Straight answer from FSDO

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,489
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
Trying to get a straight answer to a Far that needs interpretation from my FSDO depends on who I get and if it's a full moon or whatever. Is their someplace in the FAA (OK city or ?) to get a answer that will stand up to all others. If their was anything in the FAA that needs fixing this is it. Inspectors that can't agree on a common answer to a FAR or spout AC as if they were regulatory.:mad2:
 
Nothing the FSDO tells you means anything. Within the FAA, the only thing that sets any sort of precedent is the Chief Counsel's office.

Welcome to the miscarriage of due process that is the FAA.
 
In my dealings, which ever inspector (POI) oversees your certificate opinion immediatley matters the most until you can get one from the regional office that oversees your FSDO, and then one from "Washington" that over-rides Regional.
 
Last edited:
The duty officer in Flight Standards has always been helpful for me. If they're unsure of an answer that hand me off to a better qualified person. I've never had any doubt that I got a good response. They always identify themselves so if important I make notes of who I spoke with and when but I've never needed to use it.
 
Stewartb said:
The duty officer in Flight Standards has always been helpful for me. If they're unsure of an answer that hand me off to a better qualified person. I've never had any doubt that I got a good response. They always identify themselves so if important I make notes of who I spoke with and when but I've never needed to use it.
Click to expand...

Try to get any of them to put it in writing on official FAA paper stationery and mail it to you.
 
Most questions have a relevant answer in the interpretations database. You could try searching there, if there is nothing, then you have to write Chief Counsel. If you have a good argument to support your position though, it may be best to use your own.
 
Even the result you get from the chief counsel has been reversed. The straight answer you get is only good on the date and time you get it. It's liable to change after 1 day of publication.

That's 'administrative' law, and what keeps the whole house of cards standing. One breeze and......
 
Henning said:
Most questions have a relevant answer in the interpretations database. You could try searching there, if there is nothing, then you have to write Chief Counsel. If you have a good argument to support your position though, it may be best to use your own.
Click to expand...

Do you have a address or contact point for the Chief Counsel at the FAA.
 
I am sitting on an ancient Delta POS right now waiting to depart and didn't bring my computer where I have the Chief Counsel interpretations page, however if you search the FAA web page, you should find both.
 
Please don't ask the FAA questions, it just shoots you and all of us in the foot with more "interpretations".
 
James331 said:
Please don't ask the FAA questions, it just shoots you and all of us in the foot with more "interpretations".
Click to expand...

Yep, unless it's egregious, a good attitude and explanation of your interpretation will keep you out of trouble. Something happens you will get "educated" at worst.
 
James331 said:
Please don't ask the FAA questions, it just shoots you and all of us in the foot with more "interpretations".
Click to expand...

Mangiamiele is a perfect example of when you just shouldn't ask.
 
bradg33 said:
Mangiamiele is a perfect example of when you just shouldn't ask.
Click to expand...

In case someone wants to refresh their memory like I did
 

Attachments

  • mangiamele%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf
    46.2 KB · Views: 86
Henning said:
Most questions have a relevant answer in the interpretations database. You could try searching there, if there is nothing, then you have to write Chief Counsel. If you have a good argument to support your position though, it may be best to use your own.
Click to expand...


DON'T EVER WRITE THE CHIEF COUNSEL UNLESS YOUR JOB DEPENDS ON GETTING THE ANSWER YOU WANT. AND IF YOU MUST DO THAT HIRE A LAWYER TO WRITE YOUR QUESTION, AND START SENDING OUT RESUMES!!!!

YES I'M SHOUTING.
 
What's the question? If there is a straight answer, someone here will likely know it. If there's not a straight answer, getting one out of the FSDO won't help you anyway.
 
docmirror said:
Even the result you get from the chief counsel has been reversed. The straight answer you get is only good on the date and time you get it. It's liable to change after 1 day of publication.

That's 'administrative' law, and what keeps the whole house of cards standing. One breeze and......
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with that. They do change from time to time and there is some slop out there. But overall, I think the consistency in Chief Counsel interpretations through the years has been pretty impressive and the number of times they have reversed themselves pretty small.

I can think of a number of interpretations that have changed but very few without an associated reg change and, other than a few that were edited a few times before being final, none that received a contrary interpretation 1 day after publication.

Have any good examples?
 
brien23 said:
Trying to get a straight answer to a Far that needs interpretation from my FSDO depends on who I get and if it's a full moon or whatever. Is their someplace in the FAA (OK city or ?) to get a answer that will stand up to all others. If their was anything in the FAA that needs fixing this is it. Inspectors that can't agree on a common answer to a FAR or spout AC as if they were regulatory.:mad2:
Click to expand...
If it's a business-related question of importance, the ultimate answer is from the Chief Counsel's office. If you take a look, I'd bet most of the questions in the database deal with business issues; many these days about duty time restrictions.

