WINGS program...

[Sylvain]

Just a little heads up: if like me, you rely on the WINGS program to
satisfy the proficiency requirements of 14 CFR 61.56, then you might be in
trouble and you most definitely want to look into it before your next
flight:

The old program has, I am told, been 'sunset' on December 2007. In other
words, if you are today flying under the impression that you are legal to
do so because you completed a Wings phase under the old system, you might
very well be mistaken (or so says the dude at the FSDO to whom I spoke as
well as the nice person from AOPA with whom I exchanged a couple of
emails);

It gets even better: to my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong,
the advisory circular which describes the Wings program and the requirement
that must be met to satisfy 61.56(e), i.e., AC 61-91H, has NOT been
superseded. And that's where it is getting fun, because what it describes
is the old Wings program, not the new one. So, until proven otherwise,
the new Wings program is of no value whatsoever to satisfy the requirements
of 61.56 either.

....and good luck finding anything on the faasafety.gov web site about what
are the relevant regulations and/or advisory circulars that are relevant to
the new Wings program (you do find references to AC 61-91H and AC 61-98A,
but that's not what I was looking for);

So, first thing I do this afternoon is calling the nice folks of the AOPA
legal team, and I have scheduled myself a BFR this weekend.

--Sylvain

[Tom L.]

I don't think we should start panicking just yet.

61.56(e) talks about "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency award program".
Both old and new WINGS were/are exactly that, so either one qualifies.
Whether the AC is updated or not does not matter.

As for the faasafety web site, it says:
"Pilots participating in the WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program to at
least the Basic Phase need not accomplish the flight review
requirements of 14 CFR part 61, if since the beginning of the 24th
calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in
command, he or she has satisfactorily completed or currently holds the
Basic or higher WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program phase in an aircraft
(reference 61.56(e))."

- Tom

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:42:32 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>
>Just a little heads up: if like me, you rely on the WINGS program to
>satisfy the proficiency requirements of 14 CFR 61.56, then you might be in
>trouble and you most definitely want to look into it before your next
>flight:
>
>The old program has, I am told, been 'sunset' on December 2007. In other
>words, if you are today flying under the impression that you are legal to
>do so because you completed a Wings phase under the old system, you might
>very well be mistaken (or so says the dude at the FSDO to whom I spoke as
>well as the nice person from AOPA with whom I exchanged a couple of
>emails);
>
>It gets even better: to my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong,
>the advisory circular which describes the Wings program and the requirement
>that must be met to satisfy 61.56(e), i.e., AC 61-91H, has NOT been
>superseded. And that's where it is getting fun, because what it describes
>is the old Wings program, not the new one. So, until proven otherwise,
>the new Wings program is of no value whatsoever to satisfy the requirements
>of 61.56 either.
>
>...and good luck finding anything on the faasafety.gov web site about what
>are the relevant regulations and/or advisory circulars that are relevant to
>the new Wings program (you do find references to AC 61-91H and AC 61-98A,
>but that's not what I was looking for);
>
>So, first thing I do this afternoon is calling the nice folks of the AOPA
>legal team, and I have scheduled myself a BFR this weekend.
>
>--Sylvain
>
>

[Sylvain]

Tom L. wrote:

> I don't think we should start panicking just yet.

I am not panicking, just calling a lawyer and getting myself a BFR (that's
called a** covering, panic comes later :-)

> 61.56(e) talks about "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency award program".
> Both old and new WINGS were/are exactly that, so either one qualifies.
> Whether the AC is updated or not does not matter.

Well, my local FSDO (and AOPA) disagree, and both told me that the old
WINGS phases no longer qualify. And since that all I have to show today,
I am worrying. They might very well be both wrong though, this wouldn't be
the first time, but I don't want to be the guy having to argue that in a
court of law, or with my insurance company, or with the FAA after a ramp
check...

