299 line check

[brokeflyer]

whatever you gotta tell yourself kid. Don't worry about what we do, sounds like you have your hands full just keeping up talking to yourself....

 

[fr8r]

AVBUG,
these folks just don't understand. It's not worth wasting anymore time on them. The guys who claim to have worked at a FSDO have proved your point for you. Not even they know that they can't INTERPRET regulation. So, now this thread has covered the meaning of "Opinion" vs. "Interpretation" & "Logging" vs "Serving."

I give Avbug rounds "12" the other posters "0" - TKO to Avbug. It seems to me that you have a very good understanding of the legal aspect of aviation. I am not sure where you gathered that knowledge, but it's obvious you know what you are talking about. I have talked with a prominent aviation attorney and he has confirmed everything you have said.

Folks, Avbug is correct. If you guys all want to argue your opinions, don't answer questions to a guy who is asking what is legal. If I wanted your opinions, I would have specified.

If all of this had started with the question of being strictly of a 91 operation, where there is no .299 ride, then this would have been even more frustrating. I wasn't asking for the opinion of potential employers, or others opinions. I was asking for what was legal.

If you don't understand why you would LOG PIC time for the purpose of a higher rating, go dig into the regs some more.

 

[brokeflyer]

go back to the fligh instruction forums rookie.....dont come on here and critize me for trying to help you answer your question.

It's obvious that you are a jerk just looking for a fight.

 

[Daveman]

The local FAA office isn't empowered to do that. The local FAA office, at the FSDO level, is renown nationwide for having differing opinions and understanding of the regulation.

Personally, I've found that some of the worst understanding of the regulation is found among inspectors.

Of course, the FSDO level isn't authorized to interpret the regulation and can't provide an authoritative interpretation of the regulation...but if you're foolish enough to seek clarification at that level, you deserve whatever guidance you might believe you've received.

I agree with your first statement. But, if the FSDO can't interpret any regulation or provide any auth. interp. of the reg........ Then the whole system is flawed!!! Well probabably true considering our Government. Maybe just a way for the FAA to cover their ass??? :erm:

 

[fr8r]

go back to the fligh instruction forums rookie.....dont come on here and critize me for trying to help you answer your question.

It's obvious that you are a jerk just looking for a fight.

hmmm.... okay. I was actually looking for a simple answer, it just turned into a fight.

I actually appreciate all the feedback we've seen on here. I just can't stand the insults. It's not productive and some of us would like to think that we are professionals here. I would actually really appreciate it if every time someone asked a question, that any reply to that question would be looked at as if that person were sitting right in front of you. I know that it's easy to talk tough on here... please! That being said, let me apologize to anyone with whom I may have offended. Sorry. It wasn't my intent. There has been some good info posted here and I hope that someone might have learned something from it. I think that is the point of FI to begin with... the distribution of information, useful information. So guys, thanks again for all of your feedback & time.

 

[pilotyip]

For me?

Why don't you qualify that?

You are knowledgeable enough to not have any false entries in your logbook. I am not; therefore there are false entries in my logbook. Like logging a simulated inst approach without a view limiting device. Of this has been observed by the Feds they signed it off anyway.
.

 

[brokeflyer]

hmmm.... okay. I was actually looking for a simple answer, it just turned into a fight.

I actually appreciate all the feedback we've seen on here. I just can't stand the insults. It's not productive and some of us would like to think that we are professionals here. I would actually really appreciate it if every time someone asked a question, that any reply to that question would be looked at as if that person were sitting right in front of you. I know that it's easy to talk tough on here... please! That being said, let me apologize to anyone with whom I may have offended. Sorry. It wasn't my intent. There has been some good info posted here and I hope that someone might have learned something from it. I think that is the point of FI to begin with... the distribution of information, useful information. So guys, thanks again for all of your feedback & time.

I answered your question a few days ago.

your apology is accepted, I retract my statement about you. good luck with your flying.

Have a great day.

 

[fr8r]

I answered your question a few days ago.

your apology is accepted, I retract my statement about you. good luck with your flying.

Have a great day.

Thank you. I guess we'll agree to agree & sort of disagree and move on from this dreadful, yet informative thread! LOL! good luck to all!

 

[xkuzme1]

...

If you are not the Captain, dont be a tool and try to log it as the Captain. YOU know if you SHOULD log it PIC or not. You might be a tool for asking anyhow. Dont try to be something you are not.

 

[fr8r]

If you are not the Captain, dont be a tool and try to log it as the Captain. YOU know if you SHOULD log it PIC or not. You might be a tool for asking anyhow. Dont try to be something you are not.

please go back and do some more reading. Also, get the terms right... (i.e. captain? nowhere was the logging of "captain" time discussed... Serving as PIC might be on topic though). We were talking about doing something for entirely different reasons than you have stated. Deception is not & was not the purpose of this thread.