Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Operating with out ELT

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    342

    Operating with out ELT

    FAR 91.207 - (3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began;

    does training operations include proficiency flight for getting current, or IFR required approaches?

    no CFIs aboard?

  2. #2
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CJR / NC26
    Posts
    732
    Training requires an authorized instructor.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    887
    While I am not sure that it is appropriate in an internet forum to advise someone to find out how far a rule can be pushed, I find no definition in the FARs that supports the restrictive interpretation that an instructor must be on board for a flight to be "training". If a CFI is on board, you can very safely say that the flight is training, I think that primary student solo flight is training and I am pretty sure that you can say that solo flight getting ready for the Commercial or any other flight test is training. So today's question is how far the definition can be stretched, and any advice offered in this forum carries no weight when speaking with an FAA employee.

    I will offer the experience that some years ago a skydiving operation not far from a FSDO flew without an ELT on board while dropping student skydivers. They were "training" student skydivers. No objections during the visits by FSDO personel that I observed.

    Fly safe,

    Wes
    N78PS
    Last edited by WLIU; 06-02-2012 at 08:29 AM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by WLIU View Post
    While I am not sure that it is appropriate in an internet forum to advise someone to find out how far a rule can be pushed, I find no definition in the FARs that supports the restrictive interpretation that an instructor must be on board for a flight to be "training".
    in most cases, correct. i did find one requirement for an instructor or evaluator to be aboard for "training".

    Code of Federal Regulations
    Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space
    Volume: 2
    Date: 2007-01-01
    Original Date: 2007-01-01
    Title: Section 61.193 - Flight instructor privileges.

    A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person's flight instructor certificate and ratings to give training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to:
    (a) A student pilot certificate;
    (b) A pilot certificate;
    (c) A flight instructor certificate;
    (d) A ground instructor certificate;
    (e) An aircraft rating;
    (f) An instrument rating;
    (g) A flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience requirement of this part;
    (h) A practical test; and
    (i) A knowledge test.


    "training AND endorsements." Not "training OR endorsements." So. I believe that if all one seeks is training not required for certification, training without an endorsement, or currency without an endorsement, one does not require the services of a CFI - with at least one exception, as i said at the top. That's the requirement for regaining instrument currency, and remediation is listed in 61.57.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by WLIU View Post
    While I am not sure that it is appropriate in an internet forum to advise someone to find out how far a rule can be pushed, I find no definition in the FARs that supports the restrictive interpretation that an instructor must be on board for a flight to be "training".
    Try Part 61, paragraph 61.1, section 7: "Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor in flight in an aircraft."

    "Received from an authorized instructor in flight" seems pretty definitive.

    Ron Wanttaja

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,424
    As for the FAA, and the elt rule, I have never heard of the FAA trying to penalize anyone on this.

    Then there is the rule of good sense. If you are flying in Florida in good weather, your life may not depend on having an elt to help locate you in the event of an accident.
    But what if you are flying in some of the vast parts of the west, and maybe in winter, or across the dessert of Az. etc?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    342
    Show me a definition of "Training" in FAR 1.1

    FAR 61
    (a) This part prescribes:
    (1) The requirements for issuing pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and ratings; the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary; and the privileges and limitations of those certificates and ratings.
    (2) The requirements for issuing pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor authorizations; the conditions under which those authorizations are necessary; and the privileges and limitations of those authorizations.
    (3) The requirements for issuing pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and ratings for persons who have taken courses approved by the Administrator under other parts of this chapter.
    (b) For the purpose of this part:

    Then the FAR lists the definitions used in this part.

    Does that mean these definitions apply to all FARs. because FAR 1.1 does not list "Training"


    Last edited by Tom Downey; 06-02-2012 at 10:58 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Downey View Post
    Show me a definition of "Training" in FAR 1.1

    FAR 61
    (a) This part prescribes:

    (b) For the purpose of this part:

    Then the FAR lists the definitions used in this part.

    Does that mean these definitions apply to all FARs. because FAR 1.1 does not list "Training"
    If the Part 61 statement *conflicted* with another part, there'd be a good argument against it. But if one is seeking how the FAA might interpret "training" for an enforcement action, this is a pretty good start. One could certainly sea-lawyer it if the FAA tries to nail you. But I suspect most pilots probably consider it a pretty good definition.

    If "training operations" can be construed to include flights when an instructor is not present, then 91.207 is unenforceable. "Of COURSE I was training... I was practicing my long-distance cross-country navigation, and the Swedish Bikini Team were onboard to monitor my ability!"

    Ron Wanttaja

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oak Harbor Wa
    Posts
    342
    Why did the FAA place that statement in the reg if they didn't mean it?
    (b) For the purpose of this part:
    And why isn't there a definition in FAR 1.1 for "Training"

  10. #10
    AcroGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    37
    When they say 'this Part' they mean only the Part you are in, specifically Part 61 in this case.
    Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right.

    EAA Chapter 14, IAC Chapter 36

    http://acrogimp.wordpress.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •