FSDO's and their varying intepretations...

[Justin Maas]

Hey all,

I was wondering why the FAA hasn't cracked down on some of the ambiguity
and differences in interpretation exercised by FSDOs. Since we all have a
Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized? Is there a
good flow of communication from FSDO to FSDO?

Here's some background on why I'm up and wondering about this...

I took an unusual attitudes course in Phoenix about a year ago. The
FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
instructors weren't CFIs. Up here in NY, however, I was told that wouldn't
"fly." Since I fly 3-4 times a week anyways, I picked up the usual hour
air/ground BFR in a day. However, it kind of irked me that if I weren't
such a frequent flyer and took FCI (the school in AZ) up on their BFR offer,
I could possibly get violated here. Another example is the Orlando FSDO.
In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c and
sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time. This was more of an
advisory, but it would be nice if the whole country could hear MCO's
comments. Does anyone agree, or am I going off on an rant here:)?

Justin

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Justin Maas wrote:
> I was wondering why the FAA hasn't cracked down on some of the ambiguity
> and differences in interpretation exercised by FSDOs.

Good question

> Since we all have a
> Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized?

It would be nice, provided it didn't develop into an "every question
must be referred to Big Brother and we're still waiting for his
response" situation

> Is there a
> good flow of communication from FSDO to FSDO?

Apparently not

Justin, lack of FSDO standardization has been an issue for years now,
especially wrt airplane maintenance (one FSDO will sign off on a 337
for something another asserts is unairworthy)

> In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c and
> sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time.

What's wrong with this? It sounds like this FSDO is making up rules.
If I fly with an MEI, he can log the time; why can't I log the time
simply because I also am an MEI? Is the idea that instructors have
nothing further to learn from other instructors? I say "bunk", and
nothing in the regulations that I'm aware of prohibits this.

But yes, it's another example of lack of standardization, and I
agree, it's a problem

Cheers,
Sydney

[Justin Maas]

Bob - sorry, let me try to clear it up. Some schools were advertising part
91 operations where someone/something would be flown in a multi-engine
aircraft not requiring two crew members. To have the right seat pilot log
multi "dual given" time, they had him sign off the other pilot. Make any
sense? Basically, they were trying to act as if these part 91 flights were
instructional in nature when in fact, they weren't.

[C J Campbell]

A certain student came and asked, "Master, what is the greatest of all the
laws of flying?" The Master replied, "Do not Crash. And the second is like
unto it: Do not cause another to Crash. On these hang all the law and all
the regulations." The student said, "But, Master, what does it mean to
crash?" The Master replied, "A certain pilot went up from Kansas to Oshkosh
to attend the pilgrimage there. Along the way his engine began to run rough
and the pilot, suspecting fuel contamination, landed at a nearby airport. He
checked his fuel and saw that it was good. He asked a local mechanic with IA
what could the problem be, but the mechanic was busy conducting an annual,
but he looked it over and could not find anything obviously wrong. He said
he could not get to a more thorough check until next week. The pilot asked
an FAA inspector who was passing through, but the inspector was late for a
meeting and hurried on his way. Lastly, the pilot asked a flight instructor
who suggested they take a short flight and see if they could determine what
the problem was. The pilot agreed and they took off. The engine quit and the
airplane fell from the sky and great was the fall of it, for the pilots had
filed no flight plan."

The Master asked, "Now, which of these people was responsible for the
crash?" The student replied, "Master, it is difficult to determine this from
just using the FARs." The Master said, "Thou hast gained wisdom, child. For
no matter how clearly the law is given, there will always be different
interpretations and unforseen circumstances. Go, and do the best you can,
knowing that even your best will not always be good enough."

[Ron Natalie]

"Justin Maas" > wrote in message ...
> Hey all,
>
> I was wondering why the FAA hasn't cracked down on some of the ambiguity
> and differences in interpretation exercised by FSDOs.

The FAA doesn't view it as broken.

