, 29, or 31) days. It is from the time the flight starts until 23:59:59 on the last day of the month as marked on the calendar. The month prior counts back to 00:00:00 on the 1st of the month prior to the one currently marked on the calendar.

Example: Flight on 9/26 at 14:00 local. The month of the flight is 14:00 local 9/26 until 23:59 9/30. The calendar month previous is 00:00:00 8/1 - 13:59 9/26

There. Solved.
 
Last edited:
Dave S. said:
It is precisely because I can read English and I have some experience in writing FAA procedures that I even mention the issue.
Click to expand...
Except for one small thing. The issue doesn't exist.

I spent most of my career involved in business disputes where lawyers, who we know are no angels, can dance on heads of pins arguing about conflicting interpretations of a phrase. "Within the preceding 24 hours doesn't include a minute ago unless a minute ago happened to be xx:59 o'clock" is extreme parsing even in that context.
 
EdFred said:
The month of the flight starts when the plane moves under its own power for the purpose of flight. A flight tomorrow (or at even 2 this afternoon) would be the start of a new month. Today (or this particular minute) is the month prior/preceding. A month isn't thirty(or 28, 29, or 31) days. It is from the time the flight starts until 23:59:59 on the last day of the month as marked on the calendar. The month prior counts back to 00:00:00 on the 1st of the month prior to the one currently marked on the calendar.

Example: Flight on 9/26 at 14:00 local. The month of the flight is 14:00 local 9/26 until 23:59 9/30. The calendar month previous is 00:00:00 8/1 - 13:59 9/26

There. Solved.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can support that assertion with some documentation can’t you?

The original question was how to interpret this in view of the literal language. Not to create some issue where there isn’t one. But the wording is precise and doesn’t say what we all say it says. So there is a difference between what we accept as the interpretation and the word’s literal meaning.

I can think of several ways to correctly write the rule to state exactly and unambiguously what our accepted interpretation is.

Essentially the rule would be better stated that any specified training accomplished since the first day of the sixth month preceding the month of the flight can be used to meet The requirements of this rule.

that is how we traditionally interpret the rule and that is not the way it is written as explained in the first post.

There’s no big deal. Everyone knows what to do. But how they come to that conclusion must be from some other source because the poor wording in the rule itself says something different.

In short, when a student asks you to explain the reason you tell him the requirement you can’t point to the rule itself because it doesn’t spell it out correctly and you have to say something like “but we all know what the FAA intends”.

Right up to the point the student asks “but, how do you know the FAA intends that.”


Or when you’re in court fighting a law suit with the insurance company trying to prove to a jury that the rule really doesn’t say what it says but means some other traditionally accepted meaning.

We all know what is intended. The point of the OP was to get some thoughts on the subject.

tex
 
Dave S. said:
Of course, you can support that assertion with some documentation can’t you?
Click to expand...

Sure, the definition calendar month as used by the FAA.

And for your pedantic student who probably still gets beat up by 3rd graders, tell em to search the chief counsel decisions since they have so much time on their hands.
 
No one has called anyone names yet. And asking someone to simply give the source of our interpretation doesn’t warrant name calling.
Can you point us to that general council guidance please.

tex
 
Found the guidances. Thanks

tex
 
Dave S. said:
The 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight are M, A, M, J, J, and August. The rule says I have to complete the requirements within those months.
Click to expand...
No. I'm not gonna read the other posts lest some fool messes with my mind. The rule seems to be saying everybody gets at least six months to get current, but not more than seven, thus the calendar month lingo. Six months, measured day-of-the-month to day-of-the-month and you get the left overs until the last day of the month for free. Working that backwards for the rule, you get what it says, i.e., SEP 24th, to AUG 24= 1 month, to JUL 24th=2 months, etc. ending at six months with March 24th. The first 23 days of March are the freebies.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Sure, the definition calendar month as used by the FAA.

And for your pedantic student who probably still gets beat up by 3rd graders, tell em to search the chief counsel decisions since they have so much time on their hands.
Click to expand...