> As for the faasafety web site, it says:
> "Pilots participating in the WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program to at
> least the Basic Phase need not accomplish the flight review
> requirements of 14 CFR part 61, if since the beginning of the 24th
> calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in
> command, he or she has satisfactorily completed or currently holds the
> Basic or higher WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program phase in an aircraft
> (reference 61.56(e))."

Here is the thing: on the one hand, something that I can read on the
interwebs, on the other hand an advisory circular still in effect that
says otherwise. I know that I am splitting hair here, but hair splitting,
longitudinally and diagonally, is precisely what lawyers and civil
servants and insurance assessors do. If your new Wing phase does not
include three phases of training, of one hour each, as described in AC
61-91H paragraph 7.a (if you are an airplane pilot) and a safety meeting or
equivalent as described in paragraph 7.h of the same document, with the
required signatures and logbook endorsement, etc. that go with it, then you
have not met the requirements of 61.56(e).

....and call me a wimp, but I have a problem with that.

--Sylvain

[Tim[_8_]]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...

What's the problem? Get a BFR and fly on. Maybe they will have it sorted out
in two years.

[Tom L.]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:46:27 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>Tom L. wrote:
>
>> I don't think we should start panicking just yet.
>
>I am not panicking, just calling a lawyer and getting myself a BFR (that's
>called a** covering, panic comes later :-)

Well, you do whatever makes *you* feel comfortable, what your legal
personal limits tell you to do:)

ACs are advisory. I'm sure the courts would use them to clarify FARs
if needed, but in this case FARs are clear enough:
61.56(e) wants "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency program". FAA's web
site says "this is a pilot proficiency program". Good enough for me.

- Tom

[Peter Dohm]

"Tim" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> What's the problem? Get a BFR and fly on. Maybe they will have it sorted
> out in two years.
>
That's basiclly the same thing that I've been thinking.

There's really nothing wrong with the wings program, and it has a lot of
outstanding virtues--for example, it gives pilots, students, and anyone who
might be interested an opportunity stay more current on both services and
regulations and also a friendly environment to ask questions about any
procedure, service, or regulation.

OTOH, the BFR issue has always been amusing--if you attend the prescribed
number of wings seminars and also fly a little more with an instructor than
the BFR would have required; then you don't have to separately fulfull the
BFR requirement. In other words, you would only accomplish twice as much
continuing education with the Wings program than without it and would [have
ben] permitted to split the BFR ride into two annual segments instead of a
single bienial segment.

It's still an excellent program, even if it has actually changed.

[Sylvain]

Tom L. wrote:

> ACs are advisory. I'm sure the courts would use them to clarify FARs
> if needed, but in this case FARs are clear enough:
> 61.56(e) wants "FAA sponsored pilot proficiency program". FAA's web
> site says "this is a pilot proficiency program". Good enough for me.

In fact there are two issues:

(1) Whether the new program does indeed qualify to fulfill the requirements
of 61.56(e); and I would tend to agree with you that it does, even though
it does not follow the description of the still current AC 91-61H; it is
indeed probably still good enough to satisfy a ramp check, but I wouldn't
like to test that in a more serious situation... (would it be good enough
in a court of law?)

(2) The other issue, my current problem, is whether or not having
completed a Wings phase with the old system qualifies as well; and
apparently, according to both the FSDO dude and the AOPA, it does not...
i.e., someone who, in good faith, did everything right, may still get
screwed royally.

There are two possibilities here: someone who has completed said Wing phase
before the unofficial -- because it is not written anywhere in any official
publication from the FAA, unless someone can prove me wrong -- sunset date
of December 2007, and someone who did the same after that date (which
would be reasonable enough, since AC 61-91H has not been superseded);

There might still be quite a few people in the former situation (a wing
phase 'bought' you 24 months of happy legal flying); and I know that there
are quite a few folks out there in the latter situation. People, pilots
and instructors alike, who keep themselves up to date regulation wise, but
might not be aware of the latest (unofficial) goodies put online by our
dear administration... it could be argued that if it is not available in
print from your local FSDO, that it does not exist.

ok, no flying for me today; BFR scheduled tomorrow.

