It's always fun to read the FARs to figure out how everyone in an A380 can log PIC time. Or is it every one but the last guy in the last row by the lav?
Is there ever a situation where the Part-1 PIC can't log PIC time under Part 61? Inquiring minds with too much time on their hands want to know?
There are certainly odd corners of the LSA regulations in to which we can explore the edges of the LSA design envelopes. And we can have endless fun figuring out what conditions constitute 'known icing'. The list of fun with regs goes on and on.
These are all good questions and should be discussed by pilots.
There is one rule you really don't want to break:
Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.
Chief counsel letters are not the stone tablets from God that some folks think they are. When you write the chief counsel realize that your letter will really be answered by a 26 year old recent law school graduate who's grades couldn't get her in to a big firm. She's never been anywhere on a airport other than the passenger terminal and the big aluminum tube.
She has every incentive to interpret the actual law in the most restrictive way imaginable.
Nobody in the government has ever been demoted for trying to increase the power of the government.
When she gives you the answer you didn't want to hear, now you have three choices:
1) Bend over, grab you ankles, and say 'please mistress may I have another'.
2) Hire your own lawyer to write the interpretation you wanted. Go to a person called a 'judge', who's is really the only person in the government with the actual authority to decide what the words actually mean. The judge isn't there to answer hypothetical questions, you'll first have to show how the FAA's incorrect reading of the law has injured you personally in some way. If you can do that, then you may ask his honor the question. His answer actually means something.
3) Disregard the letter for the obvious piece of crap that some of them are and get on with your life. Remember, the Chief Counsel letter's is one GS-12's opinion with no actual force of law at all behind it.
Just realize that if the FAA ever takes official notice of some action of yours related to the question you foolishly asked the FAA then you'll need to be ready hire a lawyer to write his/your version of the law means, and then take your lawyer's letter and their lawyer's letter to a judge, who will decide who was really correct. Real judges are the only people in our system who really have the authority to say what the words of the law mean.
From what I can see the FAA/NTSB administrative law judge system is run by graduates of the Pyongyang School of Law. So you will face an expensive route to get to a real judge if your interpretation differs from that of the FAA's lawyer.
I understand the recent pilot bill of rights may have fixed some of the more outrageous practices of the NTSB administrative law system. I hope so.
In the meantime,
Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.
Asking the FAA legal staff a written question to which you/I/we can't stand the answer is paying Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chamber!
I'm not a lawyer, but I am an Enrolled Agent so I am familiar with how we get official answers to questions about tax law. These same kinds of questions come up in tax law all the time, what with the FARs being a model of simplicity and clarity compared to the tax code.
One FAR I'd like to see is for the FAA to borrow from the IRS is the concept of a 'private letter ruling'. If a person or entity feels strongly that their lawyer's interpretation of tax law is correct then they pay a fee and get to ask their question.
They get an answer from the senior IRS legal staff. This answer will be binding on whatever revenue officer is directly concerned with the taxpayer's case. If it is the answer the questioner wanted then everyone's happy, except maybe the revenue officer who had a different interpretation of the tax code.
If the IRS commissioner doesn't like the PLR then he can start a real legal process to get it overturned, or if he likes the PLR it can made into real precedent. Either way, other parties will have the chance to present their interpretations to a judge if they care to before the PLR is applied to tax payers other than the questioner.
If the private letter ruling is not the answer the questioner wanted then their next stop is Tax Court, where they only people who really can say with authority what the words of the law mean will look at the letters from both sets of lawyers and tell them what the correct answer is.
The nice thing is that a 'private letter ruling' is not precedent. They don't establish a rule for anyone but the entity that asked the question.
If the FAA had private letter rulings then that south Florida flight school that fills a 500 seat A380 with Asian and European flight students and 200 hour CFI's and wants to let everyone on the airplane log PIC could ask for a private letter ruling on their Part 61 interpretation without muddying the waters for every pilot in America.
And the question would be important enough to the asker to justify paying a fee for the answer.
Tax Court is very user friendly, in particular it is very friendly to the taxpayer with no lawyer. It is the only court I know of in which non-law school graduates can represent clients.
The tax code itself is a cosmic joke, but the Tax Court system is a model of user-friendliness. I wish we had a aviation court system that was similarly configured.
