“Levy Interpretation” overtuned

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by JimNtexas, Sep 18, 2013.

  1. JimNtexas

    JimNtexas Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim - In Texas!
    The FAA has taken the unusual step of issuing a change to part 61 without the normal comment period.

    Effective November 15 the so called 'Levy Interpretation' issued by the notorious FAA Chief Counsel's office is overturned. The new change to part 61

    Aviation Week

    Change to part 61

    It only took five years for this change to happen.

    What needs to happen now is:

    1) The FAA needs to start charging people for chief counsel opinions, based on the number of hours the counsel requires to research and answer the question.

    2) Chief Counsel opinions should be issued as drafts with a comment period. In order to be come official the Administrator should be required to review the comments and then either approve or disapprove the interpretation.
     
  2. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    It's actually the "Levy Regulation" -- I put the flea in the ear of the guy recently put in charge of that. He said it was absurd the way it was, but it took him a while to get it fixed. Isn't it nice to see that reasonability is seeping into the FAA?
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  3. JimNtexas

    JimNtexas Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim - In Texas!
    That is indeed nice. Sadly, I suspect the Counsel has many more absurd answers just waiting for someone to ask a question to which they can't stand the answer.
     
  4. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Perhaps. If you read those Part 61 interpretations, they always say at the end that their answer was coordinated with AFS-800. The new head of AFS-800 was the driver for this rule change. I suspect that if some of these past interpretations were coordinated with AFS-800 today, many of them would come out differently. But as noted, it's not easy to change an interpretation without changing a reg, and that takes time, so correcting past interpretations is a difficult and time-consuming task. I'm just hoping that in the future, when AGC-200 calls AFS-800 and asks what a reg is supposed to mean, they'll get more reasonable answers than in the past so we don't have to rewrite the rules to do something reasonable.
     
  5. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    You know what would be nice?

    If when you hit that interpretation letter on the FAA site there was a note that it had been superseded by subsequent regulatory amendment...just so someone down the line doesn't use the letter to win an argument at a pilot bar!
     
  6. RotorAndWing

    RotorAndWing Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,496
    Location:
    Other side of the world
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rotor&Wing
    Most of the staff in -800 don't have a clue. It boggles the mind that the CC would even consider asking those guys to clarify anything. :nonod:
     
  7. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    Like the extension of the medical, it appears to be fully retroactive too, so if you did a CFI checkride in September of 2011, it's good for your FR today.
     
  8. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    I've known two of them personally for a long time, and one of them is now the boss -- and he's the one who pushed this one through, so maybe things are better now than you thought.
     
  9. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,614
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    This opinion change was really improper. The existing reg clearly supports the previous opinion and the reg should have been re-written to reflect the change.
     
  10. RotorAndWing

    RotorAndWing Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,496
    Location:
    Other side of the world
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rotor&Wing
    Two very good friends of mine worked up there, one was in my String class. The horror stories were endless. HQ has always had a problem attracting people to take jobs there because no one wants to live and work in DC or play the silly politics that are endless in HQ.

    Personal experience by many in the field dealing with -800 is less than favorable. Like I said, the CC actually depending on those guys to give an interpretation is comical at best.
     
  11. HPNPilot1200

    HPNPilot1200 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,706
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jason
    Wait...FAA creating policy that makes sense. Hold the phone! :yikes:
     
  12. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    Um...that's precisely what they did.
     
  13. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    8,110
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Excellent.

    I for one though the opinion saying "no" was correct based on the regulation as it existed, even though it was, practically speaking, pretty stupid. Nice to see the change.

    I'll be looking forward to reading the official publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
  14. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    Concur.

    Interpreted the reg correctly, and now taking the proper steps to fix the problem.
     
  15. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    8,110
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
  16. dmspilot

    dmspilot En-Route

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,710
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    dmspilot
    The effective date is November 15. I just did a CFI checkride and my flight review currency expires at the end of October. I guess I can either get a flight review or not fly between Nov. 1st and Nov. 14th.
     
  17. wabower

    wabower Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,017
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Wayne
    Mangiamele next?

     
  18. gismo

    gismo Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Messages:
    12,676
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iGismo
    Please, please, please????
     
  19. matthammer

    matthammer Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Princeton, N.J.
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Matt Hammer
    So let me get this straight... when I meet up with an inspector in a week to get my gold seal, I'll be good for another 24 months before I need another FR? Online FIRC's count, too? That might almost be going too far. I could easily see some folks taking advantage of that by taking an online FIRC every two years and hardly ever touching an airplane.
     
  20. bbchien

    bbchien Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,122
    Location:
    Bolingbrook, IL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bruce C
    Did you read it, Matt? It says PRACTICAL test.....
     
  21. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    This is a re-write of the regulation.
     
  22. bbchien

    bbchien Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,122
    Location:
    Bolingbrook, IL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Bruce C
    ...complete with comment period....
     
  23. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    Nope.

    It has to wait for time to pass after publication in the Federal Register for it to take effect, but they bypassed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this and went straight to a Direct Final Rule, so no comment period.
     
  24. flyingron

    flyingron Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    14,937
    Location:
    Catawba, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    FlyingRon
    Yes, if they believe the change just fixes a wording problem they can just publish it. When I submitted my petition to fix "night" in 1.1, they just published the fix without comment.
     
  25. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    8,110
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    Nope. There is a comment period. Just works differently with a "direct" rule than it does with a proposed rule:

    ==============================
    Submit comments on or before October 16, 2013. If the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, the FAA will advise the public by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of this direct final rule. This document may withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part.
    ==============================
     
  26. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    I stand corrected.