Book on FAR Interpretation!

[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.

 

[turning2]

Much better book:

"EVERYTHING EXPLAINED for the Professional Pilot"

www.aviation-press.com

Just Tryin' to Help

Gonna have to STRONGLY agree here. Received my copy just the other day, not only have I had a hard time putting it down, I've had a harder time keeping my F/O from stealing it. He's now purchased his own copy.

Only on chapter 2 but I've already picked up a wealth of information (and retained it to boot ) not an easy task for me sometimes. I have found it to be a very easy read, not dry at all like some of the other publications. Sure wish I had a copy many moons ago, it could have saved me countless time and money with all references in one place. I HIGHLY recommend it for everyone's library.

Move away from the Jepp and other larger publication companies for a change and give the little guy a chance, I promise you won't be disappointed. And if you are, I'm sure you can give Richie a call, he includes his phone # for any questions you may have with a personal thank you when you purchase your copy... don't ever remember Jepp doing this

http://www.aviation-press.com/

 

[Rick1128]

Avbug,

No more than anyone else. And I have the Summit CD. The only problem is that they tend to drop the Interpretations that are more than 5 or 6 years old. And they still don't have all of them. And the FAA lawyers (liars) keep the regs loose so they garrantee their continued employment. And that is a direct quote from a former FAA lawyer.

 

[SkyGuyEd]

Yeah the only problem with a book like that is it really makes you realize how little you know

Anyone else know that they make sectional charts read as if the sun is setting in the northwest? I sure as heck didn't!

 

[avbug]

The only problem is that they tend to drop the Interpretations that are more than 5 or 6 years old.

Hmmm. On my disk, they go back to 1975. In fact, in 1975, I'm showing 57 interpretations at the national level, on my disc. You seem to be missing 22 years worth. I'd ask for my money back...

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

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

This book is well worth the money; well written thanks for referring me to it.

 

[kingaira90]

The best FAR book out there

I got my copy of "EVERYTHING EXPLAINED for the Professional Pilot" about a month ago, and I have read it cover to cover! I can't say that about the FARs. After 5 minutes I am nodding off. I keep a copy of the regs next to the bed in case I can't sleep (actually not kidding).

I have the summit cd etc. You will get the information, but the FARs and AC were written by lawyers covering their ass for more lawyers. The FARs are easy reading if you like reading medical encyclopedias in Latin for light entertainment (without pictures). Everything Explained is highly detailed and readable. Yes both at the vary same time! Richie Lengel does an excellent job of cutting through the b/s and clutter to give you the nugget of truth. He has injected a sarcastic sence of humor into the book too (just my type of humor!) keeping it light, considering the subject matter. I am certainly retaining far more information in this format than I ever did with the stuff I wasted my money on in training and beyond.

I got my note in the shipment too! Buy it and you will know you wasted money on all those other books. Just my 2 cents, kingaira90

 

[Toy Soldier]

Just a thought

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the FARs are very easy to understand and that any mis-interpretation was simply a pilot trying to "read the reg" in his own favor, etc. They also basically said that all you have to do is simply read the reg and the answer will be plain to you.

Well I typically call or email the ACTUAL part 61/91 office in Washington DC (the folks that write those parts of the FARs) and, just to test them, I called the same office twice in a month and got different answers to the same obviously simple question.....

Well, today when I got the "other" answer, I explained to the gentleman that I got a different answer the last time I called. He then told me to email him the questions and that he would go to their legal department for an interpretation.

Go figure....

 

[A Squared]

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the FARs are very easy to understand and that any mis-interpretation was simply a pilot trying to "read the reg" in his own favor, etc.

Toy soldier: I think that you're misunderstanding what was said, or at least you are misunderstanding what I said. I never said that all the regs are easy to understand. What I said is there are *some* which are quite plain, but are continuously understood incorrectly, despite thier clarity. Part of the problem is that the ones who misunderstand them don't want the regs to mean what they obviously do mean, so then convince themselves that they mean somehting else.


I don't agree with avbug that they are *all* easy to understand. I will go as far as saying that *many* of them are written in plain english and are easily understood. *many* (not all) of the common minsunderstandings could be eliminated if you just read the reg and understand what the words say, nothing more, nothing less.

You should be aware that asking whatever branch it is your asking, especially by telephone is a pointless and meaningless exercise. Their spoken opinion is of no more value than the spoken opinion of your next door neighbor, the shoe salesman who has never flown in his life. The only opinion which counts is a written one from FAA counsel. I'm curious, what is the question you were asking of the FAA?

 

[Toy Soldier]

A Squared

Hello. My previous post wasn't pointing fingers at ya'... sorry if it looked that way. It was just a comment because there were those that made it sound like the regs were so simple. That's all. Simply conversation...

However, the basis for my question to the Part 61/91 office in Washington you ask about follows:

Someone told me that a private pilot with his OWN plane could NOT fly the pastor of our church on the pastors' business trip because the pilot would/could receive "goodwill" - even if the private pilot paid 100% of the expenses. The FAA dude that I spoke to agreed with that comment. However, he stated that a commercial pilot COULD.

Well, today I called and got a different answer from a different FAA dude. The latest FAA dude told me to email to him my specific questions (scenerios) and he would have the lethal, er I mean legal department give me an interpretation...

 

[A Squared]

A Squared
Simply conversation...

Yeah, that's the spirit in which it was taken, no ruffled feathers here. As for your question, it leves me scratching my head. My first impulse is to roll my eyes and sy that in no way is "goodwill" compensation, but then I think of the very broad interpretation of "compensation" that the FAA uses and I'm not so sure.

I would think that the FAA would be reluctant to classify "goodwill" as compensation, as then it would change the nature of of operations where the corporate aircraft was dispatched to take a client somewhere as a goodwill gesture. I don't think the FAA wants to open that can of worms. They'd get a lot of calls from congressmen who got calls from thier constituents (read campaign contributers)

Let us know if you get a reply on that.