Part 91 REG Clarification

[Checks]

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology. I had just interpreted the regs from a different viewpoint which I now see is wrong.

Here is a follow up question:

Are FDC notams then regulatory?

Thanks

 

[A Squared]

Checks,

No apology needed. In answer to your question about FDC NOTAMS: I guess it depends on how you look at it. An FCD NOTAM is not a regulation, its' a notification of a change in a procedure (instrument approach, departure procedure, STAR SID, or even an enroute chart) In the case of an instrument approach, Part 91 requires you to comply with the procedure. The correct procedure would be the current procedure. The NOTAM is your notification of what the current procedure is. I guess that you could say that the FDC NOTAM isn't regulatory, it's just a notice of a change in a publication that the regulations require you to follow, or you could say it IS regulatory, depending on your viewpoint.
Regardless, if there's an FDC NOTAM which changes an instrument approach, you aren't allowed to ignore it and do things the old way.

HogDriver,

As we all know, careless and reckless operation is anything the FAA doesn't like, but can't find a regulation against. In light of that, I suppose an FAA inspector who didn't like 0-0 takeoffs could start a careless and reckless enforcememt against you, even though theres' nothing in the regs that says you can't depart 0-0. I have no idea if it could be made to stick, but having followed the Hoover debacle, I think it probably would be supported, even though there is no regulatory basis. Certainly, even if you were able to sucessfully defend yourself against such an enforcement, it would cause you a great deal of trouble, expense and heartache. Such is the power of the FAA inspector.

I'm disturbed by what you were told about "highest level of saftey" It seems to me that what is being said is: It doesn't matter what Part 91 says, if you aren't in compliance with Part 135, you are guilty of careless and reckless operation.

This is just wrong! I'm not saying that you weren't told this, I'm just saying it's wrong. If that's the intent of the regulations, why not have the regulations state that everyone flying an airplane must comply with the provisions of Part 135???? I'd be interested to know how this inspector justifies this interpretation.

regards

 

[hogdriver00]

inspector

The only thing I can add is that the inspector said that it is for these reasons that many part 91 flight departments operate using part 135 standards.


Hog