Logging PIC as a PPL for Hire (and taking the reverse high speed)

[midlifeflyer]

Not true. You will not find the FAQ anywhere on the online library. Some inspectors still refer to it using their own copy.

Show a memo from AFS-800 stating that or showing that the FAQ is still authorized as guidance.

AFAIK, Ron is correct. As late as 2010, well after the FAQ was removed from public view, (and before he retired) I asked John Lynch a question about the October 2009 Part 61 revision. In addition to the answer, he provided the brand new FAQ # where my question and the answer would be placed for use by Flight Standards personnel.

But, and some would say true to form and one of the major problems with the FAQ, the new FAQ answer was incorrect.

Think of it as internal handbook rather than as public guidance.

 

[poadeleted20]

R&W is probably asking about the attached memo, which states: "Henceforth, the answers provided in the Part 61 and 141 “FAQ” files are not to be considered official Flight Standards policy without first receiving verification from the General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800." On this particular issue, I asked, and AFS-810 verified. Feel free to reverify yourself.

 

[RotorAndWing]

AFAIK, Ron is correct. As late as 2010, well after the FAQ was removed from public view, (and before he retired) I asked John Lynch a question about the October 2009 Part 61 revision. In addition to the answer, he provided the brand new FAQ # where my question and the answer would be placed for use by Flight Standards personnel.

But, and some would say true to form and one of the major problems with the FAQ, the new FAQ answer was incorrect.

Think of it as internal handbook rather than as public guidance.

I worked as an ASI from 2009 until 2012. The FAQ and its successor was removed from FSIMS and not acknowledged as a reference source. There were some copies floating around various FSDO's but "reference only", one could not use it's as official guidance.

If AFS-800 wants to put out a memo on FAA letterhead, signed that acknowledges its use then I would like to see it.

After Lynch left several changes were made.

 

[RotorAndWing]

R&W is probably asking about the attached memo, which states: "Henceforth, the answers provided in the Part 61 and 141 “FAQ” files are not to be considered official Flight Standards policy without first receiving verification from the General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800." On this particular issue, I asked, and AFS-810 verified. Feel free to reverify yourself.

Correct, as stated it can't be used any longer, hence the removal from FSIMS.

As an Inspector good luck on getting AFS800 to answer inquiries or request.

But at least they know where the next photo ops with the Administrator are taking place......

 

[poadeleted20]

Correct, as stated it can't be used any longer, hence the removal from FSIMS.

No, that's not what it says. I suggest you read it again, especially the part I quoted.

As an Inspector good luck on getting AFS800 to answer inquiries or request.

Perhaps outsiders do better, because I got an answer from AFS-810 on this one? But I really don't believe that -- I think you're just throwing out your own personal opinion and trying to legitimize it based on your former status.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No, that's not what it says. I suggest you read it again, especially the part I quoted.

I read it (now and a few years ago) and it still says the same thing.

Your "I asked and verified" carries no weight, again, in FAA world if you want something that actually means something it must be on a FAA letterhead and signed, otherwise it's just speculation.

Perhaps outsiders do better, because I got an answer from AFS-810 on this one? But I really don't believe that -- I think you're just throwing out your own personal opinion and trying to legitimize it based on your former status.

I attended STRING with a fellow that was assigned to -800 as a new hire. The stories of how mis managed that department were was amazing. "Blind leading the blind" was the best way to describe them.

When the FSDO I worked under would try to get answers on anything it was always leave a message, we'll look into that and get back, or any other way of not taking responsibility. But in the FAA internal new publication they always managed to get their department recognized or a photo op placed.

As far as my "former" status, unlike you I had real experience there.

 

[TMetzinger]

the last exchange in this thread is my new definition of irony.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[poadeleted20]

I read it (now and a few years ago) and it still says the same thing.

Then why are you insisting it says something other than what it says?

Your "I asked and verified" carries no weight, again, in FAA world if you want something that actually means something it must be on a FAA letterhead and signed, otherwise it's just speculation.

Like I said -- check it yourself. I know what AFS-800 thinks, and they set the policy on this. You don't have to believe me, but you would be very unwise to get caught giving instruction in an airplane for which you do not have the applicable 61.31 additional training endorsements.

:bye:

I attended STRING with a fellow that was assigned to -800 as a new hire. The stories of how mis managed that department were was amazing. "Blind leading the blind" was the best way to describe them.

So you don't even have first-hand experience on which to draw? Just someone else's stories?

 

[denverpilot]

But, and some would say true to form and one of the major problems with the FAQ, the new FAQ answer was incorrect.

Think of it as internal handbook rather than as public guidance.

Sheesh. Just f---ing fix it.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Then why are you insisting it says something other than what it says?

This goes in line with your legal analysis and case law "interpretations". More than a few times you have insisted different things say what you want it to say to support your authoritarian views.

Like I said -- check it yourself. I know what AFS-800 thinks, and they set the policy on this.

You assume you know what they think, I am positive they do not consult with you or add you in their policy discussions (as much as you try to convince people they do).

Tell you what, get your buddy to write a memo (FAA Letterhead) and give you that response, and sign his name. Please tell him you are going to post said memo on the internet.

