Regulation question regarding tailwheel

Inspectors create these problems by giving their own personal interpretations of the regulations in violation of the guidance from AFS-1 when a regulation clearly says something and the inspector doesn't like what it says. In this case, the plain language is clear. If you don't think it should say what it does, your guidance is clear -- elevate through AFS-800, and if an interpretation is needed, AFS-800 will get it. Likewise, if the wording is not clear, again, you elevate it to AFS-800, because inspectors guessing or projecting their own ideas when the wording isn't clear only create more difficulty. As it said in an earlier AFS-1 memo, "Only the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel and Regional Chief Counsel provide legal interpretations."

Of course, if you are telling us that telling pilots that the reg means something other than what it clearly says is not an "interpretation," there is nothing I can do to fix that.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Of course, if you are telling us that telling pilots that the reg means something other than what it clearly says is not an "interpretation," there is nothing I can do to fix that.
Click to expand...

In this case, what the reg clearly says (Yes I will admit that a literal reading of it is pretty clear.) defies common sense.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
In this case, what the reg clearly says (Yes I will admit that a literal reading of it is pretty clear.) defies common sense.
Click to expand...
...in which case prudence suggests the Inspector involved should do what it says in the guidance from AFS-1 and elevate the matter to AFS-800 for resolution rather than take it on him/herself to come up with a his/her own personal interpretation which may or may not be a) what AFS-800 intended it to mean or b) what another inspector in another district may tell another pilot it means or c) what the Chief Counsel interprets it to mean. It's situations like this which led AFS-800 to establish the FAQ file in the first place, and for AFS-1 to issue the memos discussed above, so everyone everywhere gets the same reading on the rules.

And again, personally, for all the reasons discussed above, I think this one should be elevated to AFS-800 for resolution, including either a rewrite to make its intent clear or an official interpretation from AGC-200.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
And again, personally, for all the reasons discussed above, I think this one should be elevated to AFS-800 for resolution, including either a rewrite to make its intent clear or an official interpretation from AGC-200.
Click to expand...

So how can that be accomplished? Seems like a fix on this would be best accomplished sooner rather than later.
 
Ron Levy said:
...in which case prudence suggests the Inspector involved should do what it says in the guidance from AFS-1 and elevate the matter to AFS-800 for resolution.......
Click to expand...

Once again, you are interjecting what you think the memo says, not what it actually says.

In real life it simply doesn't work that way. In your vision of the FAA you place AFS-800 above local offices and Region offices, they aren't.

I quoted you a recent memo that clearly states if the regulation in question is problematic in nature then it's forwarded to Region who then, if they choose, can go to AGC-200 for an interpretation. No where does it say to contact AFS-800 from the local level as you keep insisting.
 
From AC 61-107A "Operations of Aircraft Above 25,000 feet MSL"

a. Although 14 CFR section 61.31(g) applies only to pilots who fly pressurized airplanes with a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower, this training is recommended for all pilots who fly at altitudes above 10,000 feet MSL.

(1) A service ceiling is the maximum height above MSL at which an airplane can maintain a rate of climb of 100 feet per minute under normal conditions.

(2) All pressurized aircraft have a specified maximum operating altitude above which operation is not permitted. This maximum operating altitude is determined by flight, structural, powerplant, functional, or equipment characteristics. An airplane's maximum operating altitude is limited to 25,000 feet or lower, unless certain airworthiness standards are met.

(3) Maximum operating altitudes and service ceilings are specified in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).

b. The training outlined in this chapter is designed primarily for single engine and light twin-engine airplanes that fly at high altitudes but do not require type ratings. The training should, however, be incorporated into type rating courses for aircraft that fly above 25,000 feet MSL if the pilot has not already received training in high-altitude flight. The training in this chapter does not encompass high-speed flight factors such as acceleration, G-forces, MACH, and turbine systems that do not apply to reciprocating engine and turboprop aircraft. Information on high-speed flight can be found in chapter 2, MACH Flight at High Altitudes.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
So how can that be accomplished? Seems like a fix on this would be best accomplished sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
The best and fastest way would be for an inspector like R&W to do it per the procedures outlined in the memo (District to Region to HQ). Or for someone from the outside with a pipeline to the inside to shortcut the procedure. In any event, AFS-810 is aware of this particular situation; what they will do remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's really no big deal, now they just give you training and endorsement. You have time to learn more than just the basic things and IR between PP and commercial and even in the 40 prior to PP. I got my HP endorsement and rental checkout on one cross country in the 182 and I got my Complex in a Cutlass on another in the PP 40. In the before 125 IR required at the time I did a 10 hr aerobatic intro in the Avion Robin and continued renting/trading time for my Travelair for a while longer; also my ME was in there.

