What constitutes an instrument approach

[TIS]

It's because you're a pompous know it all with nothing to do ...

Blah, blah, BLAH! We know the rest of what you said.

You're out of line.

Look, you might not like what avbug has to say but that doesn't make him wrong. That he continues to insist on his view that there is only one way to accept a legal interpretation doesn't make him right either. Stubborn perhaps and correct to a degree, but there comes a time when you just have to let it drop.

I suspect very strongly that avbug has his reasons for for his unshakable faith in the way he sees this and other issues he comments at length about here and elsewhere and I think that those reasons are based on experience. If you're in this business long enough, you're gonna get involved in a tussle with the FAA in some way either as a direct assualt on your certificates or because you represent someone who's under their microscope (attorney, Chief Pilot, Director of Ops., etc.)

The FAA can do some pretty amazing stuff in their legal branch that has absolutley NOTHING to do with the way things actually are. I know one guy who got violated and the FAA got the registration number, make and model of the aircraft, and the date of the occurrence all wrong in the written complaint and didn't have a usable audio tape to back up their assertion of pilot deviation and they STILL won. They said that there was nothing on the tape that proved the pilot's contention that the FAA had the wrong guy - the fact that he had exculpatory evidence that he was not flying on the date concerned notwithstanding. It cost him almost $20,000 in legal fees to have the ALJ side with the FAA - 20 grand that the kiddies DIDN'T get for college that year (actually, 19 months).

So you see, with stuff like this going on in FAA legal, it's easy to see how you might take the attitude that you'd better be prepared to hang the FAA with its own rope. Avbug is right when he asserts that the most effective way to deal with them is with their own words. If you can substantively prove that your actions were guided by their suggestions or interpretations then when its your turn to sit across the big green table from them in an informal conference, you might have a better shot at walking away smiling.

Whatever the case, your attempt at a thorough dressdown, while vicious enough, relies on put downs and llifestyle commentary rather than REAL experience - which is what avbug is relying on. I'll say the same thing to you that I say to my own critics - if you don't like what he has to say DON'T READ WHAT HE WRITES. It's really a very simple strategy and it actually works quite well.

TIS

 

[NYCPilot]

TDTURBO, that was kind of brutal towards avbug. I know his seemingly pedantic ways can get annoying but I think its wrong to put him down so scathingly. Making personal attacks can be hurtful.

I think he contributes a lot to this board and wouldn't want his comments to disappear. He is entitled to voice his strong opinions as much as you or I am. He does speak by the letter of the law which is fine as this is how he likes to come across. The beauty of the board is that one can post what they feel, but should expect to be challenged. We all need to play by the rules and get along as community.

 

[taloft]

Regulation and FAA Chief Legal Counsel Opinion (legal interpretation) to follow:
<snip>
For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height.

When I put on my "FAA letter of the law" hat, I see a difference between following an instrument approach procedure and remaining actual/simulated to MDA/DA(H) for currency. Certainly that's the most conservative interpretation of the interpretation (don't you just love it?). However, I don't see it as the only one.

Also, I don't get their "safety reasons" statement. So if the approach is abandoned due to safety reasons, can it still be logged for currency? Seems to me it would be abandoned and can't be loggged, but according to that statement it can.

 

[TIS]

Also, I don't get their "safety reasons" statement. So if the approach is abandoned due to safety reasons, can it still be logged for currency? Seems to me it would be abandoned and can't be loggged, but according to that statement it can.

This I think I understand. They HAVE to say that. They can't very well issue this interpretation and then have some poor slob running up the tailpipes of a 757 and get stuffed simply because he was desperate to log a sixth approach. It would be unseemly to have the widow coming after the FAA correctly asserting that it was the FAA's own guidance that played a significant causal role in the accident.

