TIS
Wing, Nosewheel, Whatever
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2001
- Posts
- 366
That wasn't always true and the stuff I read goes back a ways (1997 or so). It might also have been put out by someone else anyway.A Squared said:1.) He deals exclusively in maters involving pilot certification so he answers questions only about part 61 and 141.
Also not completely accurate. DPEs are given guidance by OKC that his FAQ answers ARE indeed FAA policy. I realize that there may well be a difference between legal precedent and current FAA policy, but I think it's important to also reacognize that unless you've already gotten into the legal part of things, FAA policy is more important.A Squared said:2.) His answers have no official standing. while his FAQ pages contain some useful information, he has in the past given advice that was not in agreement with the FAA's official legal stance on the issue, as articulated by the office of chief counsel.
The reason is that FAA policy defines what the FSDOs will do with any sort of investigation. If an investigation finds that under existing policy a matter can be closed at the FSDO level then legal precedents don't matter.
This is getting pretty far afield now though. I think as a practical matter, establishment on a course is defined by whether you have course guidance - a needle off the case wall. In the case of an RMI things get a little stickier. 10° for VOR and 15° for an NDB are the nnumbers I've seen thrown around.
Whatever. I just let the FMS do it. If it looks good I go with it. If it looks bad I take over.
TIS