If you want to solo a primary student in a TW aircraft now you just sign off their TW endorsement with their solo endorsement don't you?
 
Henning said:
If you want to solo a primary student in a TW aircraft now you just sign off their TW endorsement with their solo endorsement don't you?
Click to expand...
While I am tailwheel qualified by grandfathering, I am not proficient enough to give primary training in a TW aircraft. However, if I were more proficient and were giving such training, yes, I would enter and sign the 61.31(i) endorsement along with the 61.87 endorsements for any Student Pilot trainee of mine to solo a tailwheel airplane.
 
Ron Levy said:
The best and fastest way would be for an inspector like R&W to do it per the procedures outlined in the memo (District to Region to HQ). Or for someone from the outside with a pipeline to the inside to shortcut the procedure. In any event, AFS-810 is aware of this particular situation; what they will do remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
To me, the memo seems to say that questions can be answered at the FSDO level. It's only when a question cannot be answered that it is elevated to a higher level.

20120529-fs9k6bhu8p7itx2r3ksx4m1dm4.jpg
 
Ron Levy said:
Inspectors create these problems by giving their own personal interpretations of the regulations in violation of the guidance from AFS-1 when a regulation clearly says something and the inspector doesn't like what it says. In this case, the plain language is clear.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is also idiotic, the inspector prevents further acts from causing one idiocy to lead to anther by not playing. Well done, you have earned your taxpayer funded wage IMO.
 
Everskyward said:
To me, the memo seems to say that questions can be answered at the FSDO level. It's only when a question cannot be answered that it is elevated to a higher level.

20120529-fs9k6bhu8p7itx2r3ksx4m1dm4.jpg
Click to expand...
The problem occurs when the inspector relies on his/her own personal interpretation of a reg rather than published guidance. Absent published guidance, inspectors are really not supposed to tell people that the regs mean anything other than what they actually say. In this case, the reg says what it says, and to say it means something else is to be providing an "interpretation," which by direction from the top is only done by an FAA Counsel at the Regional or HQ level, not anyone at the FSDO level.

Now, in this case, R&W has identified published guidance which says the reg means something other than what it says. OTOH, I know that the folks to whom this question would be referred in due course if a FSDO inquiry were initiated believe the reg means what it says. Thus, there is a contradiction which should be resolved by AFS-800 (with or without the Chief Counsel's involvement -- that's 800's call), and any inspector who gives a personal reading without elevating the matter is only making the problem worse.
 
Everskyward said:
To me, the memo seems to say that questions can be answered at the FSDO level. It's only when a question cannot be answered that it is elevated to a higher level.

20120529-fs9k6bhu8p7itx2r3ksx4m1dm4.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting take and perspective there. It's your option to accept the ruling or elevate it, who would have thought that it could possibly happen...:rofl::rofl::rofl: (Done in my best Basil Faulty.)
 
Henning said:
Interesting take and perspective there. It's your option to accept the ruling or elevate it, who would have thought that it could possibly happen...:rofl::rofl::rofl: (Done in my best Basil Faulty.)
Click to expand...
Haha. If you agree with the FSDO you accept it. If you disagree you elevate it. :D
 
Everskyward said:
Haha. If you agree with the FSDO you accept it. If you disagree you elevate it. :D
Click to expand...
That's a great solution until you get to the next District, and they say otherwise and the FAA Counsel agrees with them. That's why HQ doesn't want individual inspectors giving interpretations to the public. In any event, it's the inspector who's supposed to elevate it, not the inquiring public.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's a great solution until you get to the next District, and they say otherwise and the FAA Counsel agrees with them. That's why HQ doesn't want individual inspectors giving interpretations to the public. In any event, it's the inspector who's supposed to elevate it, not the inquiring public.
Click to expand...

