I need to stop asking questions . . .

[Unregistered]

Never again, indeed. I am back to the old ways of asking forgiveness rather than permission. Twice this week I have tried getting clarification on what I thought to be an obvious answer. Twice I came away with the feeling I should not be asking questions.

Situation 1: Issued a Class B clearance direct to a destination which passes through a Stadium TFR. Seems to me that falls under the THE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY AND IN CONTACT WITH ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY OF FLIGHT PURPOSES clause, but ask that at the FSDO and oh my there is some serious dancing around, with no statement made with enough conviction to make me feel comfortable (either yeah or nay). Those three letters (TFR) really get people into a state these days.

Situation 2: Entry level twin for sale, one potential buyer wants to acquire it for to get her MEL. So, Mr. Insurance Underwriter, on a demo flight with me (current MEI) in the right seat, am I covered when I allow the potential buyer to manipulate the controls (to include a coached landing) so that she knows what great fun she's potentially getting into? Oh NO, that would be instruction and you are not covered. Just how do I let them see flying qualities? I have to risk everything finacially just to sell a plane? I need to shop around for a new policy.

Just nutty, I tell you.

 

[docmirror]

Here we go.

 

[poadeleted20]

Situation 1: Issued a Class B clearance direct to a destination which passes through a Stadium TFR. Seems to me that falls under the THE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY AND IN CONTACT WITH ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY OF FLIGHT PURPOSES clause, but ask that at the FSDO and oh my there is some serious dancing around, with no statement made with enough conviction to make me feel comfortable (either yeah or nay). Those three letters (TFR) really get people into a state these days.

Since it is so well stated in the NOTAM itself, why even ask that question? In any event, if you do feel the need for an answer, that's a question for the legal eagles to answer officially, not an individual FSDO Inspector. If the Inspector doesn't know the official FAA legal position, that inspector should simply say, "I don't know for sure but I'll get back to you when I do." If that's not what they say, then ask them to ask the Regional Counsel.

Situation 2: Entry level twin for sale, one potential buyer wants to acquire it for to get her MEL. So, Mr. Insurance Underwriter, on a demo flight with me (current MEI) in the right seat, am I covered when I allow the potential buyer to manipulate the controls (to include a coached landing) so that she knows what great fun she's potentially getting into? Oh NO, that would be instruction and you are not covered. Just how do I let them see flying qualities? I have to risk everything finacially just to sell a plane? I need to shop around for a new policy.

I'd take a look at my policy to be sure, although once you put them in the left seat, then I can see the insurer considering them the pilot, not you, unless your policy also covers giving training. IOW, you don't have to risk everything to sell your plane, just buy the additional coverage to give flight training in it. Or stick the non-rated party in the right seat.

Just nutty, I tell you.

The latter isn't "nutty," it's just a good business decision for the insurer. You pay them to accept risk. If you increase the risk level, it's appropriate for them to expect you to pay them more to accept that greater risk. If you really don't think there' any significant risk in putting a non-ME pilot in the left seat with you riding shotgun, then you shouldn't have a problem doing it without the insurance company being on board. If you think that's not so, then accept the financial reality of how insurance works and pay the higher premium (and cancel for a prorated rebate when you sell).

 

[wabower]

Is it fair to assume the policy on the twin excludes use for instruction? And that the reason for such exclusion is that the insurance company:

1. understands the added risk involved
2. doesn't really give a rats about whether non-rated prospective buyers get a feel for it unless they can also feel more premium dollars

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Situation 1: Issued a Class B clearance direct to a destination which passes through a Stadium TFR. Seems to me that falls under the THE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY AND IN CONTACT WITH ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY OF FLIGHT PURPOSES clause, but ask that at the FSDO and oh my there is some serious dancing around, with no statement made with enough conviction to make me feel comfortable (either yeah or nay). Those three letters (TFR) really get people into a state these days.

IFR or VFR flight? I find normally those exclusions tend to apply for IFR not VFR ops.