Come now, Ed, we can’t chastise people In one breath for not reading regs, and then chastise them in the very next breath for actually reading regs and finding them confusing and asking reasonable questions.
 
Dave S. said:
No one has called anyone names yet. And asking someone to simply give the source of our interpretation doesn’t warrant name calling.
Can you point us to that general council guidance please.

tex
Click to expand...

And no one still has. You said these were students, and obviously pedantic. Those types usually fit a certain type of person(ality).
 
kath said:
Come now, Ed, we can’t chastise people In one breath for not reading regs, and then chastise them in the very next breath for actually reading regs and finding them confusing and asking reasonable questions.
Click to expand...

We can when they trot out all their credentials in a "look at me" fashion. :D

(it wasn't in this thread, it was in a previous thread.)
 
midlifeflyer said:
But that is the interpretation being offered. What's the difference between the current month doesn't count and the current hour doesn't count?
Click to expand...

"Within the preceding 24 hours" is analogous to "within the preceding 6 calendar months" which is the pre-2009 version, not the current version which is being debated.
 
dmspilot said:
"Within the preceding 24 hours" is analogous to "within the preceding 6 calendar months" which is the pre-2009 version, not the current version which is being debated.
Click to expand...

the analogy is not exact. Your analogy should read “within the 24 hours PRECEDING the current hour”.

tex
 
Who says the currrent hour starts when the little hand is on the 12 or the day starts when the big hand is on the 12 or the current month starts when the calendar says 1?

Where is that defined by the FAA?

I already provided a solution.
 
I think what we all can agree on (most of us anyway) is that the language does not really express the intent. Even an example in one of the GC interpretations kind of glides over the language as if to say “of course it says that”.

bottom line is that it can be better written and perhaps we should suggest that to whoever writes this stuff.


Tex
 
Dave S. said:
bottom line is that it can be better written and perhaps we should suggest that to whoever writes this stuff.
Click to expand...
This part I agree with. If we’re held to the high standard of complying with all legalese of the CFRs, then those responsible for writing the regs need to hold themselves to an equally high standard. It’s unfair to accept an “but everyone knows” interpretation to excuse bad language if that same standard isn’t granted to those expected to comply.
 
The problem is it makes perfect sense to the person who wrote it. Who determines what’s “clear”?
 
Dave S.,

Here's the short version of the big picture.

The intended meaning of 14 CFR 61.57(c) is well-established and widely understood. Over the course of years, various related currency questions have been asked of the Office of the Chief Counsel in which the intended meaning has been re-affirmed. These can be found here. Choosing to interpret the verbiage in this "different" way as mentioned in the first post of this thread, even if supportable to the reader, results in a discrepancy for that person which can only be resolved by either a) relying on the existing interpretations or b) asking for another interpretation. Given that per the Regulations Division, "... only those requests that present a novel or legally significant issue, as determined by the Chief Counsel, will be considered as potentially warranting a legal interpretation" I would rate the odds for a response as non-zero, but still rather low. But you will at least "be notified whether the FAA accepts the request for an interpretation."

If you did receive a reply, it would likely, if not to a degree of near certainty, agree with the many existing interpretations.

And that would be that.
 
"Within" means six calendar months back to NOW. It doesn't mean "during those specific months."
 
Ryan F. said:
Dave S.,

Here's the short version of the big picture.

The intended meaning of 14 CFR 61.57(c) is well-established and widely understood. Over the course of years, various related currency questions have been asked of the Office of the Chief Counsel in which the intended meaning has been re-affirmed. These can be found here. Choosing to interpret the verbiage in this "different" way as mentioned in the first post of this thread, even if supportable to the reader, results in a discrepancy for that person which can only be resolved by either a) relying on the existing interpretations or b) asking for another interpretation. Given that per the Regulations Division, "... only those requests that present a novel or legally significant issue, as determined by the Chief Counsel, will be considered as potentially warranting a legal interpretation" I would rate the odds for a response as non-zero, but still rather low. But you will at least "be notified whether the FAA accepts the request for an interpretation."

If you did receive a reply, it would likely, if not to a degree of near certainty, agree with the many existing interpretations.