We'll wait for this.......

So you don't even have first-hand experience on which to draw? Just someone else's stories?

Yep, we tried to get some guidance on a couple of issues and we got the continued runaround since no one wanted their name attached.

Have them tell you about the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook rewrite or the Full Down autorotation debacle, among others. The list is long.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Sheesh. Just f---ing fix it.

"Fixing it" means someone has to take responsibility. The days of John Lynch are long gone.

 

[denverpilot]

"Fixing it" means someone has to take responsibility. The days of John Lynch are long gone.

I know the problem. See it at work every day.

 

[Palmpilot]

...But I really don't believe that -- I think you're just throwing out your own personal opinion and trying to legitimize it based on your former status.

And yet you seem to treat as authoritative an FAQ written by a former FAA employee.

 

[RotorAndWing]

And yet you seem to treat as authoritative an FAQ written by a former FAA employee.

An FAQ that was removed from FAA publications and FAA access.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sheesh. Just f---ing fix it.

I'm guessing it eventually was. Just like Lynch's FAQ diatribe against the logging rules and other incorrect answers.

To the extent the FAQ is still kept current, even if hidden, it's obviously used for something, whether technically official or not. Process-wise, it probably makes sense, even the hidden part. My guess is the public removal and demotion to unofficial status was at least partly due to the recurring issues between Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel's office. With an "unofficial" FAQ, you get at least some (small) degree of consistency between FSDOs, without being "authoritative." If the answer is turns out to be wrong when legally tested, so be it. Since I long-ago realized the world wasn't perfect and government even less so, incorrect consistency is a reality I'm willing to accept.

 

[Henning]

Everyone I've talked to who wanted to become a pilot for utility purposes learned that the utility was severely dampened by commercial / legal requirements. It seems like 15-20% of my training was about what I COULDN'T do, and that certainly provides a bit of drag on the wide-eyed wonder of flying.

The other day a friend of mine asked if I could fly him to pick up a specially made handicapped accessible bike for a charity he runs. I missed his call and he made other arrangements, but the truth is, I had to think through the legality had I offered my "services". I came to the conclusion that I could fly HIM back and forth free of charge with no issue, but me not being a member of his charity (my wife is on the board) AND the fact that I'd be taking cargo... in the end I decided I didn't know enough except that I'd probably run afoul of 2 or 3 laws by helping him out.

That was an interesting and frustrating realization in a long line of interesting and frustrating realizations for private pilots that their privileges are, in fact, limited. It doesn't bother me much since my "professional" flying would be incidental to my business, and I get lots of utility from "personal" flying beyond poking holes in the sky.

Would that have stopped you? Do you believe you may have gotten in any trouble for it? BTW, as long as you were paying the bill, there would be no regulation violated.

 

[Captain]

Ill bite, what's an FAQ?

Frequently Asked Questions?
Federal Aeronautical Questionare?
Federal Aviation Quran?

 

[denverpilot]

I'm guessing it eventually was. Just like Lynch's FAQ diatribe against the logging rules and other incorrect answers.

To the extent the FAQ is still kept current, even if hidden, it's obviously used for something, whether technically official or not. Process-wise, it probably makes sense, even the hidden part. My guess is the public removal and demotion to unofficial status was at least partly due to the recurring issues between Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel's office. With an "unofficial" FAQ, you get at least some (small) degree of consistency between FSDOs, without being "authoritative." If the answer is turns out to be wrong when legally tested, so be it. Since I long-ago realized the world wasn't perfect and government even less so, incorrect consistency is a reality I'm willing to accept.

Accepting inconsistency in Federal regulations is a crappy option. Especially if the reasoning is because the regulation writers and their lawyers who are both our public servant employees, can't seem to get along.

What's behind door number two? Fire their asses?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ill bite, what's an FAQ?

Frequently Asked Questions?
Federal Aeronautical Questionare?
Federal Aviation Quran?

"Frequently Asked Questions." After the extensive re-write of Parts 61 and 141 in 1997, John Lynch, who was then a moving force withing Flight Standards, started putting together a Q&A to answer common questions about those two parts.

For a number of years, the FAQ was publicly available and updated through 2005. Then in 2006, it was removed with instructions not to rely on anything in it. Part of the problem, as previously mentioned, was that it did not always reflect what the Chief Counsel's office would ultimately say. Even with disclaimers that "the answers...are not legal interpretations" this caused problems in enforcement.

 

[Brad Z]

Ill bite, what's an FAQ?

Frequently Asked Questions

About 10 years ago or so, John Lynch (AFS-800) put together a list of FAQs regarding Part 61. It was a treasure trove of "can I log time...?" type questions and answers. It was published on the FAA website for a time, but later removed. It was never official guidance but in it's heyday served to settle quite a few bar bets amongst pinhead dancers on the internet.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Accepting inconsistency in Federal regulations is a crappy option. Especially if the reasoning is because the regulation writers and their lawyers who are both our public servant employees, can't seem to get along.

What's behind door number two? Fire their asses?

Inconsistency between officers in the field and legal enforcement personnel is a fact of life that's all. And some personal "interpretations" have never had the opportunity to be tested.

