Never, ever, ask the chief counsel a question!

Tommy3 said:
Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this? Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?
Click to expand...
My comments are in the realm of information and never legal advice, but, as more than a few of the folks here know, I've had a law degree for a couple of years.
 
Tommy3 said:
Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this?
Click to expand...

All citizens are expected and required to know the laws. Whether a citizen decides to seek the help of a lawyer in meeting those expectations is a different matter.

Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?
Click to expand...
Not really relevant questions, as noted above. In most cases the first person who has to make a legal (or medical decision) is not "professionally" trained. It is the person affected. Everyone is their own "first responder" and needs "street smarts" to know when to call on those with better training.

To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt, one of the salient reasons that I avoid the Internet is that there is so much bull**** on it.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Dangerous nonsense in fact, because if people are shut up from espousing their current knowledge they might go a long time before they are informed of their erroneous knowledge and understanding.

Internet forums are actually great ways for people to learn. Things that are publicly debated make people think and see points they may not have considered. They start to learn about validating source data if they haven't already.

I suspect the problem you have is that correcting other people's misconceptions takes work. You see it, but rather than make the effort to correct it you simply snarl and give up.
 
Tommy3 said:
Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this? Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?

To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt, one of the salient reasons that I avoid the Internet is that there is so much bull**** on it.
Click to expand...

In addition to what Mark and Jim wrote, please note that this is an Internet discussion forum, not a court of law, and not a law firm.
 
midlifeflyer said:
My comments are in the realm of information and never legal advice, but, as more than a few of the folks here know, I've had a law degree for a couple of years.
Click to expand...

Seems like we should be listening to you on this matter then. Or at least, you can be expected to point us the person who does know.
 
Jim Logajan said:
All citizens are expected and required to know the laws. Whether a citizen decides to seek the help of a lawyer in meeting those expectations is a different matter.
Click to expand...

I agree that all citizens are expected to know the laws. The question is how to meet that requirement. It strikes me as a very bad idea to trust an anonymous person on the Internet. This is for two reasons. First, it stands to reason that that person is of average intelligence and average credentials, meaning that you are not receiving good advice but average advice. Second, the Internet is full of unvetted loudmouths on all sides of the debate. They are all utterly self-confident and therefore it is impossible for an observer to adjudicate between their claims. Yet by the law of non-contradiction they cannot all be right.


Jim Logajan said:
Nonsense. Dangerous nonsense in fact, because if people are shut up from espousing their current knowledge they might go a long time before they are informed of their erroneous knowledge and understanding.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "shut up from espousing", but if you mean, "shut up from expressing", it is hard for me to see why that would result in persistent error. The reason is that most people posting on the Internet are not wanting to open their views up to critical scrutiny, but rather just want to expound their thoughts in front of a captive audience.


Jim Logajan said:
Internet forums are actually great ways for people to learn. Things that are publicly debated make people think and see points they may not have considered. They start to learn about validating source data if they haven't already.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I believe that Internet forums are often terrible ways for people to learn. They are good ways when those posting in the forums are experts. For example, this is a website about aviation. We are (almost) all pilots. We have credentials (PPLs/CPLs/whatever) and experience (X number of hours in ASEL/etc.). Some have more than others, but none of us is bull****ting. We can all provide thoughtful views on, for example, crosswind landings.

But that is the extent of the expertise here. Nearly all of us have nothing interesting or meaningful to say on the other topics that pop up. Of course, there are contingent coincidences. Somebody asks a question about the law and a pilot/lawyer weighs in; someone asks about gardening and a pilot/member of the Royal Horticultural Society comments. But 99% of it is pure garbage, people engaged in rhetorical masturbation.


Jim Logajan said:
I suspect the problem you have is that correcting other people's misconceptions takes work. You see it, but rather than make the effort to correct it you simply snarl and give up.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to correct people's misconceptions when their misconceptions fall under my areas of expertise. If we were debating national security issues, for example, I might have something worthwhile to say. But we are not. And even then, I have found that people on the Internet don't really want to learn, they just want to talk.