The problem with part 6? questions is very much like part 43 questions sent to FSDO. the inspectors are not allowed to make decisions and the FSDO won't. So the question is sent up line and the chief justice won't hear most subjects.
 
RotorAndWing said:
a. Although 14 CFR section 61.31(g) applies only to pilots who fly pressurized airplanes with a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude above 25,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower, this training is recommended for all pilots who fly at altitudes above 10,000 feet MSL...
Click to expand...

That passage from the AC certainly makes it clear that the parenthetical "an aircraft that has a service ceiling or maximum operating altitude, whichever is lower, above 25,000 feet MSL," was intended to limit the scope of 61.31(g), not provide a definition of "pressurized aircraft."

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have heard that it is a principle of legal interpretation that one part of the text of a statute or regulation must not be construed in a way that makes another part of it meaningless. If that's correct, then construing this parenthetical phrase as a definition is not tenable, because doing so would render the word "pressurized" meaningless in the earlier portion of the same sentence, as well as in the heading. Construing the phrase as limiting the scope of the regulation does not suffer from that problem.
 
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...

I have a feeling that if the FAA wanted you to be schooling their inspectors on how to do their jobs, they would have put you on the payroll.
 
I have a feeling that if the FAA wanted you to be schooling their inspectors on how to do their jobs, they would have put you on the payroll.
Click to expand...

That's really irrelevant.

An inspector at the FSDO level has no authority to interpret the regulation. If you obtain a letter from the local FSDO that tells you that you can do something, it offers no protection if the advice is wrong. You'll often hear people say "get it in writing," but even in writing from the FSDO level, the counsel you may receive offers no legal defense. You can't find yourself in violation, for example, and say "Inspector XXX told me it was okay. Here's the letter." That just won't fly.

Inspectors are known to be wildly wrong in some cases. I've met a number of inspectors with a very poor understanding of the regulation. It's part of the reason that we have legal interpretations and other means of understanding the regulation. The person charged with the regulation, it's maintenance and interpretation, and administration of the program is the FAA Administrator. The Administrator designates certain offices and personnel to provide interpretations of the regulation, and these are the Chief Legal Counsel and Regional legal counsel. Those letters and interpretations are defensible in administrative court, before an ALJ.

What one inspector tells you at one FSDO may be unacceptable to an inspector at another FSDO. Pilots have suffered enforcement action in the past when working off what they were told by one inspector, only to be busted by another. A statement by an inspector isn't a defense, even if in writing. The inspector doesn't have the authority to interpret the regulation, and ignorance of the regulation isn't a defense.

Your assertion that one has no business telling the FAA how to conduct it's business is utterly wrong. Most certainly we do. I've seen a lot of unrighteous dominion taking place by inspectors in the past; people who let a little authority go to their heads. We all remember the Bob Hoover saga, and there are numerous cases out there involving attempted enforcement action by inspectors that's struck down; the FAA loses all the time. Simply because an inspector says this or that doesn't make it so, and most certainly we should not simply lay down and roll over because we are told something by an inspector.

I've known some very good personnel working for the FAA, but I've known a lot more who are only there because they couldn't make it in the private industry. I know one individual, for example, who is presently an inspector who has wrecked or damaged numerous airplanes. Another who was fired by an operator for whom I worked, and moved on to another where he was fired, both times for nearly killing people. He's now an inspector, and one of the biggest idiots I've ever met in the business. This doesn't make a ringing indictment on the FAA nor on individual inspectors, but certainly don't ever take a Form 110a and an inspector credential as a statement of anything but employment.

Inspectors can initiate enforcement action; they cannot provide a legally binding interpretation of the regulation, nor issue statements of policy on behalf of the Administrator.
 
I don't doubt that inspectors can give incorrect interpretations, and personally, I don't rely on unpublished interpretations from any level of the FAA, but if people think that inspectors shouldn't answer questions on the meaning of regulations, then they should take it up with FAA management, not try to play the role of that employee's supervisor.