But there is something I'd like to know. Does it matter whose judgment of safety is used. I mean if the tower sends you around because of spacing between you and a preceeding aircraft, or if, like at MRY, tower is launching an aircraft opposite direction and they pull you off the approach "for safety reasons," does these fit the "for safety reasons" intent of the inerpretation? Or is it rather, that the pilot MUST initiate ALL safety related decisions that invoke this exception? I guess someone should write another letter requesting clarification of their clarification!

But this leaves me with one more somewhat (given the nature of this thread) delicate question: What do we do in the meantime while we wait for an answer from FAA legal? Exercise common sense? It can't be that simple, can it?

TIS

 

[TDTURBO]

Blah, blah, BLAH! We know the rest of what you said.

You're out of line.

Look, you might not like what avbug has to say but that doesn't make him wrong. That he continues to insist on his view that there is only one way to accept a legal interpretation doesn't make him right either. Stubborn perhaps and correct to a degree, but there comes a time when you just have to let it drop.

I suspect very strongly that avbug has his reasons for for his unshakable faith in the way he sees this and other issues he comments at length about here and elsewhere and I think that those reasons are based on experience. If you're in this business long enough, you're gonna get involved in a tussle with the FAA in some way either as a direct assualt on your certificates or because you represent someone who's under their microscope (attorney, Chief Pilot, Director of Ops., etc.)

The FAA can do some pretty amazing stuff in their legal branch that has absolutley NOTHING to do with the way things actually are. I know one guy who got violated and the FAA got the registration number, make and model of the aircraft, and the date of the occurrence all wrong in the written complaint and didn't have a usable audio tape to back up their assertion of pilot deviation and they STILL won. They said that there was nothing on the tape that proved the pilot's contention that the FAA had the wrong guy - the fact that he had exculpatory evidence that he was not flying on the date concerned notwithstanding. It cost him almost $20,000 in legal fees to have the ALJ side with the FAA - 20 grand that the kiddies DIDN'T get for college that year (actually, 19 months).

So you see, with stuff like this going on in FAA legal, it's easy to see how you might take the attitude that you'd better be prepared to hang the FAA with its own rope. Avbug is right when he asserts that the most effective way to deal with them is with their own words. If you can substantively prove that your actions were guided by their suggestions or interpretations then when its your turn to sit across the big green table from them in an informal conference, you might have a better shot at walking away smiling.

Whatever the case, your attempt at a thorough dressdown, while vicious enough, relies on put downs and llifestyle commentary rather than REAL experience - which is what avbug is relying on. I'll say the same thing to you that I say to my own critics - if you don't like what he has to say DON'T READ WHAT HE WRITES. It's really a very simple strategy and it actually works quite well.

TIS

Well said TIS, He is on my ignore list. HE and I as well as most of the people on this board can read an FAR book without ridiculing someone with a legit question, as if he is all knowing, HA! Maybe in his own mind.

How do you know what experience he has, has he ever owned an airplane, do you actually believe half the embellished crap he spews on this board?

There are a lot of SEAT flyers on this board that just shake their head in disgust and this guys ability to transcend any hollywood producers example of self admiration. The guy makes me and most others want to puke!

So from now on he is ignored!

 

[JAFI]

How do you know what experience he has, has he ever owned an airplane?

Not that I wish to get in the middle of this "love" fest, but

what does owning an aircraft have to do with pilot experience? I know many pilots with extensive experience who have never owned an aircraft but are very knowledgable.

Just courious.

JAFI

 

[Dumbledore]

Owning a plane only proves that you're not the smartest pilot!

 

[TDTURBO]

The difference between not owning a plane and owning one is equivalent to driving a car and owning one. There is a lot to owning that you learn that can't be learned by renting or flying for hire with equipment you don't own.

For example, there are many things such as what can and can't be differed as maintenance, insurance costs and how it relates to type and experience, doing or assisting in your own annuals, researching places for hard to find parts and become resourceful and proficient at it, hanger fees, intimate knowledge gained by flying the same bird year after year, being RESPONSIBLE for anything you break, depending on how you run it.

