logging instrument approach question

[bobbysamd]

General Counsel "opinions" and black-letter law

As for precedential value, the only thing that matters if your case goes to trial is NTSB decisions and ALJ decisions. Gen Counsel statements on a particular matter are not binding unless they are an interpretation of an existing reg. As he is not the regulatory law creator, he can recommend, and the regs can then be changed . . . . . Until they are made into law, they have no binding effect.

(emphasis added)

Thank you, sir, that's what I thought. Of course, as Avbug and others mentioned, getting to Federal Court from a conference with an ASI (with your aviation attorney present, of course!) is a long road to travel - meaning that one might have to live with a (non-binding) General Counsel interpretation as being dispositive of one's case.

I found that being a pilot and trying to figure out the FARs helped me as a paralegal. Doing so accustomed me to reading and deciphering legal mumbo-jumbo. After going through paralegal school and learning to analyze statutes, case law and regulations, I was able to read the regs critically. Through that experience, I learned that you should take the regs on their plain meaning and not read into them or look for loopholes. In other words, just follow the regs.

Also, thanks, Christopher, for your kind comments. Finding something to fly, powered or not, is in my long-term plan.

 

[Anaconda]

It really is quite clear.

The regulation itself is quite clear on the subject.

Many times it's a matter of those who take no thought, but to ask.

Add to it the interpretations provided to further understand the material, and it isn't rocket science.

The minute portion of the code of federal regulations to which we refer as the "FAR's" is actually one of the shortest, and most concise of any set of regulations in the entire compendium.

The regulations are not unclear on what constitutes an approach, or a legal approach for currency.

ROFLMAO!