Operating with out ELT

[Tom Downey]

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?

[FlyingRon]

Training requires an authorized instructor.

[WLIU]

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

[Mike M]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[Bill Greenwood]

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?

[Tom Downey]

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"

[rwanttaja]

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

[Tom Downey]

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"

[AcroGimp]

When they say 'this Part' they mean only the Part you are in, specifically Part 61 in this case.

[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.

[martymayes]

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.

I think the fact that 2 congressmen were on board and the publicity surrounding the disappearance was mostly responsible for driving a knee-jerk reaction from Washington.

In the late 60's and early '70's a number of airplanes were lost over the contiguous states that were not found for months, sometimes years, sometimes never. Not really any major and immediate rule changes came about from that. Even since the ELT rule there is no guarantee that a plane will be found in a "reasonable amount of time" just because it has an ELT installed (please insert exhibit A, Steve Fossett). It may improve the odds of being found but so does filing and following a flight plan. Anyway, knee-jerk reactions continue today, after all, isn't that what TSA is all about? Anytime a politician can sieze the opportunity to protect us......

[WLIU]

This is the get out of jail free card with the FAA ->"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."

I have a couple of these letters regarding flying skydivers and doing acro that were the result of sporting organizations requesting official opinions. Individual FAA inspectors must treat these letters as official guidance from their headquarters. But you need to have a copy of the letter handy and an appropriately confused attitude when an FAA inspector questions your operation.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Mike M]

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

so it was a pointless troll to see who could come up with the most stupid answer. got it.

[Bill Berson]

More trivia regarding Hale Boggs

Some more trivia for Marty....

Alaska's single congressman Nick Begich was lost in the airplane with Boggs. Begich was replaced by an unknown guy from the Alaska bush named Don Young. Young is still Alaska's congressman today and is aviation friendly.
Alaska's senator Ted Stevens was in a Lear Jet crash at Anchorage International airport (now Ted Stevens International). His wife died in the Lear crash. More recently, Stevens was killed in a single engine Dehavilland Otter in Alaska. I don't think the ELT worked in this case.

And congressman Nick Begich had a son who now holds the senate seat held by senator Ted Stevens. (Stevens re-election was hampered by a court case that was later reversed).