Regulation question regarding tailwheel

Ron Levy said:
Then you know that the definition of a "pressurized aircraft" in that reg does not include pressurization.
Click to expand...
That statement meets the definition of insane. Regardless though, that means a BE 95 is exempted as it is not a pressurized aircraft nor does it have pressurization.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That statement meets the definition of insane.
Click to expand...
I hope you're saying that the definition is insane, not me. If so, I would agree, but that is what it says. I asked FAA HQ about it a while back, and was told that they are aware of the confusing situation, but did not provide an official interpretation on it.

Regardless though, that means a BE 95 is exempted as it is not a pressurized aircraft nor does it have pressurization.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I'm wondering if the wording of the FAR has changed over the years. What it said a few years ago could be different than what it says today.
 
Ron Levy said:
I hope you're saying that the definition is insane, not me. If so, I would agree, but that is what it says. I asked FAA HQ about it a while back, and was told that they are aware of the confusing situation, but did not provide an official interpretation on it.

Agreed.
Click to expand...

The definition, I seriously doubt it would hold up to scrutiny down the line if you went to battle with them over a violation.
 
Henning said:
The definition, I seriously doubt it would hold up to scrutiny down the line if you went to battle with them over a violation.
Click to expand...
But most pilots don't have the funds to carry out such a war. (they have an airplane to feed)
And as stupid as is is, a Pressurized aircraft is defined as "(an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL)" and there is no mention of pressurization, in the definition. So there are many non-pressurized aircraft out there which fall under that definition. I would think that the majority of which are of the 40's vintage, warbirds.
 
bluerooster said:
But most pilots don't have the funds to carry out such a war. (they have an airplane to feed)
And as stupid as is is, a Pressurized aircraft is defined as "(an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL)" and there is no mention of pressurization, in the definition. So there are many non-pressurized aircraft out there which fall under that definition. I would think that the majority of which are of the 40's vintage, warbirds.
Click to expand...

Now I understand the 25,000' placquard! Neither of those conditions are met which keeps it away from that rule while allowing operation above 25,000'! How many unpressurized planes meet either of those terms?
 
there are several with a service ceiling well above 25k'. I have no inkling what their maximum operating altitude is though.
B17G 35800
p40 31k
f4u 38k
p51d 41900
b24 28k
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these numbers, (google) But I assume they are close to accurate.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then you know that the definition of a "pressurized aircraft" in that reg does not include pressurization.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I don't see that at all.

Neither do I, but that is the way the reg is written.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that.

Then please tell me what part of "An aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL" means the aircraft must be pressurized to fall within that definition.
Click to expand...

I will parse that out in a moment. Also, again, if a plane is pressurized, show me how that can happen without pressurization, or vica versa.

No, you need to show me the interpretation which says that regulation only applies to aircraft with pressurization when that isn't included in the definition in that reg. IOW, I'm not the one assuming things that aren't written.
Click to expand...

Really, Ron? I am asking the question because you KNOW I can't do that, and I want to know where YOU get it. Ball's back in your court.

Let me parse this the way I see it. The relevant part is 61.31(g).

(g) Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft (an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL), unless that person has received and logged ground training from an authorized instructor and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who certifies the person has satisfactorily accomplished the ground training.
Click to expand...

I can see where the part in parentheses (bolded here) may be taken as a definition. But that definition is absurd. If the regulation was meant for ANY and ALL aircraft that has an operating ceiling (yada yada), why even bother mentioning pressurized or pressurization at all? Thing is, there are pressurized airplanes that have a service ceiling of 25,000 feet or less. They do not require a high altitude endorsement at all. It is my contention that the portion in parenthesis (bolded) was there to differentiate between those pressurized aircraft that have a service ceiling AT 25,000 feet and those with a service ceiling ABOVE 25,000 feet.

Now there very well MAY be an interpretation (Ball's in your court to provide it, Ron.) that states what you contend it does. If that is the case, I will voice my opinion that whoever wrote that interpretation is wrong. At the very least, I contend that the regulation should be rewritten to exclude the mention pressurization or that the portion in bold is written to be more clear as to the fact that pressurization and pressurized are the same thing.
 
bluerooster said:
there are several with a service ceiling well above 25k'. I have no inkling what their maximum operating altitude is though.
B17G 35800
p40 31k
f4u 38k
p51d 41900
b24 28k
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these numbers, (google) But I assume they are close to accurate.
Click to expand...

All military planes, they didn't concern themselves with arbitrary numbers to meet rules. Find me a GA plane in that list.
 
