Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:14:29 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.1) with ESMTP id 1888317 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:08:05 -0500 Received: from Epijk@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.c1.2ad8f47d (4529) for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:07:51 -0500 (EST) From: Epijk@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:07:51 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: flight instruction in new Lancairs X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c1.2ad8f47d.2b1663f7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 234 --part1_c1.2ad8f47d.2b1663f7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/27/2002 6:28:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, JPKleber@aol.com writes: > Keep in mind Advisory Circulars are NOT regulatory. They are only advisory > as their name implies. John: I think I addressed that fact in a paragraph subsequent to the one you quoted above. Here it is again: Granted that the AC does not have the same impact as an FAR. Nonetheless, I think it would be very persuasive argument against a defendant in a civil action or an FAA "administrative action". I think you'd be sliding downhill fast if you tried the "...its not regulatory..." argument in front of an ALJ during an enforcement hearing prompted by the investigation of an accident during the test flight period. (And you'd be amazed how much is revealed about what REALLY happened during isolated interviewing of each involved party.) In a message dated 11/27/2002 6:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, Harry League writes: > Could it not be interpreted that the training is not "Flight > instruction" but rather IVP familiarization? Gosh, Harry, that sounds an awful lot as if it depends on the meaning of the word "IS". As I said, you can quibble about the meaning of "flight test" when you're rationalizing your behavior to yourself, but the Feds aren't very receptive to rationalization. If you doubt that, read some of the procedings of actions against pilots. Also read the AC: The context of paragraph 13 is pretty unequivocal. No argument that you can get away with it more often than not. That's not the point. The probability is also high that on most flights you will have no need for insurance too. Does that mean you don't need it? That's entirely your call. Just keep in mind that an FAA or NTSB hearing ain't like traffic court. Without ever being explicitly stated, the burden of proof IS ON THE DEFENDANT, not on the government. That means that you enter into one of those procedings spring-loaded toward losing. Now consider the post-crash interviews with you and your "essential data-taker". Q: OK, Mr. PIC, you say the guy in the right seat was only there to gather data? A: YUP. Q: Is it just a coincidence that you are a CFI with several hundred hours time-in-type and have transitioned several other L4 owners into their aircraft, and that your training just happens to satisfy insurance company requirments? A: YUP. Q: OK, let's see your (a) test flight plan, (b) the test flight card for the accident flight and (c) all the data the guy in the right seat collected on all flights up to the accident. A: (fill this one in yourself) Q: Just what portion of the flight test plan were you doing during the 27 T&G landings conducted just prior to the accident? A: (fill this one in yourself too) Q: Now we'll playback the tower recordings from the half hour preceding the accident. Would you care to explain this segment:...................... etc. See the point? Jack Kane --part1_c1.2ad8f47d.2b1663f7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/27/2002 6:28:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, JPKleber@aol.com writes:

Keep in mind Advisory Circulars are NOT regulatory.  They are only advisory as their name implies.


John:
I think I addressed that fact in a paragraph subsequent to the one you quoted above. Here it is again:

Granted that the AC does not have the same impact as an FAR. Nonetheless, I think it would be very persuasive argument against a defendant in a civil action or an FAA "administrative action".

I think you'd be sliding downhill fast if you tried the "...its not regulatory..." argument in front of an ALJ during an enforcement hearing prompted by the investigation of an accident during the test flight period. (And you'd be amazed how much is revealed about what REALLY happened during isolated interviewing of each involved party.)

In a message dated 11/27/2002 6:24:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Harry League <harryleague@attbi.com> writes:

Could it not be interpreted that the training is not "Flight
instruction" but rather IVP familiarization?


Gosh, Harry, that sounds an awful lot as if it depends on the meaning of the word "IS".

As I said, you can quibble about the meaning of "flight test" when you're rationalizing your behavior to yourself, but the Feds aren't very receptive to rationalization. If you doubt that, read some of the procedings of actions against pilots. Also read the AC: The context of paragraph 13 is pretty unequivocal. 

No argument that you can get away with it more often than not. That's not the point. The probability is also high that on most flights you will have no need for insurance too. Does that mean you don't need it? That's entirely your call.

Just keep in mind that an FAA or NTSB hearing ain't like traffic court. Without ever being explicitly stated, the burden of proof IS ON THE DEFENDANT, not on the government. That means that you enter into one of those procedings spring-loaded toward losing.

Now consider the post-crash interviews with you and your "essential data-taker".
Q: OK, Mr. PIC, you say the guy in the right seat was only there to gather data?
A: YUP.
Q: Is it just a coincidence that you are a CFI with several hundred hours time-in-type and have transitioned several other L4 owners into their aircraft, and that your training just happens to satisfy insurance company requirments?
A: YUP.
Q: OK, let's see your (a) test flight plan, (b) the test flight card for the accident flight and (c) all the data the guy in the right seat collected on all flights up to the accident.
A: (fill this one in yourself)
Q: Just what portion of the flight test plan were you doing during the 27 T&G landings conducted just prior to the accident?
A: (fill this one in yourself too)
Q: Now we'll playback the tower recordings from the half hour preceding the accident. Would you care to explain this segment:......................
etc.

See the point?
Jack Kane


 --part1_c1.2ad8f47d.2b1663f7_boundary--