This equating to LOP vs. ROP, non-owners could care less since they aren't paying the fuel bills, meeting the legal requirements yourself with regards to STC's and SB's, not to mention AD's that are taken care of by your employer. Reading and keeping up with the ever changing challenges of keeping an aircraft airworthy with day to day changes in compliance and rule changes that effect different systems and on and on and on it goes.

Those who fly for hire or rent don't have to concern themselves with as much vigor on these issues as owners. I think it naive to think that an owner is no different in his knowlege base than a user.

These points I would imagine should be obvious but apparently not.

I am not blaming you, it's just that there are a lot of things owners must know that non-owners don't. Avbug being a non-owner commenting on another thread on a different website commented that a PLANE WITHOUT LOGS IS WORTHLESS. This is entirely untrue, if he were an owner he would know that, the problem I have with avbug is he "thinks" he is an authority on everything aviation which he is clearly not. Neither am I or you. It's one thing to copy and paste a reg with malicious undertones and it's another to interpret the reg the correct way.

They are written ambiguous for a reason, one to keep lawyers in business and two to cover their butts. This is just one example of avbugs misconceptions, Correcting him will always lead into a maligning attack of credibility, not only to me but to most he replies to. I think anyone can read an FAR, but few can truly understand it, how it is applied in various situations and how it applies to your specific circumstance.

When avbug says "flying under an airmet is illegal" is like saying driving 56 mph on the highway is illegal. To say that most GA personal and 135 operations without KI operate in the winter months is unheard of is the most ridiculous statement I ever heard. Either he has never flown here or is just looking to start an argument. If you fly 135 in Chicago, I guarantee you that you will be dispatched into icing conditions so you better know how to deal with them by having a thorough flight plan with a plan B and C. To chastise people for not doing things to the "letter" of the law would put us all in jail.

He seems to think he is beyond reproach when it comes to flying by the book. If that were so, How do you explain 8 engine failures, ingesting tree branches in running engines in mountainous areas in IFR condition as safe or legal. I believe he is a hypocrite and states what ever suits him at the time,

I have caught him praising a military officer for ignoring direct orders from his superiors, ( which I agree with), only to turn around and chastise people for doing far less infractionary occurrences. There is no question he embellishes and lies about his exploits, I know who he is remember, but I won't risk being baited into his weakly vailed attempt at getting me time off.

He also seems to be cozy with an "EX" moderator PI lawyer ambulance chaser extrordiniar who will remain unmentioned for disclosing my identity which was clearly against that sites TOS.

He then goes on by calling me a "twit" for having his moderator status removed and getting the ARDC up his butt. Go figure? His ethics only suits him when it serves his own lack of accomplishments in life except being (anonymous, to some people at least, not me), a know it all. Those that know the most, talk the least.

I only bring up my background when I’m called out as something I'm not, that's something I just won't put up with. For a guy with only a GED or HS education at most with a questionable proficient A&P( remember the 8 engine failures),?, he sure has most of you fooled.

 

[landlover]

Owning a plane only proves that you're not the smartest pilot!

i'd rather be dumb and rich than smart and poor. Plenty of people own airplanes and are smart about. I know of several operations where the airplanes are all privatly owned and put on the 135 ticket to earn the owners money. Also having the AC managed by a 135 the they will take care of the maint.

 

[TDTURBO]

Owning a plane only proves that you're not the smartest pilot!

No, but it proves you don't, which certainly eliminates you from the list you created.

 

[TDTURBO]

i'd rather be dumb and rich than smart and poor. Plenty of people own airplanes and are smart about. I know of several operations where the airplanes are all privatly owned and put on the 135 ticket to earn the owners money. Also having the AC managed by a 135 the they will take care of the maint.

I would rather be smart and rich that dumb and poor.

 

[landlover]

I would rather be smart and rich that dumb and poor.

Me too, but I can't have it all, everyday. Sometimes im rich, sometimes im poor, sometimes im smart, sometimes im dumb. Ocassionaly im rich and smart on the same day.

