Operating with out ELT

[rwanttaja]

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"

Probably because the English language provides a good-enough definition for "Training": "The action of teaching a person or animal a particular skill or type of behavior." If a student and a teacher are not present, then "training" is not occurring.

There are other definitions for "training," of course, but they fall much further from activities involved in aviation (A diet and exercise program? Pointing a heavy-caliber gun?). The definitions in 1.1 are for recurring terms that might be ambiguous; the term probably doesn't occur that much outside Part 61, and the common English definition is probably considered sufficient. Certainly one can argue...look at Bill Clinton, debating the definition of "is". But *if* the FAA were in a enforcement mood about this point (which they aren't), I doubt they'd give a sea-lawyer any slack.

Ron Wanttaja

[WLIU]

I will offer the opinion that the FAA lawyers are very picky about their use of language and will interpret the language restricting the definition to a specific part to mean exactly that.

That said, I will also point out that the language says "training", not "flight training". I believe that choice of language by a lawyer had to have been intentional. My educated guess on the "legislative history" of the rule is that the author(s) intended the requirement to cover "unstructured" flights where your route of flight might cover a large area. After all, it was the loss of a prominent politician in Alaska that caused the legislation mandating ELT's. How many readers here are old enough to remember that? So the writer of the rule likely believed that "training" flights that begin and end at the same airport would not pose the large search and rescue problem that flights to far away destinations do.

So "training" can cover pilot training, avionics (GPS approach certification) training, probably flight test, and maybe some other airborne activities where it is highly likely that you stay close to your point of origin and are easy to find if you do not land at the expected time.

It is unfortunate that the rule is actual federal law and we can not apply some modern technology and a dose of common sense to the issue. Another case of the untended consequences of "there ought to be a law".

The maybe good news is that it is only the real cheapskates that are trying to fly without an ELT. The rest of us buy the cheapest unit in the catalog and move on.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Tom Downey]

That said, I will also point out that the language says "training", not "flight training".


Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

No Ron, it says "Training Operations"

And proficiency flights are training our selves to meet a level of acceptance.

[Eric Witherspoon]

...That said, I will also point out that the language says "training", not "flight training". I believe that choice of language by a lawyer had to have been intentional. My educated guess on the "legislative history" of the rule is that the author(s) intended the requirement to cover "unstructured" flights where your route of flight might cover a large area. After all, it was the loss of a prominent politician in Alaska that caused the legislation mandating ELT's. How many readers here are old enough to remember that? So the writer of the rule likely believed that "training" flights that begin and end at the same airport would not pose the large search and rescue problem that flights to far away destinations do.

...

It is unfortunate that the rule is actual federal law and we can not apply some modern technology and a dose of common sense to the issue. Another case of the untended consequences of "there ought to be a law".

I did look up the actual law a while back, and the law itself is intended to remedy exactly what caused the problem which originated the law - a non-scheduled commercial flight that went down and was subsequently unable to be located in a reasonable amount of time. Then the FAA took that and "interpreted" the Congress's intent in writing the regulations, greatly expanding where ELT's are required, so as not to create a bunch of exceptions that would limit the requirement to what the law actually includes. What I think is funny about this is:
1. They exempted airliners from needing ELT's.
2. They included all sorts of non-commercial operations INTO needing ELT's.

So if anyone was interested, I believe the regulations could be tweaked to be A LOT more permissive. As it is, the ELT's that ARE still required in the U.S. are not nearly as useful as they used to be. So far, we have not been mandated to equip with 406 MHz ELT's - the ONLY ones that the satellites listen for anymore (121.5 satellite search was shut down about 3 years ago).

The law that includes the ELT is an add-on to the law that created OSHA - if you want to look it up.

[Mike M]

does training operations include proficiency flight for getting current, or IFR required approaches? no CFIs aboard?

i wonder if the real reason you're asking this is because you want to go flying without an ELT, or without an instructor? if it's without an ELT, try looking toward the end of 91.207. one may fly with the ELT temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement, if the aircraft records contain the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial number, and reason for removing the ELT, and a placard in view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed" and it's within 90 days after the ELT was initially removed from the aircraft. or reinstalled and the initial discrepancy signed off. then removed again for one of the other allowed reasons.

[rwanttaja]

No Ron, it says "Training Operations"

I think you meant, "Wes."

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I will offer the opinion that the FAA lawyers are very picky about their use of language and will interpret the language restricting the definition to a specific part to mean exactly that.

Nooo, I think the FAA lawyers will interpret the language in the manner that best benefits the FAA. They represent the FAA, not the people who get violations. If an FAA inspector claims that a pilot violated the FAR by not having an ELT on board, and the pilot claims he was engaged in solo training, the FAA lawyers will back the FAA inspector to the hilt. That's their job.

If the pilot appeals the ruling, an appeal would put the decision to an Administrative Law Judge.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tom Downey]

i think you meant, "wes."

ron wanttaja

oops.

[Tom Downey]

i wonder if the real reason you're asking this is because you want to go flying without an ELT,

This isn't about me, it's about the regulations.

[martymayes]

Due to a lack of enforcement cases to establish legal precedence, whether or not a flight is engaged in training operations under the rule would likely be determined on a case by case basis. However, the FAA Chief Counsel wrote an opinion on 5-6-81 for an operator and that opinion states 'if a tow plane is used to tow a glider to altitude for release then returns to the same airport as he departed, that tow plane is engaged in a "training operation" within the meaning of the reg' and not required to have an ELT. So having an authorized instructor on board is not a silver bullet qualifier.

More trivia regarding Hale Boggs, one of pax in the Alaska 310 disappearance. Hale Boggs' seat was assumed by his wife Lindy Boggs who went on to become a noted politician in her own right. A bridge crossing the Mississippi River was built and named after Hale Boggs in 1983. It's a suspended deck, cable stay design, first bridge of this type to be constructed in the US. The bridge was being built to replace a ferry boat named the MV "George Prince" which provided a river crossing between Luling/Destrehan, La. Ironically, in 1976 the ferry was struck and sunk by a Norwegian tanker while the bridge was under construction. It was the worst ferry accident in the US resulting in the loss of 78 lives and triggered numerous maritime reg changes. Since the ferry was not operating "for hire" it was exempted from a number of safety regs (go figure). Hale and Lindy Boggs youngest daughter became a Washington insider reporter, journalist and author, she is often seen on the Sunday morning TV show "This Week With George Stephanopolis" as a regular. Her name is Cokie Roberts.