Henning said:
All military planes, they didn't concern themselves with arbitrary numbers to meet rules. Find me a GA plane in that list.
Click to expand...
Cessna Centurions and Turbo 206s had service ceilings above 25,000.
 
At the very least, I contend that the regulation should be rewritten to exclude the mention pressurization or that the portion in bold is written to be more clear as to the fact that pressurization and pressurized are the same thing.
Click to expand...

Why? Why the resistance to getting proper training? I don't know any professionals with whom I associate who shun training or turn their nose up at it.

If the aircraft is pressurized, or if it's capable of flight above 25,000', whether you ever intend to go there, then you need to training and endorsement. It's simple.

The fact that the aircraft has the capability is enough, and pressurized aircraft deserve attention as well. One may well never exceed a few thousand feet of cabin pressure altitude, but it doesn't take much to create physiological effects that should be addressed in training.

Two years ago I had a very explosive depressurization in a Cessna 421, when the front left windscreen failed. It took the glareshield, some of the plastic on the wall, the headliner, and part of the top of the instrument panel with it, as well as the checklist and the AFM (which happened to be on top of the glareshield, at the time). It occurred at night, and a new student was in the left seat. His headset went along with everything else. I was giving him some training in the 421; it was his first time in the airplane. We weren't that high when it occurred, and the differential pressure wasn't that great; only a few inches, but it was enough to stun and startle and could have caused ear problems. At higher altitudes it would also have reduced the reaction time and the nature of the damage that ensued would have prevented us from a rapid descent.

I've had several depressurization events over the years; that was the most dramatic. Never the less, undertaking proper training in high altitude physiology, aerodynamics, aircraft behavior, performance, procedures, and so forth, is a wise idea, and it's actually a smart course for anyone, even if they never fly at higher altitudes.

That said, there's some interesting interpretation going on of the regulation here, that requires little more than a cursory glance at the plain-English rendering of the regulation to understand.

14 CFR 61.31(g) establishes that the requirement for that subsection addresses "Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes." This isn't just pressurized aircraft, and it isn't just aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes. It's specifically "pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes." If the aircraft is pressurized but can't operate at high altitudes (defined next), then the high altitude endorsement isn't required. If the aircraft can operate at high altitudes but isn't pressurized, then the specific training and endorsement isn't required.

One should seek specific training in high altitude operations anyway, and in pressurized operations anyway, if the aircraft is pressurized, or capable of high altitudes, regardless of the regulation.

14 CFR 61.31(g)(1) lays out the ground training requirements for pressurized aircraft capable of flying at or above 25,000'. That is to say, if the aircraft is pressurized and has a service ceiling or maximum altitude (whichever is lower) above 25,000', then the endorsement is required.

14 CFR 61.31(g)(2) lays out the flight training requirements for pressurized aircraft. The language of 61.31(g)(2) differs a little from that of 61.31(g)(1). In this case, it specifies pressurized aircraft, period. It makes no reference to altitude capability. In this case, if it's pressurized, then it applies. The subheading 61.31(g) specifies "capable of operating at high altitudes," but subparagraph (g)(i) does not; additional training is required in pressurized aircraft.

A logbook endorsement and record of training is required for the ground portion, applicable to pressurized aircraft and high altitude operations.

A logbook endorsement and record of training is required for the flight portion, applicable to pressurized aircraft.

Whether the aircraft flies high or not, if it's pressurized a pilot needs, and ought to willingly seek, training in pressurized operations. Whether it's pressurized or not, an aircraft that flies high needs and ought to seek training in high altitude operations. This is not wasted training. Additionally, anyone considering high altitude flight out to make the effort to book time in an altitude chamber to see the true effects of hypoxia for themselves.

A good example of an exchange between a hypoxic pilot in a Learjet, and controllers; listen to the way the PIC sounds drunk and uncoordinated. He thinks he's fine and that the aircraft has a problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p8JXPRVE6M
 
DouglasBader said:
Why? Why the resistance to getting proper training? I don't know any professionals with whom I associate who shun training or turn their nose up at it.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, and never said differently.

If the aircraft is pressurized, or if it's capable of flight above 25,000', whether you ever intend to go there, then you need to training and endorsement. It's simple.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't so simple. There is no "or" in the regulation. Just someone's interpretation of what "pressurization means.

The fact that the aircraft has the capability is enough, and pressurized aircraft deserve attention as well. One may well never exceed a few thousand feet of cabin pressure altitude, but it doesn't take much to create physiological effects that should be addressed in training.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. But that isn't what this discussion is about.

