I agree with Ralgha. Everyone else is adding words to the regs to make it say what they want it to. Instead of trying to bend the regs, why does all the CFIIs just get there CFI or MEI and not have to worry about how the reg is interpreted.
I agree with Ralgha. Everyone else is adding words to the regs to make it say what they want it to. Instead of trying to bend the regs, why does all the CFIIs just get there CFI or MEI and not have to worry about how the reg is interpreted.
You'll have to come up with a new theory. I have all my ratings and I didn't read the regulation "properly" until I had read the interpretation of it. So I changed my view of it based on new information, which you and Ralgha are unwilling to do. I believe both readings are defensible, although now that I know how the FAA interprets it, I find that reading slightly more plausible. However, the paragraph is written poorly and to say that only one reading is "obvious" and only a dullard cannot see it is rather uncharitable.
The point you seem to be missing is that those words were added by the FAA to say what the FAA wants it to.
I agree completely with Ralgha on what the lwords of that reg actually says. I also happen to agree completely with Ralgha on what that reg should mean.
But, for better or worse, the FAA disagrees with you and me and Ralgha. Officially and in writing.
Not really, I was just pointing out that you're assuming bias on the part of people that read it differently from you, whereas, you are unbiased. We all tend to feel that way, so it requires a special effort to acknowledge the reasonableness of a point of view with which we disagree.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.