> Since we all have a Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized?

It's a double edged sword. Some amount of local flexibility is often to the pilot's/owner's
advantage.

> I took an unusual attitudes course in Phoenix about a year ago. The
> FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
> instructors weren't CFIs.

What were they? What credentials did they use to sign off your log book?

>. Another example is the Orlando FSDO.
> In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c and
> sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time.

This oine has some regulatory precedent. The MEI's can't just sign each other
off. Instruction has to be given and you must meet the requirements for giving
that instruction. I don't know exactly how you posed the question to the FSDO,
but there's good reason why they'd be skeptical of such logging.

[Ron Natalie]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message ...

>
> What's wrong with this? It sounds like this FSDO is making up rules.
> If I fly with an MEI, he can log the time; why can't I log the time
> simply because I also am an MEI? Is the idea that instructors have
> nothing further to learn from other instructors? I say "bunk", and
> nothing in the regulations that I'm aware of prohibits this.
>
The case I am familiar with involved to MEI's who co-owned an aircraft
and both always logged PIC when flying together. After some incident
this logging practice came to the attention of the FAA. Their argument
was that they were giving each other instruction (instructors log PIC while
instructing), but it was clear it was a sham as they never complied with
the other requirements of giving instruction (making the instructional entries
in the others logbook, etc...).

[Robert M. Gary]

"Justin Maas" > wrote in message >...
> Bob - sorry, let me try to clear it up. Some schools were advertising part
> 91 operations where someone/something would be flown in a multi-engine
> aircraft not requiring two crew members. To have the right seat pilot log
> multi "dual given" time, they had him sign off the other pilot. Make any
> sense? Basically, they were trying to act as if these part 91 flights were
> instructional in nature when in fact, they weren't.

Well, if one of the MEIs is really giving instruction to the other ME
rated pilot, they should both log PIC. However, it sounds like
instruction was not happening. I think the FARs are pretty clear
here...

"(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all
flight^M
time while acting as an authorized instructor."

I never log time as instruction given unless I'm actually giving
instruction. If I'm riding with a friend, I'm not going to call (or
log) that as instruction.

-Robert

[Bob Gardner]

Couple of things come to mind: One FSDO allows the use of ATF-50 spray to
deter corrosion, another FSDO says its use makes the airplane unairworthy.
One FSDO says that chrome spinners are just fine, another grounds the
airplane until they are replaced.

We've been fighting this for forty years that I know of, with no solution in
sight.

Bob Gardner

"Justin Maas" > wrote in message
...
> Hey all,
>
> I was wondering why the FAA hasn't cracked down on some of the
ambiguity
> and differences in interpretation exercised by FSDOs. Since we all have a
> Federal certificate, shouldn't interpretations be standardized? Is there
a
> good flow of communication from FSDO to FSDO?
>
> Here's some background on why I'm up and wondering about this...
>
> I took an unusual attitudes course in Phoenix about a year ago. The
> FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
> instructors weren't CFIs. Up here in NY, however, I was told that
wouldn't
> "fly." Since I fly 3-4 times a week anyways, I picked up the usual hour
> air/ground BFR in a day. However, it kind of irked me that if I weren't
> such a frequent flyer and took FCI (the school in AZ) up on their BFR
offer,
> I could possibly get violated here. Another example is the Orlando FSDO.
> In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c
and
> sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time. This was more of an
> advisory, but it would be nice if the whole country could hear MCO's
> comments. Does anyone agree, or am I going off on an rant here:)?
>
> Justin
>
>

[Michael]

"Justin Maas" > wrote
> Bob - sorry, let me try to clear it up. Some schools were advertising part
> 91 operations where someone/something would be flown in a multi-engine
> aircraft not requiring two crew members. To have the right seat pilot log
> multi "dual given" time, they had him sign off the other pilot. Make any
> sense? Basically, they were trying to act as if these part 91 flights were
> instructional in nature when in fact, they weren't.