My views along these lines derive from a broader assessment, and my intuition that, the world is becoming a dumber place; that we are preferring loudmouths over thoughtful people; the opinions of the unlettered over genuine expertise; and ignorance over intelligence. I believe that the Internet has contributed to this unfortunate trend.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How in heaven's name would any of us be violated for violating the US Code title dealing with the Coast Guard? :dunno:
Click to expand...

You can actually be violated for rules contained in every treaty the senate ever ratified, some of them obliging us to adhere to the laws of other countries. There is an NTSB case of a guy chasing around dolphins in the Turks and Caicos who was violated based on a maritime treaty provision.
 
weilke said:
You can actually be violated for rules contained in every treaty the senate ever ratified, some of them obliging us to adhere to the laws of other countries. There is an NTSB case of a guy chasing around dolphins in the Turks and Caicos who was violated based on a maritime treaty provision.
Click to expand...

Forget treaties...you can be convicted for violating foreign laws under the Lacey Act:

16 USC 3372 said:
(a) Offenses other than marking offenses
It is unlawful for any person—
(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—
(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law;
Click to expand...
 
denverpilot said:
Let us know when you have them all memorized.
Click to expand...

Heh. I don't like being expected to know all the bazillion laws - I was just repeating the demands of the "legal system." We're expected to obey the laws, ergo must exercise some level of self-expertise (even when we go in search of expertise from others.) Similar to other expectations, such as being aware of official notices of construction of hyperspace express routes.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Heh. I don't like being expected to know all the bazillion laws - I was just repeating the demands of the "legal system." We're expected to obey the laws, ergo must exercise some level of self-expertise (even when we go in search of expertise from others.) Similar to other expectations, such as being aware of official notices of construction of hyperspace express routes.
Click to expand...

It's awesome when a system demands that people who are non-professionals in the system know everything about the system...

... or we'll be happy to rent you out a professional at a fee.

Meanwhile, we'll get some of our lawyer buddies who suck at litigation, elected to public office to make some more laws, and continue to make it more obtuse.

What a racket.
 
Tommy3 said:
Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this? Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?

To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt, one of the salient reasons that I avoid the Internet is that there is so much bull**** on it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I am quite certain a few people have law degrees around here. I know of at least one.

Fortunately (for me at least), when it comes to legal issues, I can tell who knows what they are talking about, and who doesn't, regardless of whether they claim to have a law degree or not.
 
Tommy3 said:
Jim's bits of "advice" strike me as almost uniformly terrible.

First I deal with a factual error. It is not the case that young government attorneys are graduates "who's [sic] grades couldn't get her in to a big firm". Many lawyers seek the intellectual challenge of government work or enjoy the public interest side of things; they thus eschew the high pay but generally dull work of Big Law. A former girlfriend of mine took a very low paying job as a DA because that meant she'd be in court trying important cases from almost day one. I have other friends who work for white shoe firms and pull down 500k a year, but they are still doing document review and are, after years of experience, glorified copy editors. For people who aren't motivated by money there's a lot to be said for government work. Some entry attorney jobs in DOJ, for example, are considered highly elite.

Not being a lawyer myself I cannot comment on Jim's claim that regulations do not have the force of law, except to say that it strikes me, prima facie, as false. I advise no one to follow his example unless they consult first with someone knowledgeable. Evidence that he may not be the most reliable source can be found in hyperbolic statements like "FAA/NTSB administrative law judge system is run by graduates of the Pyongyang School of Law", which tell me that this is a man who likely has not traveled much, and certainly not to the ****tier parts of the world. We have it good in many ways.

I guess my take on our relationship with the FAA is that, with us as pilots and them as the regulators, there is naturally a friction, and that friction is a good thing. To use an apropos example, there is huge, obvious friction among judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, each having very different interests. But in the end the adversarial system functions well and redounds to our benefit. At the end of the day we are all on the same team--in pursuit of safe aviation--and we should respect that each has a role to play.

I do not want to be rude, but when I read these occasional bouts of anti-government apoplexy, I want their authors to take a moment to consider that, perhaps, their views are not the correct ones. There are highly experienced, highly intelligent people who do not agree with you.
Click to expand...

You need to throw some more "lawyerly" words in your post. Its not credible enough yet.

