Paul,
One of the basic principals of law is that the law is what the words of the law say. If the law is written in clear words, it cannot be interpreted differently. For example: If the speed limit sign says 40 MPH, you may not interpret that as 50 MPH, and a police officer may not interpret that as 30 MPH. The speed limit is 40 mph. Yes, most states have laws about speeds appropriate to the existing conditions, but absent special conditions, the speed limit is 40, just like the sign says. A law or regulation which is not ambiguous is not subject to "interpretation"
The regulation regarding takeoff and landing currency is clear and unambiguous. Preceding means only one thing in the English language: going before.
Let’s get rid of the number 90 for a moment, as that may be confusing you. Suppose the regulation said that you may not act as pilot in command unless you had made 3 takeoffs and landings in the preceding day. That’s it; just one day, "the preceding day". So if today is Monday, what is the preceding day? Sunday, or Monday? It should be obvious that the day preceding Monday is Sunday, not Monday. A day cannot possible precede itself. It just ain’t possible. So, what if the regulation said the "preceding 2 days", what would that mean if today is Monday? What are the 2 days preceding Monday? Saturday and Sunday? Or Sunday and Monday ? Again, Monday cannot precede Monday. The 2 days preceding Monday are Saturday and Sunday. And thus it is with "the preceding 90 days". The phrase "the preceding 90 days" is every bit as clear and unambiguous as "the preceding day" or "the preceding 2 days". "the preceding 90 days cannot include today, as once again, a day cannot precede itself.
Now, you say that you called your FSDO and were told that you must count the present day. That may be, but you need to understand a couple of things: An inspector has no absolutely no authority to interpret regulations. An interpretation from an inspector has absolutely no value whatever. If you want some entertainment, ask that inspector to put his words in writing on official FAA letterhead and print and sign his name at the bottom so you can "have something official", then watch him backpedal. Issuing legal interpretations is the sole province of FAA Legal Counsel. The only interpretation which has any official standing is one issued by the FAA’s Legal Counsel. It is more than probable that the inspector you spoke with just doesn’t know what the regulation is. It is certainly not his job to start enforcing a regulation contrary to the way it is written. Besides, inspectors do not decide enforcement actions. They gather what evidence they believe supports a violation and submit it to counsel for a determination of a violation. Presumably .... hopefully.....if the inspector you spoke with initiated an investigation of a pilot based on his belief that preceding 90 days included the present day, the legal counsel would find no violation.
The inspector’s comments about medicals and annuals have no bearing on the question and serve to show that he has a poor understanding of the regulations. The issue of medicals is completely irrelevant. The regulation stating the duration of a medical certficate (61.23) is worded completely differently and doesn’t contain the word "preceding", or even "previous", so has no bearing on what "preceding" means. The regulation regarding annual inspections does use "preceding" but your inspector is incorrect on it’s interpretation. We do in fact have 13 month annuals. If the annual inspection for your airplane was performed and signed on July 1, 2002, you may operate that aircraft until July 31, 2003. Now, sit down with a calendar and count how many months in the time period from July 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. If you come up with some number other than 13, you may want to repeat kindergarten. Of course, if your annual inspection was signed off on July 31, 2002, it still ends on July 31, 3003 and it’s only a 12 month annual. The fact that your inspector seems not to grasp these basic concepts is a general indication of his cluelessness.
Now, If you can show me a written legal interpretation from FAA’s General Counsel, which states that "preceding" includes the present day, than I will concede that is the way the FAA interprets preceding. I will however maintain that it is an incorrect interpretation, and one that should be overruled by an appeal, if that point of law ever came up in a real court (as opposed to an NTSB kangaroo court)
So, absent a ruling by FAA Legal Counsel, preceding means exactly what it has meant for centuries, going before, and just as certainly, a day cannot go before itself any more than you can go in front of yourself in line for the movies.
regards
Sorry for the confusion.
