299 line check

[100-1/2]

What is a "logbook"? Are those still around? Haven't seen mine in years.

BTW, can I have the last 25 minutes of my life back? I thought this thread was leading to a revolt against the FAA for keeping an antiquated reg on the books just so that they have an excuse to pick the pockets of operators? Ah. Such is life. All talk and as usual, no balls.

They say the FAR's are written in blood. This reg was written in red ink.

100-1/2

 

[fr8r]

BTW, can I have the last 25 minutes of my life back? I thought this thread was leading to a revolt against the FAA for keeping an antiquated reg on the books just so that they have an excuse to pick the pockets of operators? Ah. Such is life. All talk and as usual, no balls.

They say the FAR's are written in blood. This reg was written in red ink.

100-1/2

Nicely stated 100-1/2!

That is exactly the point I was trying to drive about 27 posts ago! The .299 is an antiquated reg and the feds took the power of doing it(.299's) away from the flight schools(Flight Safety, CAE, etc...) so that they could get out of the office. Funny thing is, most companies will remedy that problem with a check airmen... if they're smart. The problem is we have guys who don't even know how to log instrument time or PIC time running flight departments.

 

[gulfstream2345]

An inspector at the FSDO does not have the authority to interpret regulation, and never did. For one who claimed to work there, you should know this.

AVBug this is absolutly an incorrect statement. I was a FAA Inspector and my job, daily, was to interpret the regulations. What the heck do you think a FAA Inspector does?

 

[avbug]

AVBug this is absolutly an incorrect statement. I was a FAA Inspector and my job, daily, was to interpret the regulations. What the heck do you think a FAA Inspector does?

You're either lying about your former employment, or more likely, you're as clueless as most of the individuals who fill those posts. While the FAA does occasionally employ the rare talent, most who work for the administration, particularly as inspectors at the FSDO level are there because they failed to make it in the private sector.

Which one are you?

Those who aren't able to remain with the administration of course, are in an entirely different category. One who can't make it with the FAA, a place in which being fired is only slightly more difficult than changing one's ethnic race, goes beyond not simply being able to make it in the private sector. Surely you're not in that class?

If indeed you did work as an inspector at the FSDO level, you were never granted authority to interpret the regulation. You were given limited authority to administer the regulation but at no time would you ever have held the authority to issue an interpretation of the regulation with any legal standing.

Furthermore, at the FSDO level, you would never have had the authority to take enforcement action beyond the most basic level. After it leaves the inspectors hands, it's a matter for the Regional Legal Counsel to pursue. This is particularly the case with respect to actions in which an appeal is made.

An inspector has never been granted interpretative authority, which is soley reserved for the FAA Administrator. The Administrator fills a post established by an Act of Congress and holds the authority to interpret the regulation. This authority is delegated to the Chief and Regional legal counsel for specific issuance and declaration of such interpretation. Such interpretations represent the official position and policy of the Administration, and are fully defensible to both the representatives of the Administrator, and to those affected by enforcement procedings.

This authority does not extend below the Regional level.

How could you possibly have filled a position as an inspector, and not know this?

 

[pilotyip]

You can't stand the truth

Back to the start, false entries in logbooks. Seems no one except Avbug knows what the proper entry is supposed to be, therefore the rest of us are outside of the standards.

 

[avbug]

Why don't you qualify that?

 

[brokeflyer]

An inspector at the FSDO does not have the authority to interpret regulation, and never did. For one who claimed to work there, you should know this.

AVBug this is absolutly an incorrect statement. I was a FAA Inspector and my job, daily, was to interpret the regulations. What the heck do you think a FAA Inspector does?

That's what I tried to tell him, but he's got his own way of doing things I guess.

Glad he aint in my right seat, I'd have crying like a little prison b1tch before we even got outta the chocks.....lol

 

[avbug]

That's what I tried to tell him, but he's got his own way of doing things I guess.

Again...why don't you qualify that. Talk is cheap; make your case.

 

[brokeflyer]

I already did....if your have a question about the regs then you call you local FAA office and have them assist you in understanding it.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[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.