Maybe an "ad hominem" or a "pro bono" would up it just enough.
 
Tommy3 said:
Out of curiosity, could you all please describe what your qualifications are for commenting on an issue like this? Are you all administrative lawyers? Do any of you have a law degree at all?

To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt, one of the salient reasons that I avoid the Internet is that there is so much bull**** on it.
Click to expand...

Lawyering is easy. Don't need a degree or a certificate to interpret law.
 
SkyHog said:
You need to throw some more "lawyerly" words in your post. Its not credible enough yet.

Maybe an "ad hominem" or a "pro bono" would up it just enough.
Click to expand...

I think you are making my point for me.
 
Tommy3 said:
I think you are making my point for me.
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but would you please aggrandize upon your initial objective in this thread? It appears that we have commutated the original objective and begun to discuss with earnest a new direction.
 
SkyHog said:
Pardon me, but would you please aggrandize upon your initial objective in this thread? It appears that we have commutated the original objective and begun to discuss with earnest a new direction.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
 
Tommy3 said:
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

The point:

Your original post was rife with what I like to call "qualifying words." If you have ever worked in a customer support setting, you'll recognize it as the guy that doesn't say "Something's wrong with my bill, and I need your help sorting it out," instead he says "I obtained my bill from the mailbox today, and was surprised to see that the total payment you expect me to remit is much larger than I initially expected. Would you please enlighten me as to what the cause of the discrepancy is?"

In this case, you are indicating your lack of comfort with legal matters by projecting your lack of knowledge on other people, and accusing them of not being qualified to make basic assumptions based on simple English interpretations of basic regulations. To make yourself sound more qualified to project that insecurity, you are using big words that sound lawyerly, in the hopes that people will take you more seriously. I doubt you speak or type like that normally, unless you are British and work in some form of Nobleman's household.

BTW, it rarely works, and for those that do understand these types of things, it just comes off as it really is: Someone doesn't know something, and no matter how highly they try to elevate their functional language, they still don't know.

For example, anyone speaking about legal issues that uses the phrase "ipso facto" will generally fall into this category. Anyone speaking about technology that uses the term "solution" to describe a piece of technology also falls into this category.

TL;DR: You are not qualified to judge others who are comfortable with the topic, so you shouldn't try. And if you do, you shouldn't try to make yourself sound more qualified than you are.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Just to be on the safe side, some might not think a group of folks from Cornell University Law School is a reliable source, so here's the link to the most recent official pdf of Title 14 of the US Code from the Government Printing Office's FDSys website:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title14/pdf/USCODE-2011-title14.pdf
Click to expand...

Then, there is the GPO Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

Title 14
Aeronautics
and Space
 
SkyHog said:
TL;DR: You are not qualified to judge others who are comfortable with the topic, so you shouldn't try. And if you do, you shouldn't try to make yourself sound more qualified than you are.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I think you're making my point for me. I am totally unqualified to give legal advice. I have never given legal advice, and anyone interested in relying on me for legal advice is, I think, making a big mistake.

I believe that when people need advice they should go to people who have some idea what they are talking about. People know what they are talking about when they have the proper combination of (1) natural intelligence, and (2) expertise. Don't go to people who merely think that they have these things, but to people who actually do.

The problem with the Internet is that everyone is spouting off about everything, most of whom are (by force of necessity) of average intelligence and credentials. This is distressing for people who have a degree of intellectual humility.

For example: I have a few Tea Party-type friends on my Facebook page. Fine. They post the occasional anti-Obama rant. Fine. But they make sophisticated claims without *any* credentials for doing so. They post, for example, that Obama is a socialist. Maybe he is, maybe not. But they are totally unqualified to make that judgment. They have *no* idea what socialism even is. They do not know the *most basic facts of political economy*. They could not tell you, for example, the relationship between interest rates and bond prices. If you cannot say at least that then you have no business getting engaged in these debates. They haven't read Marx. They are just average people convinced that they are smart, but they are not.

