logging instrument approach question

[A Squared]

Bobby,

>>>>"It is important to note that, pursuant to 26 USC 6110(k)(3), such items cannot be used or cited as precedent."

My understanding is that a legal opinion from FAA counsel has a much authority that, both statutorily and judicially.

>>>"I used to write in my logbooks every approach I shot or was a participant."

There's a big difference between recording in the remarks section of your log what exercises you did with a student and logging approaches flown in VMC. Go back and read JunglejetFO's initial statements, back before he realized how indefensible his position was and started trying to "spin" his meaning. If the approach is recorded in a way that leaves no question that it was flown in VMC, that's one thing. If it is merely entered in the approach column, just like any other approach, with no further explanation, that's deceptive at best. I think that any FAA inspector would rightfully look apon such with a jaundiced eye.

>>>>>>"Finally, I believe that you can appeal an unfavorable NTSB ALJ decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court."

In general, yes, but when speaking specifically about an FAA Counsel interpretation, the DC court of appeals has refused to question the FAA's interpretaiton of thier own regulations. If i'm not mistaken, an appeal to the Supreme Court must be based on the constitutionality of a law, so such an appeal would seem to require a constitutional review of the system of administrative law in general and specifically of the law which allows the FAA to interpret thier own regulations. I'm sure that you have a better understanding of the court system, so perhaps you can shed some light on this.

regards

 

[midlifeflyer]

Finally, I believe that you can appeal an unfavorable NTSB ALJ decision to the Federal Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court.

Administrative Law 101.

1. A Federal agency's interpretation of it's own regulations is entitled to deference. Essentially, so long as the interpretation is reasonable, it will be upheld. In the FAA context, this means that the NTSB, the US Courts of Appeals, and even the US Supremes will not overturn an official FAA interpretation of what the reg means.

2. A Federal Agency may interpret a regulation as meaning something specific for the very first time at a hearing. This means that if the language of a regulation is open to interpretation, the FAA doesn't have to tell you in advance what it means. If the FAA brings a certificate action against you, they can what the regulation "means" at the hearing and you're stuck with it. (#1) applies)

3. Whatever the "real" legal status of the FAA Chief Counsel Opinions, it does represent the interpretation given to the regs by the people with the direct responsibility of interpreting them for the FAA. Having said something very clearly, it would be hard to backtrack.

 

[avbug]

This is very true in administrative court. However, once the court case moves to the civil system, it's open to a lot more lattitude. While the interpretation itself won't be overturned, the introduction of greater lattitude in addressing not only the interpretation but the regulation, and other pertinent facts surrounding the case is allowable.

The administrative system is unique in that those making the rules are the same ones that charge you and try you. It's also unique in that guilt is an assumption, not a question or possibility. It's also unique in that the burden of proof rests upon the defendant, and not the prosecution. This is completely reversed in the civil system. Further, the typical rights that are anticipated in the civil system do not exist in the administrative system.

Moving the case to the civil system opens up much greater avenues for the accused. It also opens up the wallet of the accused, such that justice is largely dependent upon one's ability to pay.

 

[A Squared]

Mark,

I should point out the sentance you quoted was actually a quote from bobby's last post, I should have annotated it as such. The paragraph following it is mine and is a response. For what it's worth, your primer on administrative law fits fairly well with my understanding. One thing I wonder is at what stage can an unreasonable interpretation be challenged? Take for example my previous hypothetical example of the photo of Elvis. At what stage does someone with authority tell the FAA "hey, bonehead, there's nothing about elvis photos in 61.3"? (or words to that effect)

I can think of at least 2 legal counsel interpretations which seem to be at odds with the text of the regulation as written. What hapens in those cases?

 

[JungleJetFO]

?

Go back and read JunglejetFO's initial statements, back before he realized how indefensible his position was and started trying to "spin" his meaning. If the approach is recorded in a way that leaves no question that it was flown in VMC, that's one thing. If it is merely entered in the approach column, just like any other approach, with no further explanation, that's deceptive at best. I think that any FAA inspector would rightfully look apon such with a jaundiced eye.

ASSquared, were you beaten as a child or what?

 

[A Squared]

JunglejetFO,

I don't think anyone's talking to you. About you, perhaps, but not to you. If you have something intelligent to contribute, by all means, go ahead. If you're commentary is limited to irrelevant insults and trying to explain what you *really* meant by "Who cares what the weather is?" perhaps it would be better if you kept that to yourself.

 

[CitationLover]

calm down guys, you are arguing about government reg's......how pathetic is that?!?!

how many people actually "fly" their currencies versus just doing 6 in an approved PCATD?

 

[bobbysamd]

Logging approaches - back to square one

>>>"I used to write in my logbooks every approach I shot or was a participant."

There's a big difference between recording in the remarks section of your log what exercises you did with a student and logging approaches flown in VMC.

Of course there is. That's why I said that the approaches that I counted toward currency, which were, of course, only the ones I flew myself, are the ones that appeared in a separate column for "approaches." Only the ones that you fly yourself and, once again in actualor simulated instrument conditions, can count for currency.

If a case makes it to the Supremes and is granted certioari it usually means that the underlying law is coming under review.

 

[bobbysamd]

Actual "currency"

calm down guys, you are arguing about government reg's......how pathetic is that?!?!

how many people actually "fly" their currencies versus just doing 6 in an approved PCATD?

That's a good point. I never flew enough IFR myself to have the privilege of counting approaches toward currency. I always maintained currency by getting a colleague to give me an ICC (proficiency check), or by getting one on a 141 periodic ride. My most recent was ten years ago - before the rules were tightened to make IPCs almost like taking the instrument practical all over again.

 

[midlifeflyer]

One thing I wonder is at what stage can an unreasonable interpretation be challenged?

It would normally take place during an enforcement proceeding. I'm a little rusty on my admin procedure, but I'm pretty sure that the challenge could not be raised for the first time in an appellate court. Whether it has to be raised for the firtst at the FAA hearing stage or can wait until the NTSB level is what I'm not too sure about.

You =could= write to the FAA l;legal division about a concern and maybe they'll get around to answering it. That's how these things got started to begin with.

I can think of at least 2 legal counsel interpretations which seem to be at odds with the text of the regulation as written. What happens in those cases?

"Seem to be" might not cut it for "unreasonable". Which ones are you referring to?