Book on FAR Interpretation!

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

Just ordered FAR's Explained, will give my review once I receive it.

 

[SkyGuyEd]

The Man: I bought your book. Nice goin! It is a good one The illustrations are pretty funny too

 

[avbug]

One does not need to be an attorney to understand the regulation. The regulation applying to us as pilots, the "FAR," is among the shortest and most simply written of any federal regulation.

In addition, ample interpetation adding clarification to the regulation exists, as does substantial administrative case law further defining it.

The problem that's most often evident is that people attempt to interpret the regulation themselves, without seeking proper clarification, attempt to seek clarification from the wrong source (eg, FSDO, etc), or simply take no thought but to ask.

Sit down and read the regulations, rather than skimming them and then asking what they mean, and you may well find that they're not that confusing after all. It's not like a giant compendium of regulation exists; it's small and very limited in scope. Not something that takes a lifetime to review, learn, or master.

The Jepp books previously mentioned are good, though it should be pointed out that on several topics therein I have noted discrepancies between what the authors attempted to render, and what has been rendered by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel (representing the Administrator).

You may take the interpretations directly when provided by the Administrator (and authorized representatives), but not the advice given by the authors. It is potentially flawed, and does not represent the official stand of the administrator. Simply put, it's good advice or information for the most part, but not defensible.

 

[A Squared]

Avbug,

Part of the problem, as you point out is that pilots don't read the regulations themselves, they listen to what others tell them they mean. Another part of the problem is that many pilots *willfully* misunderstand the regulations. A case in point it the eternal "logging SIC in a singlt pilot airplane" question. The regulations are very clear on the subject. The trouble is, a whole bunch of guys riding around in hte right seat of a Baron, Navajo, beech200 or whatever, really, really, want to log that time. and the really, really, REALLY want to believe that they are allowed to log it. You see it time and time again. "No really dude, when Part 61 says you can log SIC if the SIC is required by the REGULATIONS thay actually meant required by the insurance company" Never mind that it says regulations, never mind that there is no confusion or ambiguity what the word regulations means. "insurance policy" fits thier agenda, so they see "insurance policy" where the rest of the world sees "regulations" , reality be d@mned.

BTW, reply to your PM forthcoming, Avbug

 

[avbug]

True enough.

I guess I get tired of hearing and sometimes fielding the same questions over and over...questions which ought to be common knowledge, and aren't that hard.

I really get tired of hearing how difficult the regulation is to understand. Inevitably it's by those who won't take the time to read or understand it.

I'm happy to ask when I don't understand, but won't do it without the effort and research to find out first. I'm happy to answer, but expect the same in return. I'm tired of hearing "I called the FSDO," or "so-and-so told me."

One would think that with one's career riding on understanding and adhering to the regulations, some would take a greater interest. I ought to point out that my comments aren't brought to bear on the founder of this thread; here was someone looking to expand his overall understanding and was seeking the research material to do so. I'm more frustrated by those who seem to think the regulation is a foriegn language, when they've never tried to listen, and never tried to speak it. Foriegn language, no. Just a different accent, and a clear one at that.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Quote by avbug
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ample interpetation adding clarification to the regulation exists, as does substantial administrative case law further defining it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Avbug, is there a link to the ample clarification somewhere? I usually research the FAA website and AOPA's website if I have a question about interpretation. I don't always have good luck when trying to find clarification.

I sure would appreciate any links, copies of letters, etc. I am one that likes to speak from "reference". I am not one to say "I think....". The more references that I have for my files the better.

I have seen arguments in other threads where someone was quoting a "letter" somewhere yet didn't present a copy until the thread was about 8 pages long! It would be a great help if everyone that had access to a "gold nugget" would share it with the rest of us searchers...

Thanks in advance...

 

[avbug]

You might as well purchase the same CD that many of us use, and that the FAA uses. Summit Publications produces a CD available through ASA, that contains every FAA publication, and then some. Every advisory circular, every aircraft specification, every handbook.

It enables you to search rapidly and extract a great deal of information quickly. It will run about eighty bucks, and the new edition is issued in November.

You will have access to a number of easily searchable legal interpretations catagorically listed by year.

Turning to AOPA and other such highly unofficial sources is entertaining, but not a serious study of the regulation. The regulation itself is clear. Certain areas have intentionally been written with lattitude built in for clarification and application to specific situations (such as 91.13, careless and reckless operation), and expansion to fit the evolving industry.

Without the support of the interpretation, the regulation is rather clear on it's own.

 

[Toy Soldier]

avbug

Thanks. Will do!

 

[Rick1128]

Avbug,

If the regs are so simple to understand, why is it that I have two (2) CDs chuck full of legal interpretations from FAA legal. NOT legal decisions, but intrepretations only. And I use them regularly when dealing with my FSDO.

 

[avbug]

Ya have a lotta problems with the FAA, do ya? Hmmm.

Get the summit pubs on CD/ROM. You can get EVERYTHING on one disc. Not just the interpretations (are you trying to use regional interps, too??), but everything, including handbooks, etc. Heck, it's even got aerodynamics for naval aviators in it's entirety. And it's probably a whole lot easier to use than whatever you have there.

Legal interpretations are provided to gain clarification into specific matters where the regulation was plainly meant to be open. This is by design. The regulation was written with this intent, to be interpreted specifically to evolving circumstances, and to give some lattitude in it's application.

As it stands, it is clear. Certain of the subparagraphs are left with the flexibility needed by the Administrator, and to these, interpretation is applied. Additionally, the regulation is a living document in a state of evoloution.

Too many questions asked about the regulations are asked in ignorance; the regulations generally speaking are quite clear on the question; it's simply the petitioner who is too lazy to read the answer.