You stipulated that the FAA reinterprets administrative law during and after the fact, and that case does not support your observation. That the NTSB disagreed, or was overturned, has nothing to do with anything.
The statement of a judge regarding the overturning of the Board's decision means nothing in this case, either. Of course the FAA's interpretations take precedence over the Board, as the regulations pertain to the FAA. The board is nothing more than a separate source of appeal and review.
You appear to question the opinion written that FAA regulation overrides caselaw as decided by the NTSB. Obviously the FAA takes precedence, except in cases of appeal.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Wherein did the FAA alter their legal interpretation after the fact, and then hold the pilot to it? The specific case law to which you refer involves the FAA administrator v. the NTSB, as the FAA was appealing a ruling against them by the NTSB. It was nothing more than an appeal at the next higher level.
The Administrator has always maintained that the pilot is ultimately responsible for his or her actions. It's plainly written in 14 CFR 91.3(a). In the underlying case to which you refer, a controller failed to catch a faulty readback, and the pilot attempted to excuse himself by placing the blame on the pilot. The result was a clear statement that the pilot is always responsible...a statement which hasn't wavered since long before the "FAR's" existed.
Your assertion of the following is fundamentally incorrect, for the simple principle that after the fact, one cannot be held liable for later interpretation...presupposing that adequate interpretation existed before the fact:
1. The interpretation that an agency gives to a regulation it wrote is entitled to deference by the courts.
2. An agency can give an interpretation of a regulation for the very first time during a trial.
3. This interpretation given during trial is due the same deference as one that was given long before trial.
While the ALJ may give due consideration to the current interpretation, if a prior interpretation has been given, the new interpretation will not automatically presuppose the old one. Further, consideration will be given to the timliness of the interpretation.
Yes, caselaw is often used to test or establish an interpretation, just as it is in all law. The administrator puts forth an arguement, and if the ALJ buys it, then it's a done deal. The subject of that action is always welcome to appeal.
However, we're getting away from the subject here, as the subject matter is rather clear. Further, this has nothing to do with harking back to completely unofficial and irrelevant commentaries made by the FAQ site...sources such as which only serve to muddy the topic and confuse those in this discussion. It matters not a whit what's on the FAQ site, as it won't serve you in administrative court, nor will it serve against you.
An instructor can log all time spent as an authorized instructor in instrument conditions, but is not entitled to log the student's approaches.
Monitoring a student is not the same as performing an approach using an autopilot.
A student is not a flight control, or an aircraft system.
If you want to log an approach for recency of experience, then perform the approach, don't watch it.
The statement of a judge regarding the overturning of the Board's decision means nothing in this case, either. Of course the FAA's interpretations take precedence over the Board, as the regulations pertain to the FAA. The board is nothing more than a separate source of appeal and review.
You appear to question the opinion written that FAA regulation overrides caselaw as decided by the NTSB. Obviously the FAA takes precedence, except in cases of appeal.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Wherein did the FAA alter their legal interpretation after the fact, and then hold the pilot to it? The specific case law to which you refer involves the FAA administrator v. the NTSB, as the FAA was appealing a ruling against them by the NTSB. It was nothing more than an appeal at the next higher level.
The Administrator has always maintained that the pilot is ultimately responsible for his or her actions. It's plainly written in 14 CFR 91.3(a). In the underlying case to which you refer, a controller failed to catch a faulty readback, and the pilot attempted to excuse himself by placing the blame on the pilot. The result was a clear statement that the pilot is always responsible...a statement which hasn't wavered since long before the "FAR's" existed.
Your assertion of the following is fundamentally incorrect, for the simple principle that after the fact, one cannot be held liable for later interpretation...presupposing that adequate interpretation existed before the fact:
1. The interpretation that an agency gives to a regulation it wrote is entitled to deference by the courts.
2. An agency can give an interpretation of a regulation for the very first time during a trial.
3. This interpretation given during trial is due the same deference as one that was given long before trial.
While the ALJ may give due consideration to the current interpretation, if a prior interpretation has been given, the new interpretation will not automatically presuppose the old one. Further, consideration will be given to the timliness of the interpretation.
Yes, caselaw is often used to test or establish an interpretation, just as it is in all law. The administrator puts forth an arguement, and if the ALJ buys it, then it's a done deal. The subject of that action is always welcome to appeal.
However, we're getting away from the subject here, as the subject matter is rather clear. Further, this has nothing to do with harking back to completely unofficial and irrelevant commentaries made by the FAQ site...sources such as which only serve to muddy the topic and confuse those in this discussion. It matters not a whit what's on the FAQ site, as it won't serve you in administrative court, nor will it serve against you.
An instructor can log all time spent as an authorized instructor in instrument conditions, but is not entitled to log the student's approaches.
Monitoring a student is not the same as performing an approach using an autopilot.
A student is not a flight control, or an aircraft system.
If you want to log an approach for recency of experience, then perform the approach, don't watch it.