And therein lies the problem. There is no FSDO that I know of that
claims that one MEI can't take dual from another MEI, with one logging
PIC and dual given and the other logging PIC and dual received. If
some FSDO came up with this, how would MEI's like me ever be able to
log any recurrent or transition training? Can you imagine how badly
this would screw up my insurance? On the other hand, when two MEI's
take a 1-hour XC flight somewhere and each one comes back with a BFR
endorsement from the other, that's bull****, and we all know it. If
it's a two hour XC flight, I suppose you could claim that the first
hour was the BFR for MEI #1 and the second hour the BFR for MEI #2,
but really it's still bull**** - but not technically against the regs.

So what we've got is a FSDO that says "Hey, this is bull****, you guys
aren't really training, therefore we're not going to accept this as a
BFR." Do they have the legal authority to do this? No, but we can
all understand what they're trying to do. The scope of the BFR is
intentionally left very much open, so that the instructor has the
flexibility to tailor the recurrent training to the needs and
capabilities of the pilot. It might be private level maneuvers for a
pilot who is low time and/or doesn't fly much, but it will almost
certainly be advanced training for a pilot who is current and
proficient. The MEI's who just go somewhere for lunch and sign each
other off are loopholing the regs.

While the FAA really is an evil organization, that doesn't mean that
it's all one-sided. There are plenty of people out there who try to
abuse the system and inspectors who try to curtail the abuse -
generally in a manner that is ineffective, illegal, and incompetent.
That's what you're seeing here, and in a broader sense that underlies
a lot of the reason for the inconsistencies between FSDO's. Someone
comes up with a way to game the system, and some fed takes exception
to it - sometimes properly, as in this case, other times because he's
a worthless bloody loonie. He then comes up with a policy - an
interpretation of the rules - which is often illegal and generally
fails to fix the problem, but will make life difficult for others.
This will not be the same policy as in another FSDO - not better or
worse, but different.

Example - there's a local avionics shop that would do an entire panel
rebuild on a logbook entry (no Form 337). I mean a whole new radio
stack, recutting the instrument panel, the works. Clearly that's
bull**** - it's a major alteration - but they got tired of having
337's bounced back for punctuation errors (no **** - really happens,
happened to me) and decided that anything that was not absolutely
spelled out as a major alteration (autopilot install, for example)
they would consider minor. The result is that the FSDO got ****ed,
and decided that anything you couldn't do with just a screwdriver
would be considered major. It's contrary to official policy, it's
stupid, and it doesn't solve any problems - but that's just the way it
is.

Michael

[Todd Pattist]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote:

>I think the FARs are pretty clear
>here...
>
>"(3) An authorized instructor may log as pilot-in-command time all
>flight^M
>time while acting as an authorized instructor."


That seems less than clear to me. If an instructor is in
the aircraft, and can reach the controls, there is a
substantial risk that he will be charged with responsibility
for that flight. As such, a cautious instructor will
maintain an extra measure of vigilance when "riding with a
friend" that is at least as alert and aware as when he's
letting a student practice straight and level.

Given that he may well be charged with responsibility when
"riding" with a mere PPL, and may be acting with greater
care than a simple passenger, I'd consider him to be "acting
as an authorized instructor" even if he was not "asked to
act as an authorized instructor." That difference is the
ambiguity I see in the FAR wording.

>I never log time as instruction given unless I'm actually giving
>instruction.

A reasonable response also. Note that if you log it as
instruction, you are required to sign the other pilot's
logbook, but since he owns his logbook, he does not have to
let you sign it.

>If I'm riding with a friend, I'm not going to call (or
>log) that as instruction.

When I flew with a friend, I'd ask if he wanted to consider
it instruction. He could log PIC for sole manipulator *and*
dual received (which makes insurance companies happy) and I
would log instruction given and feel justified in the extra
level of vigilance I felt was required regardless.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[John Galban]

"Justin Maas" > wrote in message >...
> The
> FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
> instructors weren't CFIs.