 

[avbug]

There are other SEAT pilots on the board? Interesting.

I'd challenge any soul alive to prove any "embellishment," because it's something I DO NOT do.

TD, of course, can't read this, because he's put me on his ignore list (instead of fulfilling his threat of three days ago that by the end of the month, when he is done with me, I won't be able to ride a bicycle...). However, perhaps rather than telling lies, he might try to actually prove his claims. If he's attempting to tarnish my professional reputation with lies...then he may have to defend against them in a civil court of law.

If he wants to disagree by providing a meaningful counterpoint using examples, quotes, and authentic reliable data with authority, I'm all ears. If he wants to provide petty insults, have a ball. If he continues to stipulate that I lie or embellish, or do as he has in the past, suggesting I've failed checkrides and other falsehoods regarding my professional standing, then he needs to put up the hard evidence or shut up, before civil legal action ensues.

 

[TDTURBO]

ah-ah-ah-.....

Disagree, yes

Disagreeable, no



UAL78
Moderator

 

[Dumbledore]

i'd rather be dumb and rich than smart and poor.

Suit yourself. I've got kids' college savings plans to fund for a few more years yet.

Plenty of people own airplanes and are smart about (what ... it?).

My remark was tongue-in-cheek. There is an old addage in aviation: If it flies, floats, or f ..., well, you know, you're better off renting. There's a lot of truth to that, in my experience. If you have the money, then great! buy a plane.

I know of several operations where the airplanes are all privatly owned and put on the 135 ticket to earn the owners money.

Without making any overly judgmental statements I'll simply say that what you're describing is pretty rare. Most of the time aircraft ownership is a financial shell game that yields a toy for someone's personal while shielding them from some of the costs and taxes associated with that toy. Making money with an airplane is not impossible but it's an achievement reserved for only the VERY skillful.

Also having the AC managed by a 135 the they will take care of the maint.

Awww, now you've shot yourself in the foot. You've PROVEN that you really have no idea what you're talking about. Again, without making too much of a blanket statement, maintenance peace of mind through a 135 certificate is not automatic. Or is that not what you're saying? Perhaps you think that they'll do the maintenance since they're using the plane and that they'll pay for it? It doesn't work like that either.

No matter. Either way, you're thinking about signing a mortgage on a big red bridge in San Francisco that someone's trying to sell you.

 

[landlover]

Suit yourself. I've got kids' college savings plans to fund for a few more years yet.


My remark was tongue-in-cheek. There is an old addage in aviation: If it flies, floats, or f ..., well, you know, you're better off renting. There's a lot of truth to that, in my experience. If you have the money, then great! buy a plane.


Without making any overly judgmental statements I'll simply say that what you're describing is pretty rare. Most of the time aircraft ownership is a financial shell game that yields a toy for someone's personal while shielding them from some of the costs and taxes associated with that toy. Making money with an airplane is not impossible but it's an achievement reserved for only the VERY skillful.


Awww, now you've shot yourself in the foot. You've PROVEN that you really have no idea what you're talking about. Again, without making too much of a blanket statement, maintenance peace of mind through a 135 certificate is not automatic. Or is that not what you're saying? Perhaps you think that they'll do the maintenance since they're using the plane and that they'll pay for it? It doesn't work like that either.

No matter. Either way, you're thinking about signing a mortgage on a big red bridge in San Francisco that someone's trying to sell you.

yes dumbledork we all know it isn't as simple as I typed. Stop taking yourself and this board with so much passion as if it is all you have. ofcourse i was also being sarcastic about being dumb and rich.take it easy drink a cervaza and listen to some bob marley

 

[Dumbledore]

List? What list?

No, but it proves you don't, which certainly eliminates you from the list you created.

TD I don't know what your problem is but it involves perceiving things that aren't there. What list are you talking about?

Oops, sorry. Your behavior here got you banned. You can't answer that can you?