Situation 2: Entry level twin for sale, one potential buyer wants to acquire it for to get her MEL. So, Mr. Insurance Underwriter, on a demo flight with me (current MEI) in the right seat, am I covered when I allow the potential buyer to manipulate the controls (to include a coached landing) so that she knows what great fun she's potentially getting into? Oh NO, that would be instruction and you are not covered. Just how do I let them see flying qualities? I have to risk everything finacially just to sell a plane? I need to shop around for a new policy.
Just nutty, I tell you.

Well everyone knows insurance is a scam, this is why I never feel bad (nor will ever be able to serve on a jury for insurance) when someone pulls a scam on these guys. Even if you followed their asinine rules and something happened they would try to get out of it.

 

[poadeleted20]

IFR or VFR flight? I find normally those exclusions tend to apply for IFR not VFR ops.

IFR vs VFR is not addressed in that TFR NOTAM and not in the underlying regulation. Either you are "AUTHORIZED BY AND IN CONTACT WITH ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY OF FLIGHT PURPOSES" or you aren't. From a practical perspective, if you're getting VFR flight following, ATC will tell you if it's a problem before you get there. Just don't pop up inside that TFR or suddenly descend/turn into it without warning.

 

[frfly172]

Why would you let a potential buyer get a feel for your twin,especially if they are not rated and you have never observed their flying ability .You may want to hire a rated flight instructor to give the flight.

 

[wabower]

Well everyone knows insurance is a scam, this is why I never feel bad (nor will ever be able to serve on a jury for insurance) when someone pulls a scam on these guys. Even if you followed their asinine rules and something happened they would try to get out of it.

Please cite verifiable examples of such behavior by insurance company.

 

[bbchien]

There is definitely a subpopulation on this board who are, or are enarly enough judgment proof to take the attitude that Insurance is a ripoff, and that you have no liability when reselling your E-AB. If you are judgment proof that is quite true.

These same fellas- funny how they are pretty militant that the rules are really scams.

 

[poadeleted21]

Since it is so well stated in the NOTAM itself, why even ask that question? In any event, if you do feel the need for an answer, that's a question for the legal eagles to answer officially, not an individual FSDO Inspector. If the Inspector doesn't know the official FAA legal position, that inspector should simply say, "I don't know for sure but I'll get back to you when I do." If that's not what they say, then ask them to ask the Regional Counsel.

Please don't

I'd take a look at my policy to be sure, although once you put them in the left seat, then I can see the insurer considering them the pilot, not you, unless your policy also covers giving training. IOW, you don't have to risk everything to sell your plane, just buy the additional coverage to give flight training in it. Or stick the non-rated party in the right seat.

Why? are there any FARs that state as much? I've flown my plane right seat. Hell I asked my instructor to ride with me a few times so I could get the hang of it. I would think unless the insurance company has you sign an agreement stating as much, there's no legal ground for calling a right seat pilot an instructor?

The latter isn't "nutty," it's just a good business decision for the insurer. You pay them to accept risk. If you increase the risk level, it's appropriate for them to expect you to pay them more to accept that greater risk. If you really don't think there' any significant risk in putting a non-ME pilot in the left seat with you riding shotgun, then you shouldn't have a problem doing it without the insurance company being on board. If you think that's not so, then accept the financial reality of how insurance works and pay the higher premium (and cancel for a prorated rebate when you sell).

Why would he/she have insurance at all then?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Since it is so well stated in the NOTAM itself, why even ask that question?

Fairly obvious.

In any event, if you do feel the need for an answer, that's a question for the legal eagles to answer officially, not an individual FSDO Inspector.

Inspectors can't answer that? Really?

If the Inspector doesn't know the official FAA legal position, that inspector should simply say, "I don't know for sure but I'll get back to you when I do." If that's not what they say, then ask them to ask the Regional Counsel.

Why wouldn't you just call the RA and ask him yourself?

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Please cite verifiable examples of such behavior by insurance company.

Are you that new to the world??