Or some atheists. I'm an atheist, but I don't consider theism an idiotic doctrine. That is, I don't think it's trivially false. Why? Among other reasons, because some really ****ing smart people--Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, et al.--do not agree with. These people were smarter than I am. They are smarter than you. Even smarter atheists--like Bertrand Russell--agonized over the question of existence of God. You think that you, Mr.-I-am-a-customer-service-representative-with-only-a-BA have discovered the deepest secrets of the Universe where St. Thomas and Bertrand Russell failed? Give me a ****ing break. No. What is going on is that that person, who is so convinced of his own genius, is in fact quite ordinary, quite average.

So I guess what I am calling for is a bit of intellectual humility, and the recognition that there are some people who know what they are talking about, and the understanding that most of us do not. Mouths closed, ears open, and all that.
 
SkyHog said:
Lawyering is easy. Don't need a degree or a certificate to interpret law.
Click to expand...

Agreeing with Nick, see:
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."

Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
"The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

I'm all for intellectual humility and all, but Tommy....
EdFred said:
I tend to associate with people that have a pretty high level of intelligence, so most questions are pretty much question what most pilots would ask.

However, before GPS was common, and built into everything I did have fun with one girl, who legitimately asked how we navigated above the clouds, and I gave a very rudimentary explanation of the victor airways. She then asked how we knew when to turn. I said that at every intersection there were signs just like on the streets, and they were kept aloft by balloons. We would find the balloon, and fly towards it, read the signs, and then know which way to turn to get to the next balloon. I gave a very detailed explanation about that part of it. I don't recall if I ever let her know if that wasn't the case or not.
Click to expand...

(Most) people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. Let a little air out of your balloon, it's fine down here on terra-firma.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'm all for intellectual humility and all, but Tommy....

EdFred said:
I tend to associate with people that have a pretty high level of intelligence, so most questions are pretty much question what most pilots would ask.

However, before GPS was common, and built into everything I did have fun with one girl, who legitimately asked how we navigated above the clouds, and I gave a very rudimentary explanation of the victor airways. She then asked how we knew when to turn. I said that at every intersection there were signs just like on the streets, and they were kept aloft by balloons. We would find the balloon, and fly towards it, read the signs, and then know which way to turn to get to the next balloon. I gave a very detailed explanation about that part of it. I don't recall if I ever let her know if that wasn't the case or not.
Click to expand...

(Most) people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. Let a little air out of your balloon, it's fine down here on terra-firma.
Click to expand...


See, I have exactly the opposite intuition that you do in that case. I don't think that her asking that question makes her an idiot. We have a curious girl with no aviation experience asking reasonable questions (e.g. how do you know when to turn in a victor airway?) And a clever pilot responds with an amusing (albeit false) story about how ballons are used. Well, ballons are real enough. It doesn't strike me as that far-fetched. It may sound silly to us experienced aviators, but to a total novice? Not so much. It certainly doesn't mean she's stupid. Quite the opposite, throughout my life I have found that the people who ask the "stupid" questions tend to be the smartest of the bunch.

The loudmouths, however, are almost always the dumbest. That's been true in all my jobs, from the military to academia. So I think you should talk about things when you know them. Keep you mouth shut when you don't. Certainly don't ridicule people who are honest enough to admit their own ignorance about things. Remember that for every opinion you assert (on politics, economics, whatever), unless you are a bona fide expert there are people of immense erudition and experience who would read it and find your opinion just as dumb as you find that girl and her balloons.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Agreeing with Nick, see:
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239.
"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."

Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)
"The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

I'm all for intellectual humility and all, but Tommy....


(Most) people are smarter than you're giving them credit for. Let a little air out of your balloon, it's fine down here on terra-firma.
Click to expand...

Oh, no. I know some that are as dumb as a box of rox. Miss South Carolina, with, like, you know, like the maps, and such as, for poor people, looked like a genius, compared to them.

If you forgot....


I stay away from those people.
 
Last edited:
I skimmed through this thread, and I see a bunch of guys driving off over the horizon.

For example someone wrote "I cannot comment on Jim's claim that regulations do not have the force of law".

Of course, if you're talking about this Jim you're either lying, or can't read. I never said any such thing.

Ron claimed that FAA 'letters' "have he force of law". That's ridiculous. No one has ever been charged, given a civil penalty, or even a harsh look for 'violating' an FAA 'letter'.