How could this work? Don't the regs state that the BFR must be
signed off by a CFI? I don't know how they could get around that one.
Intepretation by a FSDO is one thing, but I don't think they can tell
you it's OK to ignore a reg.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Todd Pattist]

Robert Moore > wrote:

>When I checked-out as a type-rated B-727 co-pilot at PanAm,
>I had been a flight instructor for many years and I can just
>imagine what would have happened if I had turned to the captain
>and said "Cap'n, I'll be giving you instruction during this
>flight so that I can log it as PIC". Sure! :-)

Considering I've never had the good fortune to check out in
a B-727, it's not surprising our perspectives are slightly
different, but this doesn't quite seem like the scenario of
"riding with a friend" I had in mind. :-)

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Todd Pattist]

(Michael) wrote:

> when two MEI's
>take a 1-hour XC flight somewhere and each one comes back with a BFR
>endorsement from the other, that's bull****, and we all know it.

And even this bull**** flight is not clearly a violation of
the FAR's. There's no clear requirement that I handle the
controls for more than 50% of the BFR flight time.. If the
instructor giving me a BFR wants to show me flight maneuvers
and then see me repeat them, he's free to do so. There's
no requirement as to how long the instructor can touch the
controls during my BFR, so this 50/50 one hour flight with
two cross-BFR's doesn't seem to me to be an unequivocal
violation of the FAR's
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[journeyman]

On 10 Jul 2003 11:07:38 -0700, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
>I never log time as instruction given unless I'm actually giving
>instruction. If I'm riding with a friend, I'm not going to call (or
>log) that as instruction.

I've heard cases of the FAA going after the instructor when there is
an accident, even when the instructor wasn't giving instruction.

Morris

[Capt. Doug]

>Robert Moore wrote in message > When I checked-out as a type-rated B-727
co->pilot at PanAm,
> I had been a flight instructor for many years and I can just
> imagine what would have happened if I had turned to the captain
> and said "Cap'n, I'll be giving you instruction during this
> flight so that I can log it as PIC". Sure! :-)

Logging PIC and acting as PIC aren't quite the same thing according to the
regs. I knew a type-rated SIC who logged half of the time as PIC, the half
where he was manipulating the controls.

D.

[Michael]

Todd Pattist > wrote
> > when two MEI's
> >take a 1-hour XC flight somewhere and each one comes back with a BFR
> >endorsement from the other, that's bull****, and we all know it.
>
> And even this bull**** flight is not clearly a violation of
> the FAR's.

OK, there's some grey area there. Sort of like that panel rebuild on
a logbook signature - every individual change could be considered
minor, so we'll consider the entire operation minor.

> There's no clear requirement that I handle the
> controls for more than 50% of the BFR flight time.. If the
> instructor giving me a BFR wants to show me flight maneuvers
> and then see me repeat them, he's free to do so. There's
> no requirement as to how long the instructor can touch the
> controls during my BFR, so this 50/50 one hour flight with
> two cross-BFR's doesn't seem to me to be an unequivocal
> violation of the FAR's

No, but it still totally fails to conform to the spirit of the
regulation. And that's why we have a FSDO deciding they're not going
to accept that. The guy who took an aerobatics course, however, is
just caught in the crossfire - he did conform to the spirit of the
regs.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

(journeyman) wrote in message >...

> I've heard cases of the FAA going after the instructor when there is
> an accident, even when the instructor wasn't giving instruction.

That's true, although most of those cases have been proven to be
"wives tales" but it certainly has happened. However, it doesn't have
anything to do with logging PIC.

[Todd Pattist]

(Michael) wrote:

>> > when two MEI's
>> >take a 1-hour XC flight somewhere and each one comes back with a BFR
>> >endorsement from the other, that's bull****,

>OK, there's some grey area there. <snip>
> but it still totally fails to conform to the spirit of the
>regulation.

