Do you think they make up rules?
Do you think they make up rules?
I agree -- but I'd still like to see what the FAA wrote to ALPA, as that would contain the FAA's logic in making this interpretation.
Let's see, ALPA has a legal department that is probably one of the best when it comes to Aviation legal matters. Somehow I don't think that ALPA "makes things up" without discussing with the FAA legal.
Better yet, ask the FAA -- it's their rule, and their interpretation. Any interpretation by ALPA's attorneys by themselves would carry little weight before the courts if the FAA didn't agree.
If I really want to know what the FAA thinks, I'll call the FAA.
What I found was this, which says
It makes none of the distinctions about 135 or 121 or 91K which people suggested above. Further, since a CFI is in many cases a required crewmember and is being paid for his/her services, that suggests this time is "other commercial flying" (even if s/he is not required to have a Second Class medical by 14 CFR 61.23) for the purposes of 14 CFR 121.471. I can find no further FAA definition of this term for this purpose.
Agreed. But most likely we'll see what's above, which will be a Levy "interpretation" of a CC letter.
No sense in talking directly to the parties involved(such as ALPA)
"What's above" is a Chief Counsel letter which does not say what the folks above have been saying -- no interpretation necessary, just reading the letter. If there's something newer and more restrictive about what "other commercial flying" means, I'm not finding it on the Chief Counsel's web site. Hence, my interest in the root source of the information quoted above, especially this part:
...which does not cite any FAA document, interpretation, letter, or regulation.
Unless it's something they made up on their own, it may well be what I want to hear. If you know the right person there to ask, please share.
Here it is, Greg...and they do say in this interpretation that Flight Instruction IS commercial flying. Which would seem to contradict what was said in the Fretwell letter.
I'm confused...and it ain't the first time
I'm not planning to join ALPA just to get the answer to this question.
Actually, what they say is that flight instruction for compensation is "other commercial flying" in the context of duty time limits for commercial operations. That definition is limited to that context, just as the issue of what level of medical certification is required to give flight training is limited to the context of 14 CFR 61.23. The FAA Chief Counsel has long made clear that these letters apply only to the question/regulation they discuss, and not to other questions or other regulations not asked or discussed.Here it is, Greg...and they do say in this interpretation that Flight Instruction IS commercial flying. Which would seem to contradict what was said in the Fretwell letter.
I'm confused...and it ain't the first time
So which of you ALPA members is going to call the number R&W posted and tell their attorneys they need to read paragraph 2 of the Martindell letter?
As I said above, I see no contradiction between the two FAA letters. I don't see how one can say there's a contradiction when the FAA give two different definitions for two different phrases used in two different regulations. One involves an interpretation of 14 CFR 61.23 on medical certificates, and the other involves interpretation of Part 121/135 regulations on crew duty time. Different contexts (Part 121/135 duty time versus need for a medical certificate) and different phrases ("exercising privileges of a commercial pilot certificate" versus "other commercial flying"), so it's not surprising to me that the definitions are different.
Doesn't affect me, so I don't really care, but if one of you folks follows ALPA's Q66 guidance by not counting paid off-airline-duty flight instructor time against your Part 121 flight time limits, you could be in violation of the FAA's interpretation of its own regulations, and that's not a place I'd want to be.