The FARs are themselves are not laws either, but they are administrative rules and you can be assessed civil penalties and have action taken against your certificate for breaking them. Every FAR has a footnote listing the federal law that authorizes the FAA to promulgate the civil rule.

For the slow students in the class, lets review the difference between an FAA 'letter', and a Federal Regulation.

An intern at HQ FAA or any of the regional offices can draft a 'letter of interpretation'. She can get her boss to sign it, put it a notebook on shelve, and behold!!! An FAA 'Letter of Interpretation'!!! No review. No comment period. No hearings. No input from anyone outside the office that generates the letter. No requirement that anyone outside the office even see the letter. No standard place where the public can even be sure of finding the notebook.

Bang!!! Here's your letter that says no filing /U unless there is a VOR on the departure field.

To change a FAR, the procedure is very different. The proposed change goes in the federal register. Comments are solicited. Very often Congress gets involved. Outside parties can file requests of injunctions directly in Federal (i.e. 'real') court. The administrator puts his or her name on it.

It's a big deal to change a FAR, that's why it doesn't happen that often.

=============

Now, let us assume that JimNtexas is completely, totally and absolutely wrong in his explanation of what an FAA 'letter' really is.

For example, consider the case in which a regional FAA puts out a 'letter of interpretation' that says that when the FAR says 'known icing conditions' that really means any flight into air below 0C with a humidity great than 1%.

Let's further assume that this letter has 'the force of law'. Note that 'law' has greater force than just a mere civil regulation, like FAR91. Under this 'letter law' perhaps the penalty is 10 years in federal prison.

Don't you guys see that if FAA letters have the force of law, that makes my argument stronger, not weaker?

If an FAA letter really did have 'the force of law' then that is even more reason to

Never, ever, ask the chief counsel a question!
 
The 'FAA letters' we are talking about are not something written by an intern at the regional FAA office. They are interpretations from the office of the chief counsel. They are written by a staff attorney, coordinated with whichever department they affect and finally signed by the assistant chief counsel. The recent ones are readily available on the FAA website, older ones can be obtained from either the FAA or the library of congress.

While you can quibble about whether they have 'the force of law', they will be quoted and cited as reference whenever an airman faces enforcement through the FAA/NTSB administrative law process. Sure, you can stomp your feet and say it isn't so, but unless you figure out a way to change the established process, that is simply not the case.
 
JimNtexas said:
For example someone wrote "I cannot comment on Jim's claim that regulations do not have the force of law".

Of course, if you're talking about this Jim you're either lying, or can't read. I never said any such thing.
Click to expand...

Um, yes you did:
JimNtexas said:
'.The thing that has the force of law is called 'The U.S. Code'. The FAA can't add or subtract from that.
Click to expand...

Regulations are not in the US Code. You notice the "14 CFR" that generally precedes the FARs? That CFR stands for "Code of Federal Regulations". US Code references are like "18 USC 1001" So, yes, you clearly have said many times that the regulations do not have the force of law.

You also ignore the Administrative Policy Act (US Code) and numerous court rulings (Auer and Chevron to name two) that require the courts to give near-complete deference to FAA interpretations of the regulations, even those interpretations made after the fact, up to and including during your enforcement hearing.
 
Tommy3 said:
See, I have exactly the opposite intuition that you do in that case. I don't think that her asking that question makes her an idiot. We have a curious girl with no aviation experience asking reasonable questions (e.g. how do you know when to turn in a victor airway?) And a clever pilot responds with an amusing (albeit false) story about how ballons are used. Well, ballons are real enough. It doesn't strike me as that far-fetched. It may sound silly to us experienced aviators, but to a total novice? Not so much. It certainly doesn't mean she's stupid. Quite the opposite, throughout my life I have found that the people who ask the "stupid" questions tend to be the smartest of the bunch.