Well, while you're MUTE (please not the correct usage of the word here, everybody), I'm gonna take a brief shot at responding to your tide of vitriolic verbal vomit above (you know, the one where you start out saying something about, "If you don't own a plane you're not qualified to be a pilot.").

Simply stated, by saying the things you've said, you've proven that you lack the requisite experience and knowledge to have anything efficacious to say about the matter. Your statements about ADs and all the crap that owners have to know that non-owners don't are simply so much drivel. What you have to know to be a responsible member of the aviation community depends on a lot of things - many of which you are clearly NOT familiar with. Implying that a 747 Captain would be better off if he owned the plane and managed all the associated headaches and details of such is pure NONSENSE and you're a fool for trying to advance that theory here!

You also take some shots at avbug here that again prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. You mention engine failures. Well, they happen on firefighting aircraft and yes, they DO indeed fly in IMC at low levels in mountainous terrain. That's not an embellishment - it's what he does. If you'd pay attention you'd know that.

Avbug has earned the right to be crusty. He's been at this awhile. He's had to put up with punks like you for al lof his professional life. He's got a lot in his head that you could learn from if you weren't trying to nuke him all the time.

Anyway, that's enough said. I'll wrap this up with a little bit of language therapy for you since I know you like to challenge people on their misuse of words.

keeping up with the ever changing challenges of keeping an aircraft airworthy with day to day changes in compliance and rule changes that effect different systems and on and on and on it goes.

Please note the highlighted word. The use of this word is incorrect in this context. The word you meant to use was AFFECT. But you, being a big lawyer, skilled in the precise use of language, knew that, right? RIIIGGGGHHHHT!

 

[landlover]

Please note the highlighted word. The use of this word is incorrect in this context. The word you meant to use was AFFECT. But you, being a big lawyer, skilled in the precise use of language, knew that, right? RIIIGGGGHHHHT!

are you searious with this grammar correction? just chill!!!!!!!! you need more than a brew maybe some maryjane and a stripper, not sure that that would be enough.

 

[Dumbledore]

are you searious with this grammar correction? just chill!!!!!!!! you need more than a brew maybe some maryjane and a stripper, not sure that that would be enough.

First of all, this isn't a grammatical correction. It's a LANGUAGE correction. I made it becasue Mr. TURBO shot back at avbug that he was in for a rude awakening in the legal arena if he chose to pursue suing him. That makes me think he's a lawyer.

If he is indeed a lawyer then precision of language is a must. The diference between the word effect and affect is significant and he misused it. He's been blasting some folks in another thread for misusing the word MUTE when the appropriate word was MOOT. So I took the shot becasue I had it.

 

[Dumbledore]

And now for some other housekeeping.

yes dumbledork we all know it isn't as simple as I typed.

Aww, you can't get any traction without calling me names? You MUST be a DemocRAT.

ofcourse i was also being sarcastic.

really? What part of your post was sarcastic? Seemed pretty argumentative to me.

I am going to go out on a limb here and bet that you are infact the same perosn as avbug.the way you quote is somewhat similar. heck i may be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

SNAP! whoosh, FWUMP.

I'm afraid your limb just broke and you fell. At least you’re okay. You’ll be a little stiff for a day or two though.

No, I'm not avbug. I'm someone else. The way I quote is the same way that Flechas, FN FAL, Birdstrike, and a host of other members do so why you would try to prove an alter-ego theory on that evidence is beyond me. It's what happens when you use the little quote button at the lower-right of the browser window. Or, you can do like I do sometimes and insert your own HTML tags to create the effects you want. You can see the results of this kind of thing right in this very post.

Look, you don't have to like avbug. He's very opinionated but he has his reasons for being so that are not merely speculative as is the case with a good many folks here.

 

[landlover]

And now for some other housekeeping.

Aww, you can't get any traction without calling me names? You MUST be a DemocRAT.


really? What part of your post was sarcastic? Seemed pretty argumentative to me.