If the aircraft can operate at high altitudes but isn't pressurized, then the specific training and endorsement isn't required.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the crux of this argument. Ron says that he has an interpretation that says the endorsement IS required.

One should seek specific training in high altitude operations anyway, and in pressurized operations anyway, if the aircraft is pressurized, or capable of high altitudes, regardless of the regulation.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But again, that isn't what this discussion is about.
 
DouglasBader said:
Why? Why the resistance to getting proper training? I don't know any professionals with whom I associate who shun training or turn their nose up at it.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with training and learning, no problem, but if I'm in a T-210, how do I receive the training on pressurization? Is the whole thing just ground? Interesting that I went SIC at Express 1 in a JetStream and didn't end up with a high alt endorsement, I guess they don't sign that off till you go PIC:dunno:
 
Henning said:
I don't have a problem with training and learning, no problem, but if I'm in a T-210, how do I receive the training on pressurization? Is the whole thing just ground? Interesting that I went SIC at Express 1 in a JetStream and didn't end up with a high alt endorsement, I guess they don't sign that off till you go PIC:dunno:
Click to expand...

Air Carriers don't make "logbook" endorsements, the record of training is held by the air carrier either under Part 121 or Part 135.

In a 2 person crewed aircraft both the PIC and SIC would be required to have training in high altitude procedures as part of their initial training.
 
Last edited:
A PPL/IA in a non-P C-210, how high can they legally go?
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
I can see where the part in parentheses (bolded here) may be taken as a definition. But that definition is absurd.
Click to expand...
I agree on both counts, but until you get the Chief Counsel to say otherwise, you're betting your ticket on your interpretive assumption that pressurization is necessary for the reg to apply. As i said above, AFS-810 is aware of this apparent absurdity, but nothing has come out to say that what the reg says isn't what they meant.
 
Henning said:
Hmmmm, that would mean according to the interpretation given here, those planes require a high altitude endorsement to fly....
Click to expand...
Not for me. I would have been grandfathered. :rofl:

I do remember that when I went to King Air initial there was a box to check asking if you had a high altitude endorsement and I checked "no". Apparently they must have given me one, but like R&W said, that record is held by the company. That was quite a long time ago so I can't remember the details.
 
Everskyward said:
Not for me. I would have been grandfathered. :rofl:

I do remember that when I went to King Air initial there was a box to check asking if you had a high altitude endorsement and I checked "no". Apparently they must have given me one, but like R&W said, that record is held by the company. That was quite a long time ago so I can't remember the details.
Click to expand...

Same here, I've never had an endorsement for high altitude in my logbook.
 
Henning said:
Interesting that I went SIC at Express 1 in a JetStream and didn't end up with a high alt endorsement, I guess they don't sign that off till you go PIC:dunno:
Click to expand...

Well, the Jetstream service ceiling is only 25,000 anyway, so it doesn't require one.
 
Ron Levy said:
As i said above, AFS-810 is aware of this apparent absurdity, but nothing has come out to say that what the reg says isn't what they meant.
Click to expand...

Ron, I will go on record right here and say if they meant it the way you and others are interpreting it, they are IDIOTS in the way they wrote the regulation.

And I am not betting my ticket on anything because I am already covered.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ron, I will go on record right here and say if they meant it the way you and others are interpreting it, they are IDIOTS in the way they wrote the regulation.
Click to expand...
One more time -- I am not interpreting it, just reading the plain language as it is written. However, I agree that whatever it was meant to mean, it's badly written.
 
Ron Levy said:
One more time -- I am not interpreting it, just reading the plain language as it is written.
Click to expand...

Granted. But don't you EVER question what you read? Or do you always take things at face value no matter how absurd it may be?
 
But don't you EVER question what you read? Or do you always take things at face value no matter how absurd it may be?
Click to expand...

In cases involving the regulation?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Granted. But don't you EVER question what you read?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do -- who do you think told AFS-810 about the issue? But until 810 gets the wording changed, or the Chief Counsel provides an interpretation, all there is to go on is the plain language of the reg, which it seems you agree reads as discussed.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
which it seems you agree reads as discussed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah yeah. But you and I both know there are a lot of instances where what was written turned out not to be what was meant, as witnessed by official interpretation. Since the plain reading of the regulation is SO absurd, I find it incomprehensible that the FAA would ultimately find that "pressurized" does not include "pressurization" once they get around to "interpreting" it.

With that, I am done.