And that would be that.
Click to expand...
If one were to ask for a legal interp it would most undoubtably be flipped over to the flight standards policy office to respond, and I or one of my colleagues would have the opportunity to take a pause from a myriad of other aviation safety related tasks to draft a response affirming our collective understanding of the rule. I’d probably cite the September 2009 federal register notice for the final rule which clarifies that the editorial change to 61.57(c) directs the airman to “[...]look back 6 calendar months from the month of the flight to determine whether the instrument flight experience requirements were met.”

Honestly I’m not sure why the terminology changed, but I suspect the wording was modified to help aleviate confusion regarding whether the current month was considered part of the preceding months.
 
Ryan F. said:
No issues. It was never intended that the ability to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57(c) be exclusive to the "months prior" to the current month.

That's it.
Click to expand...
That's what it says and means. This discussion is basically an interesting, somewhat humorous, harmless academic exercise in parsing ad absurdum.

Of course, the FAA doesn't help. They keep revising the language of this reg to "clarify" it, which only ends up leading to more parsing exercises. Remember when they "got rid of" the ability to regain currency in the second six months without an IPC? Chief Counsel ends up writing an interpretation letter to clarify the clarification. Sometimes I think there's a joke writer at the FAA who intentionally inserts language which can be read in two ways, one obviously silly, just to watch.

It isn't limited to the instrument currency regs, nor to aviation. And sadly, sometimes it's not just fun on a web board.
 
Brad Z said:
If one were to ask for a legal interp it would most undoubtably be flipped over to the flight standards policy office to respond, and I or one of my colleagues would have the opportunity to take a pause from a myriad of other aviation safety related tasks to draft a response affirming our collective understanding of the rule. I’d probably cite the September 2009 federal register notice for the final rule which clarifies that the editorial change to 61.57(c) directs the airman to “[...]look back 6 calendar months from the month of the flight to determine whether the instrument flight experience requirements were met.”

Honestly I’m not sure why the terminology changed, but I suspect the wording was modified to help aleviate confusion regarding whether the current month was considered part of the preceding months.
Click to expand...

Interesting detail, thanks.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course it does. But that would be reasonable :D
Click to expand...

the point of this entire thread is not that we need to change the interpretation but that we need to change the language to express the true intent of the FAA which we all know.

the rule does not say “within 6 calendar months”. It says “within THE 6 calendar months.” My limited knowledge of accepted statutory interpretation which I had to study in preparation of a personal law suit I was involved in has an entire section on the meaning and effect of articles in statutes. Who knows what that does to it. But the reading seems to be different.

my only point is that there is a difference and the rewritten language of 61.57 seems to have made things just as imprecise as the language it replaced.

tex
 
Dave S. said:
the point of this entire thread is not that we need to change the interpretation but that we need to change the language to express the true intent of the FAA which we all know.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm missing that point.
Dave S. said:
My limited knowledge of accepted statutory interpretation which I had to study in preparation of a personal law suit I was involved in
Click to expand...
You got me beat. I only had to deal with it professionally for 40 years.
 
This is another thread brought to you by Pedantic Pilots of America (PPOA).
 
Seems that instead of using the term "calendar months", it might be easier to interpret if the rule said "within the last 180 days". Removes most ambiguity. Some would quibble over which day you were out of currency, but it would be an error of a day or two versus a month.
 
PaulS said:
Seems that instead of using the term "calendar months", it might be easier to interpret if the rule said "within the last 180 days". Removes most ambiguity. Some would quibble over which day you were out of currency, but it would be an error of a day or two versus a month.
Click to expand...
Nope, you're given at least six months not less than six months. Too complicated to figure 180 days and too easy to make a mistake.
 
PaulS said:
Seems that instead of using the term "calendar months", it might be easier to interpret if the rule said "within the last 180 days". Removes most ambiguity. Some would quibble over which day you were out of currency, but it would be an error of a day or two versus a month.
Click to expand...
Or they could use “calendar months” to mean the same day of the month (one of the Webster’s definitions) so if it’s Sept. 26, you look back to March 26.

but we got what we got.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top