I was being sarcastic about me being rich and dumb, im actually the opposite smart and poor. Well, since you refer to flightinfo as your house since you need to clean it you are in fact a bigger dork than first anticiapted. I dont know what party i'll endorse, being barely old enough to vote.


Take the advice I gave you earlier just chill out, its just the internet.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[Yank McCobb]

Of course they are the same person. Absolutely. However, he is correct when he says "I"m not avbug. I'm someone else." He is not "avbug"...he is "Dumbledore". But there is no question at all that the same human being is the person behind both of these usernames.

By the way...everything TD says about him is 100% correct.

Also, there ARE pilots who have earned the right to be "crusty". "Avbug/Dumbledore" is not one of them. He simply is a jackass. Jackasses aren't "crusty" they are just jackasses.

Of course, in the tradition of "avbug", "Dumbledore" will require the last word. So, have at it.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[Dumbledore]

You people really ARE idiots.

Trust me when I say that you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about!

Once and for all, the owner of the handle "Dumbledore" is not the same person as the owner of "avbug" but you can go on believing whatever you like. You'll still be wrong.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[Dumbledore]

Okay, whatever dude.

This is the story I'm sticking to: I'm not avbug - no matter how much you wish it were so. I do happen to see a lot of things the same way he does but he is whoever he is and I am someone else.

All kidding/heckling aside, you're just plain wrong about what you're thinking.

 

[NYCPilot]

Intentionally retracted.

 

[avbug]

I'm flattered guys...but I only post under one name. One a couple of occasions I got on a computer before someone else logged off and inadvertantly used their name without realizing it...but that got straightened out. Luckily they were folks I knew.

For the record, I'm not dumbledore or anybody else, though I liked the character on Harry Potter. I have enough trouble being one person, let alone more than one.

As for the use of the word "mute," vs. "moot," a number of posters over several years have taken me to task for my dogged refusal to use the word "moot." Include a few in that list who do know whence they speak...there's a good exchange on the topic between TonyC and myself. I don't disagree with TonyC, and I certainly won't try to correct his use of the English language (though in truth it does differ somewhat from the Queens English, but we'll reserve that for another time).

I don't mistakenly use the word "mute," but rather use it as an expression of my intent. For starters, I don't like the word "moot." I never have. By saying "the point is mute," rather than "the point is moot," my intent is to literally say "the point is silent." Or in other words, the point of the word is literally without voice, which more accurately expresses my intent. Words are nothing more than a vehicle for the speakers intent, and my use of that word is intentional and deliberate. Further, a little research will show that while the use of the term "mute" is not contemporary, it's not incorrect either. You merely don't hear it much any more. It is my preference, and from me, you do hear it. If you were to hear it in conversation, you would hear me enunciate "mute," rather than "moot," would would clearly hear that I intend to say, "mute."

Like it or lump it, that's how I talk, and I type on here exactly as I talk in person.

As far as the regulation goes...when discussing points of regulation, I think stating the purest intent and reading of the regulation is appropriate. How it's applied on the "street" is each person's business, and I won't presume to tell someone how to apply it...only to discuss the regulation on it's own merits. Outside of that discussion, I have no desire nor intent to field the issue. That's for others to do. Once one stops discussing the regulation verbatim and in it's stated form (and any interpretations or ammendments thereof), it takes on it's own life and becomes a discussion of conjecture. The beauty of regulation is that it involves a simple, clear issue, and does not involve conjecture.

As my imagination is rather limited and I tire easily, I try to stick to the facts as much as possible, as it's usually the only solid ground I know...hence my return frequently to the center of the topic, and my general refusal to deviate far from it (discussions of language and screen names not withstanding).

I do not know dumbledore, nor am I dumbledore...and whomever noted that I avoid the political discussions and debates is correct. I avoid them in person, too. A wise person once advised me that where able, avoid discussions of politics, religion or sports...all sure sources for debate. While I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next, and contrary to what some may believe, I do NOT enjoy conflict or arguement...and debate was for me a high school thing.

Fly safe.