Try google, type in "insurance call action suit"'or "insurance company doesn't pay out" or.... You'll get pages and pages.

Heck just this week, I paid off a loan, the bank (one of the ones that got bailed out) kept "loosing" my insurance info and force placing their insurance on it (over 2x higher then the worst quote I ever got, with only half the coverage and no liability!), this happened THREE TIMES before I just paid it off.

 

[wabower]

What kind of plane?

Are you that new to the world??

Try google, type in "insurance call action suit"'or "insurance company doesn't pay out" or.... You'll get pages and pages.

Heck just this week, I paid off a loan, the bank (one of the ones that got bailed out) kept "loosing" my insurance info and force placing their insurance on it (over 2x higher then the worst quote I ever got, with only half the coverage and no liability!), this happened THREE TIMES before I just paid it off.

 

[poadeleted20]

Please don't

Well, if you're one of those who can't stand not knowing, that's how you find out. Personally, I'm satisfied with the NOTAM as written, and feel no need to call anyone (other than ATC on the radio before I go through the TFR).

Why? are there any FARs that state as much?

Doesn't matter -- insurers can make their own rules, and I've seen plenty of policies saying the PIC must be in the left seat other than a CFI giving training to a the policy holder or additional insured pilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

Inspectors can't answer that? Really?

They should be able to, and should be referring to official guidance from HQ on such a regulatory interpretation, but apparently the folks at the OP's FSDO are unable to do that ("oh my there is some serious dancing around, with no statement made with enough conviction to make me feel comfortable (either yeah or nay)").

Why wouldn't you just call the RA and ask him yourself?

I suppose you could.

 

[Frank]

Why wouldn't you just call the RA and ask him yourself?

RA stands for Regional Administrator. I don't have any idea why anyone would do that. RAs may come from any discipline. If you want to know what the official interpretation is ask FAA Chief Counsel, although if you ask the RA, the RA is likely to ask Chief Counsel. Chief Counsel will talk to TSA and Air Traffic folks to determine what they want to do. FAA may even publish the letter of interpretation, since you won't be the last person to ask that question. If you belong to AOPA, you might see what advice they have to offer on the topic. In fact, if the question is worth asking, it could be better to have AOPA ask it, because AOPA has a regulatory affairs staff.

 

[RotorAndWing]

RA stands for Regional Administrator.

No it doesn't, it stands for Regional Attorney. Each Flight Standards Region has a legal office assigned.

I don't have any idea why anyone would do that.

Neither do I, you brought it up.

RAs may come from any discipline. If you want to know what the official interpretation is ask FAA Chief Counsel, although if you ask the RA, the RA is likely to ask Chief Counsel. Chief Counsel will talk to TSA and Air Traffic folks to determine what they want to do. FAA may even publish the letter of interpretation, since you won't be the last person to ask that question. If you belong to AOPA, you might see what advice they have to offer on the topic. In fact, if the question is worth asking, it could be better to have AOPA ask it, because AOPA has a regulatory affairs staff.

Relax, you've blown this way, way out of proportion. I suggested Ron to call the Regional Attorney rather than ask the Inspector to call him and then relay back the message.

 

[Frank]

No it doesn't, it stands for Regional Attorney. Each Flight Standards Region has a legal office assigned.




Neither do I, you brought it up.




Relax, you've blown this way, way out of proportion. I suggested Ron to call the Regional Attorney rather than ask the Inspector to call him and then relay back the message.

The attorney in the Region is the Regional Counsel. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...y_officials/RegCtr_Key_Officials/?passedOrg=R

The person in charge is the Regional Administrator: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/key_officials/

 

[RotorAndWing]

The attorney in the Region is the Regional Counsel. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...y_officials/RegCtr_Key_Officials/?passedOrg=R

The person in charge is the Regional Administrator: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/key_officials/

Whatever.

While I was working there they were referred to as Regional Attorney and Regional Manager. I worked for 2 separate regions and they used the same terminology.