--Sylvain

[BT]

The old and new wings program took up more of my time in my military flying
career than a normal Flight Review. So I never participated.
BT

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just a little heads up: if like me, you rely on the WINGS program to
> satisfy the proficiency requirements of 14 CFR 61.56, then you might be
> in
> trouble and you most definitely want to look into it before your next
> flight:
>
> The old program has, I am told, been 'sunset' on December 2007. In
> other
> words, if you are today flying under the impression that you are legal to
> do so because you completed a Wings phase under the old system, you might
> very well be mistaken (or so says the dude at the FSDO to whom I spoke as
> well as the nice person from AOPA with whom I exchanged a couple of
> emails);
>
> It gets even better: to my knowledge, and please correct me if I am
> wrong,
> the advisory circular which describes the Wings program and the
> requirement
> that must be met to satisfy 61.56(e), i.e., AC 61-91H, has NOT been
> superseded. And that's where it is getting fun, because what it
> describes
> is the old Wings program, not the new one. So, until proven otherwise,
> the new Wings program is of no value whatsoever to satisfy the
> requirements
> of 61.56 either.
>
> ...and good luck finding anything on the faasafety.gov web site about what
> are the relevant regulations and/or advisory circulars that are relevant
> to
> the new Wings program (you do find references to AC 61-91H and AC 61-98A,
> but that's not what I was looking for);
>
> So, first thing I do this afternoon is calling the nice folks of the AOPA
> legal team, and I have scheduled myself a BFR this weekend.
>
> --Sylvain
>
>

[Tim[_8_]]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> The old and new wings program took up more of my time in my military
> flying career than a normal Flight Review. So I never participated.
> BT

Same here, I would rather do a BFR and be done.

[Kobra[_10_]]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> The old and new wings program took up more of my time in my military
> flying career than a normal Flight Review. So I never participated.
> BT

One thing no one mentioned: Some insurance carriers give a discount on your
insurance premium if you complete the WINGS program. I know this is true
for mine and I assume it's true whether you rent or own.

Kobra

[BT]

"Kobra" > wrote in message ...
>
> "BT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The old and new wings program took up more of my time in my military
>> flying career than a normal Flight Review. So I never participated.
>> BT
>
> One thing no one mentioned: Some insurance carriers give a discount on
> your insurance premium if you complete the WINGS program. I know this is
> true for mine and I assume it's true whether you rent or own.
>
> Kobra

My renters insurance offer discounts for additional training, it does not
have to be the Wings Program, it can be the online training offered by AOPA.
BT

[Bob Fry]

I talked to an FAA guy at the Golden West show over the weekend. He
says the new WINGS program definitely counts as a BFR, but it is quite
different than the old one.
--
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is
filled with falsehoods and errors.
~ Thomas Jefferson

[Sylvain]

Bob Fry wrote:

> I talked to an FAA guy at the Golden West show over the weekend. He
> says the new WINGS program definitely counts as a BFR, but it is quite
> different than the old one.

That's what I was told here too, except that the official text --
specifically AC 61-91H -- from the FAA says otherwise. Hence my problem,
and my decision to play it safe and get myself a BFR.

That said, I like the idea of the Wings program a lot, and will keep
participating; in fact the new version looks good and seems to be an
improvement over the previous program.

The way I see it, the Wings program serves two purposes: a) recurrent
training, learning new stuff, meeting interesting people, etc. b) legal
issues and a** covering (via 14 cfr 61.56(e) and relevant texts). As far
as the new program is concerned, I am quite happy about what I understand
of part a), but not convinced about part b) yet -- until I see a
clarification, in writing, in an official publication (as opposed to just
hear-say and some stuff on the web). But then I am picky.

--Sylvain

ps anyway, the BFR thing was interesting, I didn't waste my time.