In this case, the inspector involved has backed up his interpretation of the regulation with an FAA publication. Unlike the regulation, the published advisory circular is unambiguous, and that's good enough for me.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't doubt that inspectors can give incorrect interpretations, and personally, I don't rely on unpublished interpretations from any level of the FAA, but if people think that inspectors shouldn't answer questions on the meaning of regulations, then they should take it up with FAA management, not try to play the role of that employee's supervisor.
Click to expand...
Inspectors are indeed permitted to give such answers, but not to make them up themselves. That's why they have access to the FAQ file and the Counsel's interpretations.

In this case, the inspector involved has backed up his interpretation of the regulation with an FAA publication. Unlike the regulation, the published advisory circular is unambiguous, and that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...
The only problem is that the Chief Counsel has stated in the past that where guidance material conflicts with the regulation, the regulation is controlling, and this appears to be such a case. The only sure way to get a reliable answer is for the Inspector queried to elevate it through Region citing the apparently conflicting and confusing publications.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
In this case, what the reg clearly says (Yes I will admit that a literal reading of it is pretty clear.) defies common sense.
Click to expand...

I fully agree.

But I just recently read a government contract document that says in one paragraph all work is to be performed at the government site. In the very next paragraph it says all work is supposed to be performed at the contractor site. And there's nothing in either paragraph that calls out different "batches" of work.

So, until the contracting officer issues a letter clarifying which it is, nobody can work on that particular task, because the company (not mine) lawyers advise that any work that's done might not be paid for. And the government client is mad because their timeline is slipping away while they wait for the CO to issue the letter.
 
Bureaucracies hang themselves in their own morass of paperwork and red tape all the time. Is this actually a surprise to anyone?
 
I don't doubt that inspectors can give incorrect interpretations, and personally, I don't rely on unpublished interpretations from any level of the FAA, but if people think that inspectors shouldn't answer questions on the meaning of regulations, then they should take it up with FAA management, not try to play the role of that employee's supervisor.
Click to expand...

The inspector may give you his opinion. He may not interpret the regulation. He or she may only apply it as it's been interpreted elsewhere, by authoritative sources. The opinion of the inspector regarding the regulation carries no more weight than your opinion, or mine. The inspector may initiate enforcement action, but can't see it through. He or she begins the paperwork, and it goes on from there.

Certainly an inspector should answer questions, and most certainly people should understand that the answers they receive do not carry the weight of authority, but of opinion only, and are not defensible or supportive when it comes to enforcement action.

As a tax payer, most certainly we have the rights and responsibilities to question the FAA's direction. Nobody is telling the inspector what time to show up for work. Nobody is telling him which tie to wear, or how to process an 8710. When it comes to defining the regulation, however, it's not within the scope of the inspector's authority (or job description) to provide a legally binding interpretation, and therefore anything which is proffered is either opinion or an observation based on experience.

There are sources of authority to which one should look. Those sources will not be found at the FSDO level.
 
Ron Levy said:
The only problem is that the Chief Counsel has stated in the past that where guidance material conflicts with the regulation, the regulation is controlling, and this appears to be such a case. The only sure way to get a reliable answer is for the Inspector queried to elevate it through Region citing the apparently conflicting and confusing publications.
Click to expand...

Is the FAA really so two-faced that they bring enforcement actions against pilots for following their own PUBLISHED guidance? If so, then I'd better stop making 45 degree entries to the pattern, because the regulations clearly say that all turns must be made to the left.
 
Palmpilot said:
Is the FAA really so two-faced that they bring enforcement actions against pilots for following their own PUBLISHED guidance? If so, then I'd better stop making 45 degree entries to the pattern, because the regulations clearly say that all turns must be made to the left.
Click to expand...
Since the regulation doesn't say anything about turns to the pattern, only turns in the pattern, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the regulation doesn't say anything about turns to the pattern, only turns in the pattern, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Click to expand...

The regulation doesn't even mention the pattern. It says "when approaching to land." The reason I have never worried about it is because of published FAA guidance that is not in the regulations nor covered in a Chief Counsel opinion until recently.

And you still haven't answered my question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top