For many questions, though, there is a good answer and contacting the Chief Counsel's office is subject to the "watch out what you ask for" caution others already mentioned. Even businesses are careful about that - they generally act on a risk management basis and a decent business-oriented aviation lawyer is going to be able to advise on the compliance risk associated with an activity before reaching a conclusion to contact the Counsel's office.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not sure I agree with that. They do change from time to time and there is some slop out there. But overall, I think the consistency in Chief Counsel interpretations through the years has been pretty impressive and the number of times they have reversed themselves pretty small.

I can think of a number of interpretations that have changed but very few without an associated reg change and, other than a few that were edited a few times before being final, none that received a contrary interpretation 1 day after publication.

Have any good examples?
Click to expand...

Nope. Let's not take things too literally. Admin law changes. It changes at the whim of an administrator, and is not backed up by a legislator(s). That was the only point I was trying to make. If you think they are being consistent, and you're ok with the process, I guess I'm ok with that.
 
Reminds me when I received my 3rd class medical "for student pilot purpose" stamped on it. I was told by various people within the FAA and outside that I can solo on it and was told by various FAA employees and outsiders that I cannot solo on it. What's funny is nobody was willing to give me anything in writing that specifically stated that I can solo.

I decided to air on the side of caution and wait until I passed the soda and I had my actual approved medical in hand before I solo'd. That's why I had 112 hours when soloing, waited 3 months to get it, and kept flying.
 
^^^^ There ya go Mark. ^^^^

'It's a wave!'

'It's a particle!'

'Wave!'

'Particle!'
 
1) If you ask here, you will get different opinions, but what people here think doesn't matter

2) Different people at the FSDO will give you different answers, but what they think doesn't matter

3) You can ask the chief counsel and get an opinion, but that opinion doesn't matter.

What does matter is what some unknown FAA guy happens to think on whatever unknown day that person finds out what you are doing. And what happens as a result depends on how that person feels on that particular day. If they have a bee up their butt, even if it turns out what you did was OK, they will find something to nail you with.

So, what do you do? You try to do what is reasonable, have a plausible explanation for what you did, and pray that the FAA person that you run into got laid the night before.
 
IMO the LAST thing we want is definitive rulings. Just look at the fiasco that was the "definitive ruling" of what constitutes "known icing" because someone pushed and pushed for an answer and wouldn't let it go.
 
My guess is whether or not a transponder can be removed, send out for a benched test at a repair station and then reinstalled by an A&P who does not have any transponder testing equipment.
 
bnt83 said:
My guess is whether or not a transponder can be removed, send out for a benched test at a repair station and then reinstalled by an A&P who does not have any transponder testing equipment.
Click to expand...
I pull transponders and send them away to be repaired, when they return I install them. and sign off what I did.

it's all legal.
 
Tom-D said:
I pull transponders and send them away to be repaired, when they return I install them. and sign off what I did.

it's all legal.
Click to expand...

How do you verify
91.411

(3) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic pressure altitude reporting system of the ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.



Appendix E Paragraph C


(c) Automatic Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment and ATC Transponder System Integration Test. The test must be conducted by an appropriately rated person under the conditions specified in paragraph (a). Measure the automatic pressure altitude at the output of the installed ATC transponder when interrogated on Mode C at a sufficient number of test points to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeters, and ATC transponders perform their intended functions as installed in the aircraft. The difference between the automatic reporting output and the altitude displayed at the altimeter shall not exceed 125 feet.
 
bnt83 said:
How do you verify
91.411

(3) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic pressure altitude reporting system of the ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.



Appendix E Paragraph C


(c) Automatic Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment and ATC Transponder System Integration Test. The test must be conducted by an appropriately rated person under the conditions specified in paragraph (a). Measure the automatic pressure altitude at the output of the installed ATC transponder when interrogated on Mode C at a sufficient number of test points to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeters, and ATC transponders perform their intended functions as installed in the aircraft. The difference between the automatic reporting output and the altitude displayed at the altimeter shall not exceed 125 feet.
Click to expand...

Read your question, then read my answer, it may occur to you why my answer is correct as stated.
 
Stewartb said:
Did you remove the encoder?
Click to expand...

Any one can remove any thing, and put it back.

It's simply a matter of " who can return to service.

If your transponder didn't work, couldn't you remove it? then replace it after it returns?

then take the aircraft to a CRS for the test and return to service.

Now re-read the question you asked and my answer.

In my sign off I'd simply say I did the removal and re-instalation.
 
Remember you only do what you are qualified to do, and enter what you did.

Many times the A&P will do all the work to install the STC, major repair, etc, but the return service is by the A&P-IA who only inspects the work, and authorizes the return to service by checking the block.

Same with the transponder, anyone can do all the work. but it requires a test by a facility that has the equipment to do the test and return to service.
 
I'd like to ask them whether being deliberately obtuse and hypertechnical advance the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top