Current Chart FAR

[avbug]

Complex and high performance endorsements have been required longer than that, but the regulation was re-written in 1997.

Don't call the FSDO. The FSDO does NOT have the authority to interpret a regulation. The FSDO initiates enforcement action and processes things at the field level. Legal interpretations are issued through legal counsel at the regional and national levels.

Learning regulation will be central to keeping your career intact. Now is as good a time as any to start. Don't speculate. Ignorance of the regulation will not serve in your defense. Your best bet is to get to know the system, and the regulation, and make it work for you.

 

[sbav8r]

Good to know. I already have both endorsements so I log PIC, but when I was training my instrucor did not have me log PIC. It was not until I began working on the CFI that I realized that I was legal to log PIC without the enforsement. Do to the conflicting information from the FSDO I assumed it was not a good idea to log it because it would raise unnecessary questions regarding your flight time. In the future I will have students log it as PIC.

Quite often instructors and schools use the FSDO as final authority on a subject, I'm glad you told me that. I thought that interpretation of the regs was within their duties.

So any chance you'll make it over to Jetcareers.com Avbug?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Complex and High-performance endorsements have only been required since 97, so the FAA has not been interpreting this issue for 25 years.

But they have. What they have been consistently interpreting is the word "rating". The high performance endorsement was on ly one of about 10 examples in the opinion. The '97 revision didn't change the word "endorsement" to "rating". 61.51's in an aircraft for which the pilot is "rated" has been the same just about forever. In order to be a"rating" it has top be printed on the back of your pilot certificate. Period. That hasn't changed one bit since 1980.

The fact that someone in a FSDO gets it wrong is irrelevant to whether it is clear or not. The mistaken beliefs of the cop on the beat doesn't rise to the level of official departmental policy. What if he told you that you needed a blue pilot certificate in order to act as PIC in a Cessna 152?

There =was= one little snafu over this (which is where some of the FSDO people got their mistaken idea). John Lynch, who was responsible for much of the Part 61 rewrite and writes the Part 61 FAQ said that you needed the endorsement in order to log PIC. He was wrong and was very soon corrected by the FAA legal department, which has been absolutely consistent in interpreting the word "rating" in 61.51.

 

[bobbysamd]

John Lynch warning

I always like these debates regarding reg interpretations on the FAA FAQ. Many people believe that the answers posted on an FAQ is the law. But it isn't. The FAQ might provide informed (?) guidance, but it is not black-letter law.

In other words, take an FAR by its plain meaning and follow it as stated. Don't look for shades of gray. Don't do what John Lynch says on the FAQ. Guaranteed, you'll be laughed right out of the FSDO and the ALJ's chambers if you say you relied on John Lynch's FAQ and not the reg as written.

 

[A Squared]

Good to see some healthy skepticism about John Lynch's FAQ. Be very careful, as it has no official standing and has makes a fair amount of statements which have no basis in the text of the regulations.

I saw one "FAQ" answer in which Mr. Lynch presented one of his opinions in a format which made it appear as if it was an excerpt from the regulations, the thing is, there was nothing in the regulations even remotely like that, and it was just a complete fabrication. Unfortunately, Mr. Lynch's "FAQ's" are badly tainted by Mr Lynch's opinions of how things "should be", not how he regulations are actually written.

His FAQ's are useful in only two instances:

1) when they are backed up by a FAA counsel legal opinion.

or

2) when they address a policy issue for examiner designees, which is the limit of Mr. Lynch's authority.

Otherwise, the law is what the words of the law say, and Mr. Lynch's opinions of how the world "ought" to be are pretty irrelevant.

regards