 

[Frank]

Why is this important? Because getting a reliable answer usually depends on finding someone who actually has the power to speak for the agency. It helps to understand what folks do, and what titles mean. It may be annoying but that is someone else's problem. If you want an answer, whether or not you like the system of titles is irrelevant. Navigating the maze becomes important.

The title Regional Administrator carries with it some prestige, lots of responsibility, and with the responsibility, a tendency to delegate. Other modal administrations used to have either Regional Directors or Regional Administrators. In FRA the title changed from RD to RA when everyone got a promotion. In Motor Carriers, when it was part of FHWA the motor carrier person in charge was the Regional Director while the infrastructure guy in charge was the Regional Administrator, but when FMCSA was formed the top motor carrier person in the region became the Regional Administrator. In general Regional Administrator is a more prestigious term, sometimes even coming with more money. Counsel is a little more complicated. In most cases Chief Counsel likes to supervise the attorneys when they can, so even the regional attorneys usually answer to the Chief Counsel, not the RA. Further, Regional folks are usually generalists applying the rules, while the headquarters folks try to make sure everything is standardized. FAA did farm some specialties out to particular regions, so one region makes policy for the entire agency in some area, such as engine certification.

I still think your best bet for getting useful answers is to get help from the alphabet organizations like AOPA and EAA that do this stuff all the time.

 

[RotorAndWing]

. Further, Regional folks are usually generalists applying the rules, while the headquarters folks try to make sure everything is standardized.

Sorry, but I have to laugh at that one having seen and experienced it first hand.

FAA did farm some specialties out to particular regions, so one region makes policy for the entire agency in some area, such as engine certification.

Those are called "Directorates" and they are not regional even though they may be housed in a particular region.

I still think your best bet for getting useful answers is to get help from the alphabet organizations like AOPA and EAA that do this stuff all the time.

Sometimes, then sometimes not. YMMV

 

[Frank]

Sorry, but I have to laugh at that one having seen and experienced it first hand.

It is a lot better in some modes than it used to be, a whole lot better, although there is plenty of room for improvement. FAA is still pretty big with lots of layers, and that makes it kind of cumbersome compared to most other modes.

 

[poadeleted20]

You two can debate this all you want, but some time back the head of Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel agreed that they wanted legal questions about flight operations and airman certification from individual pilots to be asked of the local FSDO, which would elevate the question if there was no existing guidance on point (including the no-longer-public Part 61 FAQ file accessible by FSDO Inspectors). This direction was sent to the FSDO's in an AFS-1 letter about seven years ago.

My point was merely that Inspectors should not be hemming and hawing without giving a straight answer (as the OP suggested they had done) -- either they have the answer already on file and quote it, or they elevate the problem through the Regional Counsel. You can certainly circumvent this process by contacting the Regional Counsel directly (or even straight to the Chief Counsel), but that way you may have to wait months for an answer that is already available if you ask the FSDO and they check their files.

 

[Frank]

You two can debate this all you want, but some time back the head of Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel agreed that they wanted legal questions about flight operations and airman certification from individual pilots to be asked of the local FSDO, which would elevate the question if there was no existing guidance on point (including the no-longer-public Part 61 FAQ file accessible by FSDO Inspectors). This direction was sent to the FSDO's in an AFS-1 letter about seven years ago.

My point was merely that Inspectors should not be hemming and hawing without giving a straight answer (as the OP suggested they had done) -- either they have the answer already on file and quote it, or they elevate the problem through the Regional Counsel. You can certainly circumvent this process by contacting the Regional Counsel directly (or even straight to the Chief Counsel), but that way you may have to wait months for an answer that is already available if you ask the FSDO and they check their files.

I agree something is wrong when someone at the FSDO doesn't know how to buck a question up the line when he or she does not know the answer. OTOH, if you really want an answer, it never hurts to ask someone who is not likely to get overruled if he or she answers a question.

 

[Geico266]

There is definitely a subpopulation on this board who are, or are enarly enough judgment proof to take the attitude that Insurance is a ripoff, and that you have no liability when reselling your E-AB. If you are judgment proof that is quite true.