The loudmouths, however, are almost always the dumbest. That's been true in all my jobs, from the military to academia. So I think you should talk about things when you know them. Keep you mouth shut when you don't. Certainly don't ridicule people who are honest enough to admit their own ignorance about things. Remember that for every opinion you assert (on politics, economics, whatever), unless you are a bona fide expert there are people of immense erudition and experience who would read it and find your opinion just as dumb as you find that girl and her balloons.
Click to expand...
We have some agreement, however the learning styles of some people (me for example) requires active involvement for effective learning. I think I've gotten smarter by being unafraid to expose my ignorance.
 
weilke said:
The 'FAA letters' we are talking about are not something written by an intern at the regional FAA office. They are interpretations from the office of the chief counsel. They are written by a staff attorney, coordinated with whichever department they affect and finally signed by the assistant chief counsel. The recent ones are readily available on the FAA website, older ones can be obtained from either the FAA or the library of congress.

While you can quibble about whether they have 'the force of law', they will be quoted and cited as reference whenever an airman faces enforcement through the FAA/NTSB administrative law process. Sure, you can stomp your feet and say it isn't so, but unless you figure out a way to change the established process, that is simply not the case.
Click to expand...

Ooh, ahh. A staff attorney.

Definitely the right process for affecting hundreds of thousands of people.
 
Nate, who do you think should write such things? Craig Fuller?

What do you think staff is for? They do a lot more than haul coffee.

The statements that there is no review are just false. There may (or may not) be no external review, but the process does not allow a single staffer to draft a rule and have it entered into the Federal Register. There is review up the chain of command.
 
JeffDG said:
You also ignore the Administrative Policy Act (US Code) and numerous court rulings (Auer and Chevron to name two) that require the courts to give near-complete deference to FAA interpretations of the regulations, even those interpretations made after the fact, up to and including during your enforcement hearing.
Click to expand...

I can find nothing in the Administrative Procedure Act where it states that the courts must give "near-complete deference" (or any sort of deference) to an agency's interpretation. If you could point to where that deference is stated in the statute that would help - otherwise it was always my understanding that the deference was an adopted judicial rule.

Furthermore, it isn't hard to find semi-authoritative sources that agree that agency interpretations do not carry the force of law; e.g.:
"Courts have struggled to determine whether an agency rule promulgated without the APA’s machinery should have been promulgated according to the congressionally mandated procedures for making law. In addition, there is some ambiguity regarding the level of deference that courts should give to agency pronouncements that do not carry the force of law."
​
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/FRASER.pdf

I believe it was cases like Skidmore v. Swift where the courts adopted some deference, but it had to pass various court tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore_v._Swift_&_Co.
 
JeffDG said:
You also ignore the Administrative Policy Act (US Code) and numerous court rulings (Auer and Chevron to name two) that require the courts to give near-complete deference to FAA interpretations of the regulations, even those interpretations made after the fact, up to and including during your enforcement hearing.
Click to expand...

Nope, not anymore. PBOR specifically, clearly, and explicitly changed this. No deference to the FAA. The courts now make their own judgments.

This is probably the most beneficial and significant change in the PBOR.
 
JeffDG said:
Um, yes you did:


Regulations are not in the US Code. ...
Click to expand...

That's why you can't go to jail for logging PIC incorrectly or incorrectly filing a /U flight plan.

Your entire line of reasoning is orthogonal to the assertion made in the subject line of this thread.

ETA:

JeffDG said:
Um, yes you did:


You also ignore the Administrative Policy Act (US Code) and numerous court rulings (Auer and Chevron to name two) ...
Click to expand...

Again you need to brush up on your reading skills. I mentioned that at least the FAA administrative judge will consider these letters seriously. Which is why I've said several times pilots should heed any letters they know about unless they are willing to go to law with their differing interpretation.

But again, if you're right and I'm wrong, doesn't that make my argument contained in the subject of this thread stronger, not weaker?

=======

Will someone please tell me why it might be a good idea for a pilot to ask the chief counsel a question in writing?

To limit the scope of the answers, let's stipulate that this hypothetical questioner is a CFI who is not an attorney, and has not sought the advice of an aviation attorney before submitting his or her question.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Ooh, ahh. A staff attorney.

Definitely the right process for affecting hundreds of thousands of people.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that. But Jims assertions about the process were simply wrong.

In a prior discussion about the CC interpretations I said something offhand that the CC has a habit of employing really awful lawyers. My counterpart took great offense to that statement, as he had retired from that office..... :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top