Is there ever a situation where the Part-1 PIC can't log PIC time under Part 61? Inquiring minds with too much time on their hands want to know?
There are certainly odd corners of the LSA regulations in to which we can explore the edges of the LSA design envelopes. And we can have endless fun figuring out what conditions constitute 'known icing'. The list of fun with regs goes on and on.
These are all good questions and should be discussed by pilots.
There is one rule you really don't want to break:
Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.
Chief counsel letters are not the stone tablets from God that some folks think they are. When you write the chief counsel realize that your letter will really be answered by a 26 year old recent law school graduate who's grades couldn't get her in to a big firm. She's never been anywhere on a airport other than the passenger terminal and the big aluminum tube.
She has every incentive to interpret the actual law in the most restrictive way imaginable.
Nobody in the government has ever been demoted for trying to increase the power of the government.
When she gives you the answer you didn't want to hear, now you have three choices:
1) Bend over, grab you ankles, and say 'please mistress may I have another'.
2) Hire your own lawyer to write the interpretation you wanted. Go to a person called a 'judge', who's is really the only person in the government with the actual authority to decide what the words actually mean. The judge isn't there to answer hypothetical questions, you'll first have to show how the FAA's incorrect reading of the law has injured you personally in some way. If you can do that, then you may ask his honor the question. His answer actually means something.
3) Disregard the letter for the obvious piece of crap that some of them are and get on with your life. Remember, the Chief Counsel letter's is one GS-12's opinion with no actual force of law at all behind it.
Just realize that if the FAA ever takes official notice of some action of yours related to the question you foolishly asked the FAA then you'll need to be ready hire a lawyer to write his/your version of the law means, and then take your lawyer's letter and their lawyer's letter to a judge, who will decide who was really correct. Real judges are the only people in our system who really have the authority to say what the words of the law mean.
From what I can see the FAA/NTSB administrative law judge system is run by graduates of the Pyongyang School of Law. So you will face an expensive route to get to a real judge if your interpretation differs from that of the FAA's lawyer.
I understand the recent pilot bill of rights may have fixed some of the more outrageous practices of the NTSB administrative law system. I hope so.
In the meantime,
Whatever you do DON'T WRITE THE FAA CHIEF COUNSEL A LETTER ASKING A QUESTION IF YOU, AND I, AND EVERY PILOT IN AMERICA CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER.
Asking the FAA legal staff a written question to which you/I/we can't stand the answer is paying Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chamber!
I'm not a lawyer, but I am an Enrolled Agent so I am familiar with how we get official answers to questions about tax law. These same kinds of questions come up in tax law all the time, what with the FARs being a model of simplicity and clarity compared to the tax code.
One FAR I'd like to see is for the FAA to borrow from the IRS is the concept of a 'private letter ruling'. If a person or entity feels strongly that their lawyer's interpretation of tax law is correct then they pay a fee and get to ask their question.
They get an answer from the senior IRS legal staff. This answer will be binding on whatever revenue officer is directly concerned with the taxpayer's case. If it is the answer the questioner wanted then everyone's happy, except maybe the revenue officer who had a different interpretation of the tax code.
If the IRS commissioner doesn't like the PLR then he can start a real legal process to get it overturned, or if he likes the PLR it can made into real precedent. Either way, other parties will have the chance to present their interpretations to a judge if they care to before the PLR is applied to tax payers other than the questioner.
If the private letter ruling is not the answer the questioner wanted then their next stop is Tax Court, where they only people who really can say with authority what the words of the law mean will look at the letters from both sets of lawyers and tell them what the correct answer is.
The nice thing is that a 'private letter ruling' is not precedent. They don't establish a rule for anyone but the entity that asked the question.
If the FAA had private letter rulings then that south Florida flight school that fills a 500 seat A380 with Asian and European flight students and 200 hour CFI's and wants to let everyone on the airplane log PIC could ask for a private letter ruling on their Part 61 interpretation without muddying the waters for every pilot in America.
And the question would be important enough to the asker to justify paying a fee for the answer.
Tax Court is very user friendly, in particular it is very friendly to the taxpayer with no lawyer. It is the only court I know of in which non-law school graduates can represent clients.
The tax code itself is a cosmic joke, but the Tax Court system is a model of user-friendliness. I wish we had a aviation court system that was similarly configured.