These same fellas- funny how they are pretty militant that the rules are really scams.

No one, I repeat, no one said there is NO liability is selling anything.

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree something is wrong when someone at the FSDO doesn't know how to buck a question up the line when he or she does not know the answer. OTOH, if you really want an answer, it never hurts to ask someone who is not likely to get overruled if he or she answers a question.

If the FSDO Inspectors follow the guidance from their big boss (AFS-1), there is no danger of them being overruled.

The public will address their questions to the appropriate field office. Inquiries that cannot be answered within the Flight Standards District Office will be elevated to the regional Flight Standards office. If, at that point, an answer still cannot be provided, the regional office may contact headquarters for resolution.

 

[Frank]

Insurance is not a scam, but it is a bet. Insurance companies are like casinos. You come, put your money down on a bet that something bad will happen to you, and you only collect if something bad does happen to you. Of course, the casino only wants to take bets where the odds are in their favor. One reason they h ave confidence in the odds favoring them is that you don't want to incur the loss that causes them to pay off on their bets. To make sure you don't feel good about wining a bet, they try to avoid "betterments" loss payouts that make you better off than you were before the loss. They will then work with you to improve your safety, implicitly improving the odds on your bet.

There is a second side to all of this, earnings on investments of reserves. Insurance companies have to maintain reserves. This is a cushion to make sure they can pay off the bets if a whole bunch of bets go bad for them at once. This can often be triggered by disasters, such as fires or hurricanes. The insurance companies invest these reserves, and earn money. If the markets are good, they want to write as much insurance as they can so they can make a lot of money on their reserves. They compete with each other on both premium charges and willingness to accept risks. When the financial markets tank, or an insurance company has made bad investments, such as AIG did with high risk mortgage based securities, the insurance companies stop writing business, because they have lower reserves. They try to limit themselves to only the best bets.

Insurers are not bad organizations. They are performing a useful function of spreading risks. No one would do that for free. If insurers try to get too much profit other insurers will enter the market and compete with them. To the extent that entry or competition is limited by law, insurers are getting unfair returns, for example title insurance in New Mexico, where price competition is prohibited, out of state insurers are kept out of the market, banks require title insurance, and the insurance only covers flaws in title in properly recorded land instruments. That is an exception. In general, there are enough insurers, entry and competition are allowed, and the returns are appropriate.

 

[wabower]

The big problem is that you can get an answer from FSDO that is later over-ruled by higher-ups and then they hang you you out to dry because you relied on the opinion from the people you were instructed to use. See the "two-phone-call" 91/135 case.

I agree something is wrong when someone at the FSDO doesn't know how to buck a question up the line when he or she does not know the answer. OTOH, if you really want an answer, it never hurts to ask someone who is not likely to get overruled if he or she answers a question.

 

[bbchien]

No one, I repeat, no one said there is NO liability is selling anything.

I seem to remember a post just after this one below, also about how the EAA's liability waivers protect you. That's really rich.

First you tell me to check with John Denver's estate because you were sure there was a successful law suit there, and there was none. Now you want me to look up some other case to try and prove another point. Ain't biting,

Adrian Davis, the builder, was cleaned for $100,000. You can keep looking for the decree, but you won't find it. I think you may have heard about "settling out of court?" Maybe not.

So there you go. Another perfectly reasonable human whose enthusiasm has clouded his perception of facts.

If one is judgement proof, then one has no liability. But that is the only condition.

 

[comanchepilot]

Here we go.

Again.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You two can debate this all you want, but some time back the head of Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel agreed that they wanted legal questions about flight operations and airman certification from individual pilots to be asked of the local FSDO, which would elevate the question if there was no existing guidance on point (including the no-longer-public Part 61 FAQ file accessible by FSDO Inspectors). This direction was sent to the FSDO's in an AFS-1 letter about seven years ago.