Exactly. It's clearly a violation if they came back after a
half hour, but when each pilot clearly flew with a CFI for
an hour, and met all the explicit regs, I'd want the FSDO to
keep its "spirit of the rule" and regional interpretations
to itself.

Ther was a time when no BFR was required. It's still true
that I can get a BFR in a hot air balloon and then fly a
pressurized twin loaded with passengers. There will always
be "loopholes." If they are so big that they need to be
closed, then the rule should be changed to close them.
FSDO's shouldn't go around with their own local
interpretations of what the rule should be.


Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Michael]

Todd Pattist > wrote
> > but it still totally fails to conform to the spirit of the
> >regulation.
>
> Exactly. It's clearly a violation if they came back after a
> half hour, but when each pilot clearly flew with a CFI for
> an hour, and met all the explicit regs, I'd want the FSDO to
> keep its "spirit of the rule" and regional interpretations
> to itself.

Now recall what I said: There are plenty of people out there who try
to abuse the system and inspectors who try to curtail the abuse -
generally in a manner that is ineffective, illegal, and incompetent.
This is exactly the situation here.

I happen to agree with you - I also want to limit the authority of the
FSDO inspectors to enforcement of the explicit regs, and I want the
FSDO inspectors to keep their "spirit of the rule" and regional
interpretations to themselves. But what is the underlying assumption
here? Let's be honest about it - the FSDO inspectors are using their
best judgment. What we're saying is that their judgment is so poor
that we don't want them using it. Kind of a sad state of affairs,
isn't it?

Michael

[Ash Wyllie]

Gently extracted from the mind of Robert M. Gary;


>> I took an unusual attitudes course in Phoenix about a year ago. The
>> FSDO down there allowed the course to substitute a BFR, even though the
>> instructors weren't CFIs. Up here in NY, however, I was told that wouldn't
>> "fly."

>Very odd. How could they consider that a BFR? If the guys were not
>CFIs it couldn't be part of a wings program or a regular BFR. FAR
>61.56 seems pretty clear to me. I'd be real curious under what part
>of 61.56 they considered that a flight review.

>> Another example is the Orlando FSDO.
>> In a good move, they told flight schools that having two MEIs fly an x-c
>> and sign each other off is wrong and no way to log time.

>What is the purpose of the MEIs signing each other off? They can still
>both log PIC. One of them acts as an MEI giving instruction (allowing
>him to log PIC 61.51(e)(3)), another is the sole manipulator of the
>controls (allowing him to log PIC 61.51(e)(1)(i)). Sounds like these
>guys didn't understand the FARs well enought to know how to do this.

Actually, two MEIs got busted for doing just this a few years ago. They bought
an Apache and flew x-countries @ 1.3 * tach time switching seats every leg.
The guy in the left seat wore a hood. All seemingly perfectly legal.

Every psuedo judge thought that this was illegal.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Robert M. Gary]

> Actually, two MEIs got busted for doing just this a few years ago. They bought
> an Apache and flew x-countries @ 1.3 * tach time switching seats every leg.
> The guy in the left seat wore a hood. All seemingly perfectly legal.
>
> Every psuedo judge thought that this was illegal.


These stories get better and better as time passes. The MEIs were not
quite the angles you might be implying they were. The FAA questioned
their log books because of some disagreements between the two logs. In
fact, I think the FAA might have first gotten involved because one of
them claimed time in a twin before the Apache that he never had access
to. In anycase, the NTSB (after appeal) asked how they come up with
their time. They said it was from the hobbs. However, when the judge
looked at the engine logs he found that it was a lot more than the
tach. The pilots told the judge that the hobbs must have been broken.
The hobbs was tested by and A&P and found to run fast, but not fast
enough to account for the time difference. In the end I believe the
MEIs conceeded that some of the time was from thin air. I remember not
feeling sorry for the MEIs after reading the case. I think it was in
Flying magazine. I think they got off light, as I recall.