Commercial 250nm VFR flight - all 3 landings on the same day?

I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took it down, if anyone
wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any more. Pretty
stupid to call it policy, then remove it from availability.

Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I received an email via the FAA subscription system from Mr. Ballough,
who is/was the manager of FAA flight standards about 6-8 months ago,
recinding the memorandum that is at the top of the last FAQ revision
(#22). It effectively said that the FAQ's are no longer policy and
that was the reason for the removal of them from the FAA site.

Too bad that the FAQ's were the best thing we had, and the feds chose
to replace them with nothing but the suggestion to make inquiries to
the FSDO.




On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:46 GMT, Jose
wrote:

I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took it down, if anyone
wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any more. Pretty
stupid to call it policy, then remove it from availability.

Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?

Jose

I received an email via the FAA subscription system from Mr. Ballough,

I gotta get me one of them.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:17:30 GMT, Jose
wrote:

I received an email via the FAA subscription system from Mr. Ballough,

I gotta get me one of them.

Jose

I just erased it a few weeks ago, or I would post it, sorry.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...pector_orders/


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
|I received an email via the FAA subscription system from
Mr. Ballough,
| who is/was the manager of FAA flight standards about 6-8
months ago,
| recinding the memorandum that is at the top of the last
FAQ revision
| (#22). It effectively said that the FAQ's are no longer
policy and
| that was the reason for the removal of them from the FAA
site.
|
| Too bad that the FAQ's were the best thing we had, and the
feds chose
| to replace them with nothing but the suggestion to make
inquiries to
| the FSDO.
|
|
|
|
| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:46 GMT, Jose

| wrote:
|
| I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took it
down, if anyone
| wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any
more. Pretty
| stupid to call it policy, then remove it from
availability.
|
| Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?
|
| Jose
|

Jim: Is there something in particular in this link that I am missing?

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:30:42 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...pector_orders/


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .
|I received an email via the FAA subscription system from
Mr. Ballough,
| who is/was the manager of FAA flight standards about 6-8
months ago,
| recinding the memorandum that is at the top of the last
FAQ revision
| (#22). It effectively said that the FAQ's are no longer
policy and
| that was the reason for the removal of them from the FAA
site.
|
| Too bad that the FAQ's were the best thing we had, and the
feds chose
| to replace them with nothing but the suggestion to make
inquiries to
| the FSDO.
|
|
|
|
| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:46 GMT, Jose

| wrote:
|
| I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took it
down, if anyone
| wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any
more. Pretty
| stupid to call it policy, then remove it from
availability.
|
| Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?
|
| Jose
|

Yes, it is the "book" that tells an FAA Inspector (General
Aviation) how to do every task they do and since it is
on-line they stopped the other letters.



"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| Jim: Is there something in particular in this link that I
am missing?
|
| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:30:42 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
|
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...pector_orders/
|
|
| "Bill Zaleski" wrote in
message
| .. .
| |I received an email via the FAA subscription system from
| Mr. Ballough,
| | who is/was the manager of FAA flight standards about
6-8
| months ago,
| | recinding the memorandum that is at the top of the last
| FAQ revision
| | (#22). It effectively said that the FAQ's are no
longer
| policy and
| | that was the reason for the removal of them from the
FAA
| site.
| |
| | Too bad that the FAQ's were the best thing we had, and
the
| feds chose
| | to replace them with nothing but the suggestion to make
| inquiries to
| | the FSDO.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:46 GMT, Jose
|
| | wrote:
| |
| | I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took it
| down, if anyone
| | wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any
| more. Pretty
| | stupid to call it policy, then remove it from
| availability.
| |
| | Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?
| |
| | Jose
| |
|
|

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/e...spectors/8700/


"Jim Macklin" wrote
in message ...
| Yes, it is the "book" that tells an FAA Inspector (General
| Aviation) how to do every task they do and since it is
| on-line they stopped the other letters.
|
|
|
| "Bill Zaleski" wrote in
message
| ...
|| Jim: Is there something in particular in this link that
I
| am missing?
||
|| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:30:42 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
|| wrote:
||
||
|
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...pector_orders/
||
||
|| "Bill Zaleski" wrote in
| message
|| .. .
|| |I received an email via the FAA subscription system
from
|| Mr. Ballough,
|| | who is/was the manager of FAA flight standards about
| 6-8
|| months ago,
|| | recinding the memorandum that is at the top of the
last
|| FAQ revision
|| | (#22). It effectively said that the FAQ's are no
| longer
|| policy and
|| | that was the reason for the removal of them from the
| FAA
|| site.
|| |
|| | Too bad that the FAQ's were the best thing we had, and
| the
|| feds chose
|| | to replace them with nothing but the suggestion to
make
|| inquiries to
|| | the FSDO.
|| |
|| |
|| |
|| |
|| | On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:46 GMT, Jose
||
|| | wrote:
|| |
|| | I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took
it
|| down, if anyone
|| | wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any
|| more. Pretty
|| | stupid to call it policy, then remove it from
|| availability.
|| |
|| | Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?
|| |
|| | Jose
|| |
||
||
|
|

closer
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/e...spectors/8700/


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
| Jim: Is there something in particular in this link that I
am missing?
|
| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:30:42 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
|
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...pector_orders/
|
|
| "Bill Zaleski" wrote in
message
| .. .
| |I received an email via the FAA subscription system from
| Mr. Ballough,
| | who is/was the manager of FAA flight standards about
6-8
| months ago,
| | recinding the memorandum that is at the top of the last
| FAQ revision
| | (#22). It effectively said that the FAQ's are no
longer
| policy and
| | that was the reason for the removal of them from the
FAA
| site.
| |
| | Too bad that the FAQ's were the best thing we had, and
the
| feds chose
| | to replace them with nothing but the suggestion to make
| inquiries to
| | the FSDO.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:06:46 GMT, Jose
|
| | wrote:
| |
| | I have the last complete FAQ, before the FAA took it
| down, if anyone
| | wants it. The FAA says that it is not any good any
| more. Pretty
| | stupid to call it policy, then remove it from
| availability.
| |
| | Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?
| |
| | Jose
| |
|
|

Where did they say it's "no good anymore"?
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...pector_orders/

There are over 20 PDF files on that link. It's a good site, but none of
them (by their titles) give me a clue as to rescinding the FAQ. Which
one is it? (so I don't have to download and read 20 PDFs)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.