My point was merely that Inspectors should not be hemming and hawing without giving a straight answer (as the OP suggested they had done) -- either they have the answer already on file and quote it, or they elevate the problem through the Regional Counsel. You can certainly circumvent this process by contacting the Regional Counsel directly (or even straight to the Chief Counsel), but that way you may have to wait months for an answer that is already available if you ask the FSDO and they check their files.

Since you have never worked in the FAA and are going on what you have googled let me tell you the reality.

Go spend a week on phone desk duty at a FSDO sometime. Get ready for some of the most off the wall questions you can imagine, sometimes by people who are just bored or trying to play expert on a internet forum. I've had phone calls where I had to tell the caller I didn't have the answer readily available but I would take their number or email address and get back to them. Over half of the time they would just say "never mind" and hang up. Of course now their ammunition is "I called the FSDO and the Inspector couldn't answer the question".

I agree something is wrong when someone at the FSDO doesn't know how to buck a question up the line when he or she does not know the answer. OTOH, if you really want an answer, it never hurts to ask someone who is not likely to get overruled if he or she answers a question.

Most Inspectors don't have a problem passing a question along the line for an answer, but bear in mind those above him may not be forth coming in an answer either, and DC HQ is the worst for responding to questions from the field office.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Insurers are not bad organizations.

My step-father's first wife died in a car accident. There was a small life insurance policy on her - not much, enough to handle expenses that come up when a person dies. The St. Paul Companies agent told my step-father that the company would pay less than the insured value - counting on the fact that contesting the difference would cost more than it was worth.

Insurers are not bad organizations, but be wary of the people in them.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since you have never worked in the FAA and are going on what you have googled let me tell you the reality.

Actually, I'm going on what John Lynch and others in AFS-810 told me, and written AFS-1 policy, not something I googled off the internet. But I agree that the reality at the District level is no doubt different than HQ wishes it were.

 

[Frank]

Go spend a week on phone desk duty at a FSDO sometime. Get ready for some of the most off the wall questions you can imagine, sometimes by people who are just bored or trying to play expert on a internet forum. I've had phone calls where I had to tell the caller I didn't have the answer readily available but I would take their number or email address and get back to them. Over half of the time they would just say "never mind" and hang up. Of course now their ammunition is "I called the FSDO and the Inspector couldn't answer the question".

That does not shock me. I used to answer rule inquiries for another mode. There were some real strange ones. I even had one get angry and threaten to come down and shoot us all, and then after he calmed down, he gave me his name address and phone number. I then called FBI. My bet is he got some experience answering questions too.

Most Inspectors don't have a problem passing a question along the line for an answer, but bear in mind those above him may not be forth coming in an answer either, and DC HQ is the worst for responding to questions from the field office.

I never spent time in the field although I tried a few times to get there, and I worked out of a field office for a while. I certainly talk a lot to our field staff. My take is that their work involves some challenges that ours don't, and vice versa. I guarantee you that the experience of clearing an interpretive document involves challenges, and that is in the smaller modal agencies. Everyone up the chain believes that he or she is only earning his or her pay when he or she adds value to a document by editing it for content and "clarity." FAA has more cooks in the kitchen, and each cook adds more "value" to each document than in the other modes, unless you are talking about a high profile project like cash for clunkers, in which case even the smaller modes will have plenty of cooks available.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Actually, I'm going on what John Lynch and others in AFS-810 told me, and written AFS-1 policy, not something I googled off the internet. But I agree that the reality at the District level is no doubt different than HQ wishes it were.

HQ is staffed with people who rather not have to answer to anything and they certainly don't want their names attached to anything either.

The days of the John Lynch's are over. Everyone plays CYA these days and if CYA means don't answer, then don't expect an answer.

 

[RotorAndWing]

That does not shock me. I used to answer rule inquiries for another mode. There were some real strange ones. I even had one get angry and threaten to come down and shoot us all, and then after he calmed down, he gave me his name address and phone number. I then called FBI. My bet is he got some experience answering questions too.

:wink2: