299 line check

[avbug]

I'm sure that may be true for *some* people.

My logbook is correct. I can't speak for the next guy.

 

[pilotyip]

is it?

I'm sure that may be true for *some* people.

My logbook is correct. I can't speak for the next guy.

Never logged night time before the end of mean civil twilight? Logged an inst approach were you broke out at 1000' AGL? Never logged a night landing until one hour after local sunset? If not than you are a better man than I

 

[ProFracPilot]

Logged an inst approach were you broke out at 1000' AGL?

What?

If I'm on an IFR flight plan, have traversed instrument conditions, am cleared for an instrument approach - the approach gets logged. You don't have to go to minimums in instrument conditions log an approach.

 

[avbug]

An approach must be flown to minimums by reference to instruments to count for currency, according to the FAA Chief Legal Counsel.

 

[pilotyip]

something wrong?

An approach must be flown to minimums by reference to instruments to count for currency, according to the FAA Chief Legal Counsel.

do I detect an opinion on a possible improper log book entry?

 

[avbug]

No, you detect a fact. Are you admitting to more falsification in your logs, now?

 

[brokeflyer]

avbug, get a life and go get laid.....it'll do ya a lotta good..

 

[fr8r]

this is getting ridiculous. actually, it has been ridiculous for a while;-)

 

[pilotyip]

how about this

No, you detect a fact. Are you admitting to more falsification in your logs, now?

flying at night above a could layer, no visible horizon, on autopilot, navigating solely by instrutments, can I legally log inst time? BTW Check is in the mail, there are no false entries in my logbook, and I won't .. nevermind.

 

[avbug]

flying at night above a could layer, no visible horizon, on autopilot, navigating solely by instrutments, can I legally log inst time?

You may log as instrument time all time spent while operating the aircraft by reference to instruments.

One need not be in the clouds to log instrument time.

 

[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.