(Unless, of course, something is mentioned that I just HAVE to comment on. :wink2: )
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, yeah yeah. But you and I both know there are a lot of instances where what was written turned out not to be what was meant, as witnessed by official interpretation.
Click to expand...
Sure, but until the Chief Counsel speaks (or, rather, writes), you have to go with what is written. I would therefore, until an authorized FAA office (which does not include an individual FSDO inspector) says otherwise in writing, counsel anyone who is contemplating flying a V35TC or anything like that to get the endorsement just to be legally safe.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sure, but until the Chief Counsel speaks (or, rather, writes), you have to go with what is written. I would therefore, until an authorized FAA office (which does not include an individual FSDO inspector) says otherwise in writing, counsel anyone who is contemplating flying a V35TC or anything like that to get the endorsement just to be legally safe.
Click to expand...

So would you consider a Region office as authorized?
 
RotorAndWing said:
So would you consider a Region office as authorized?
Click to expand...
That is between the Chief Counsel and the Regional Counsel involved, but the Chief has overruled RC interpretations before. Nevertheless, if I had it in writing from the RC, I would go with it.
 
The FAA Chief Legal Counsel is authorized by the Administrator to interpret regulation, as is the Regional Legal Counsel. National interpretations trump regional ones.

Legal interpretation of the regulation is never authorized at the FSDO level.

When it comes to interpreting and understanding the regulation, one looks first tot the Federal Register preambles, and second to the FAA Chief Legal counsel letters of interpretation. Third one addresses the plain English rendering of the regulation, and one also looks to precedent set in ALJ and Board rulings (case law and precendents).

There are a lot of wild ideas I've heard at the FSDO level; some of them are creative. Many of them are inaccurate, and often seemingly in complete ignorance of the Chief Legal Counsel interpretations.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you read it closely, you would see that one must have logged PIC time. It is to necessary that one have solo time.
Click to expand...


A bit of hair splitting, but you are correct. The only way though that I could have logged PIC time in those days as a Student Pilot, would have been solo.
 
MBDiagMan said:
A bit of hair splitting, but you are correct. The only way though that I could have logged PIC time in those days as a Student Pilot, would have been solo.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you really want to split hairs, in those days, as a Student Pilot, you were not allowed to log PIC time, even when solo. However, since then, the FAA changed the reg and said Student Pilot solo time did count as PIC time, and that PIC time would get you grandfathered for tailwheel privileges.
 
Ron Levy said:
As an inspector yourself, you know full well that you are expressly prohibited from giving interpretations of the regulations other than to quote interpretations already issued by the Chief Counsel's office. If asked to provide an interpretation, and there is no written guidance on point, you are required to elevate it for an official reading, not give your own personal opinion.
Click to expand...
And here is the letter from AFS-1. So, if you can find something in the FAQ file (which I know you can access), you can feel free to tell folks that what is written in the regulation is not what it means. However, as I've already spoken with AFS-810 about this, I'm pretty sure there is no such guidance for you to follow, and that means elevating the issue. As for developing your own interpretation personally without such guidance, that is addressed in the disclaimer at the front of the FAQ file.
 

Attachments

  • AFS1 Ltr Pt 61 and 141 FAQ.jpg
    AFS1 Ltr Pt 61 and 141 FAQ.jpg
    632 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
As an inspector yourself, you know full well that you are expressly prohibited from giving interpretations of the regulations other than to quote interpretations already issued by the Chief Counsel's office. If asked to provide an interpretation, and there is no written guidance on point, you are required to elevate it for an official reading, not give your own personal opinion.
Click to expand...


Ron Levy said:
And here is the letter from AFS-1. So, if you can find something in the FAQ file (which I know you can access), you can feel free to tell folks that what is written in the regulation is not what it means. However, as I've already spoken with AFS-810 about this, I'm pretty sure there is no such guidance for you to follow, and that means elevating the issue. As for developing your own interpretation personally without such guidance, that is addressed in the disclaimer at the front of the FAQ file.
Click to expand...

In reading this letter I fail to see where Inspectors are "expressly prohibited from giving interpretations of the regulations" as that language is not even used in the letter. Once again you are reading into a document what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

Believe it or not, not every regulation has a RC or a CC interpretation written explaining it. And I've yet to see guidance as you suggest that all inquiries of regulations must be elevated to a Regional or national level and not answered at the local level.

Ron Levy said:
However, as I've already spoken with AFS-810 about this, I'm pretty sure there is no such guidance for you to follow, and that means elevating the issue.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Once again you are reading into this what you want it mean.

Right now I'm looking at a recent memo that contains this language from AGC-200: "The office of the Chief Counsel does not respond to request for legal interpretations from FAA employees unless the program office responsible for problematic oversight of that regulation agrees that an interpretation is needed."

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top