I don't expect the police officer on the beat or even his Captain or the Chief of Police to have the same view of constitutional rights as the District Attorney or a judge either.

Yep, it would be nice to live in a perfect world where everything was absolutely and perfectly uniform and every action we took would be subject to complete and clear and consistent regulation. Hmm... on second thought, no it wouldn't.

 

[denverpilot]

Inconsistency between officers in the field and legal enforcement personnel is a fact of life that's all. And some personal "interpretations" have never had the opportunity to be tested.

I don't expect the police officer on the beat or even his Captain or the Chief of Police to have the same view of constitutional rights as the District Attorney or a judge either.

Yep, it would be nice to live in a perfect world where everything was absolutely and perfectly uniform and every action we took would be subject to complete and clear and consistent regulation. Hmm... on second thought, no it wouldn't.

Only people it benefits are in your chosen profession. No insult intended, but LE don't like it when they screw up any more than the people being regulated appreciate the mess.

The system as designed is in a continual state of FUBAR to keep attorney's paid. While we all appreciate y'all fixing things for us individuals when we need ya, we'd all prefer to be able to look up clear, concise rules and follow them.

FAA is particularly heinous with a significant portion of the "rule book" only being available as letters from the lawyer's office and/or case law. That truly is utter BS. A mandate to sunset the Chief Counsel's letters if they're not added to the CFR by appropriate folks within a [ insert time limit here ] timeframe would certainly clean that crap off the sidewalk.

 

[Everskyward]

we'd all prefer to be able to look up clear, concise rules and follow them.

I agree with Mark. If you want everything spelled out in airtight language the regs would be 10 times as large and there would still be interpretations.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FAA is particularly heinous with a significant portion of the "rule book" only being available as letters from the lawyer's office and/or case law.

AFAIK, that is true of every single area in the US that is governed by rules, whether on the federal, state and local level.

 

[JeffDG]

AFAIK, that is true of every single area in the US that is governed by rules, whether on the federal, state and local level.

Compare the size of the US Code (statutes) to the Code of Federal Regulations to US Reports (Court decisions).

In the news right now, Obamacare is 2,000 pages in the US Code, 20,000 in the CFR, and still building in the US Reports

 

[Captain]

Keep your 'obamacare rants' off my thread! Go spew in the SZ if you must. Cheese and Rice!

 

[JeffDG]

Keep your 'obamacare rants' off my thread! Go spew in the SZ if you must. Cheese and Rice!

Hey, that was not a political rant at all, just using a topical law to illustrate the differences between USC, CFR and USR. Note, I made zero comment as to whether it was a good or bad thing.

 

[ChrisK]

Keep your 'obamacare rants' off my thread! Go spew in the SZ if you must. Cheese and Rice!

Obamacare guns global warming abortion liberals legalized marijuana ADHD medicine oil war Bush Obama pipeline Benghazi terrorist Christian Muslim age of earth common core homeschooling gay marriage forceable legitimate rape.

YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO1!!!!111

 

[JeffDG]

Obamacare guns global warming abortion liberals legalized marijuana ADHD medicine oil war Bush Obama pipeline Benghazi terrorist Christian Muslim age of earth common core homeschooling gay marriage forceable legitimate rape.

YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO1!!!!111

You forgot Cheney and Halliburton...Partial credit only.

 

[Captain]

Obamacare guns global warming abortion liberals legalized marijuana ADHD medicine oil war Bush Obama pipeline Benghazi terrorist Christian Muslim age of earth common core homeschooling gay marriage forceable legitimate rape.

YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO1!!!!111

Okay...that made me chuckle. I reinstate full credit.

 

[denverpilot]

I agree with Mark. If you want everything spelled out in airtight language the regs would be 10 times as large and there would still be interpretations.

Depends. Do we really need to save people from their own stupidity? The rule book can certainly be smaller. And more idiots will die. And the gene pool would be more robust.

 

[Owad1971]

The FAA agrees -- at least until she stops breathing -- corpses don't count agains solo.

At that point wouldn't you be now "transporting" "cargo"... ...

And for the OP's original senario; where is the line between "cargo" your passenger's personal property...

 

[Palmpilot]

"Solo" does not mean "carrying no cargo."

 

[Captain]

At that point wouldn't you be now "transporting" "cargo"... ...

And for the OP's original senario; where is the line between "cargo" your passenger's personal property...

Ill have to write a letter to the OP, but I'm pretty sure he didn't say anything about 'cargo'.

 

[JeffDG]

The FAA agrees -- at least until she stops breathing -- corpses don't count agains solo.

If she had life insurance, are you now transporting cargo for compensation without an appropriate Part 119 operating certificate?

 

[Everskyward]

Depends. Do we really need to save people from their own stupidity? The rule book can certainly be smaller. And more idiots will die. And the gene pool would be more robust.

The rule book can be smaller but there will be more left to interpretation which is what I thought you were objecting to.

 

[Palmpilot]

If she had life insurance, are you now transporting cargo for compensation without an appropriate Part 119 operating certificate?

Is the payment of life insurance proceeds contingent on your transporting the body?