New(?) FAA stances

[Gutenberg]

An inspector from our FSDO came in today and relayed to us the following:

1. Dual VOR checks done on the ground are completely illegal, even if the VOR is on the field (not talking about ground-based checks)
2. All ground instruction -must- be logged in the -logbook-, DPE's will be looking for this.

the second one I understand, but the first? your thoughts...

 

[minitour]

An inspector from our FSDO came in today and relayed to us the following:

1. Dual VOR checks done on the ground are completely illegal, even if the VOR is on the field (not talking about ground-based checks)
2. All ground instruction -must- be logged in the -logbook-, DPE's will be looking for this.

the second one I understand, but the first? your thoughts...

Is this going to be in the 2006 FAR/AIM pr just some FSDO inspector spouting off? Most questions you can ask 10 people at the same FSDO and get 12 different answers.

Personally I think the first one is a crock of shtuff...you're checking them off of each other, what does it matter if you're in the air or on the ground?

The ground isntruction thing...yeah that's cool.

-mini

 

[satpak77]

whatever

this is one inspector's interpretation, its not gospel. Play the game if he is giving a ride to you, but thats it.

You could ask 3 FSDO offices to interpret something in Part 135 and get 6 answers

Its not just FAA, clearing Customs and which form they want is different at each entry airport also

 

[GravityHater]

What a crock. All required ground instruction (or GI used to satisfy requirements for a rating or endorsement) must be logged maybe.

 

[JediNein]

The FAA is cracking down on CFIs and GIs not logging ground instruction. 61.189(a) includes the phrase "ground training". Nothing new in this one.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[Fly_Chick]

An inspector from our FSDO

Which FSDO?

 

[avbug]

The VOR check is required by 14 CFR 91.171. The dual VOR check may be done in place of other ground or airborne checks. No guidance is provided detailing weather this check may be performed in the air or on the ground. Lack of this guidance means the regulation must be interpreted as a plain english rendering, or in other words, literally. Lacking guidance for the use of the dual VOR check with regard to airborne or ground, it may be done either way.

FAA Publication P-8740-18 provides no additional guidance.

AIM 1-1-4 provides no additional guidance regarding a dual VOR check, but does note that yearly calibration should be performed on the equipment, becasue deteriorating equipment condition can cause an accurate reading close to a VOR, but may be inaccurate farther from the VOR with a weaker signal.

You should be 20 nm or more from the signal for a good test. For a 91.171(c) ground check, no specific guidance has been provided with respect to being on the ground or in flight, or distance from the station. Accordingly, there is no such requirement.

The FSDO level has no authority to either interpret regulation or add to it. Finding inspectors at the FSDO level who do not understand the regulation is a common occurence.

What you do need to ask yourself is w(h)eather or not this fight is worth disagreeing about, or if you should merely do as the POI asks and wait for something important to fly your flag. Your choice.

If you're deadset on going toe to toe with your POI, request clarification on his statement; have him show you why a ground check while complying with 91.171(c) is illegal.

 

[Gutenberg]

Du Page near Chicago. He said he got official word from OK City. We argued with him, and he said, "I'm just the messenger..." etc.

 

[mattpilot]

Q about logging Ground instruction....

I'm up for the initial CFI checkride in a few weeks. I've been doing it Part 141 and the syllabus prescribes 5 hours of ground instruction. Does showing the certificate of course completion satisfy the ground instruction logging, or must there be a seperate entry from my instructor in the back of my logbook saying he gave me ground instruction?

 

[minitour]

99.9% sure the certificate of completion is good enough.

-mini