Microsoft Flight Sim sign off

Cessnaflyer said:
An AC is not regulatory.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that there are no ACs anywhere that have ever been or ever will be regulatory in nature?

"Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public." - FAR/AIM

Dogmatic statements are dangerous. Gravity will overcome lift in the case of a 152 losing it's engine. End of story. However, in most of my dealings with aviation as a whole, I find that statements that some people find factual are planted in shaky ground.:bandit:
 
Cessnaflyer said:
An AC is not regulatory.
Click to expand...
I should add that to the AIM in #1 of my list of the top 4 Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths
:rolleyes:

==============================
Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths

1. The AIM and ACs are not regulatory.
==============================

In this case, if you look at FAR 61.4, you'll see that the approval of simulators, FTDs, and "a device other than a flight simulator or flight training device" (such as a PC-ATD) for different purposes is left to regulation by "the approval of the Administrator" outside of the FAR.

As with many other AC "guidances" they are in fact the "regulation" since they are prepared pursuant to regulatory authority.
 
I said that because you should be quoting the appropriate FARs and not an AC. Just like the AIM, AC's are suggestions and you would be wise to follow them but they are again not regulatory.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I should add that to the AIM in #1 of my list of the top 4 Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths
:rolleyes:

==============================
Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths

1. The AIM and ACs are not regulatory.
==============================

In this case, if you look at FAR 61.4, you'll see that the approval of simulators, FTDs, and "a device other than a flight simulator or flight training device" (such as a PC-ATD) for different purposes is left to regulation by "the approval of the Administrator" outside of the FAR.

As with many other AC "guidances" they are in fact the "regulation" since they are prepared pursuant to regulatory authority.
Click to expand...

I would like to see an incident cited then that said they were in violation of the AIM or AC. It is true that many of them are referenced off of FARs but that does not make them regulatory.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
I would like to see an incident cited then that said they were in violation of the AIM or AC. It is true that many of them are referenced off of FARs but that does not make them regulatory.
Click to expand...

Make sure you do not read that silly thing called the FAR/AIM...it doesn't define A/Cs or anything crazy like that.:banghead::bandit:
 
Cessnaflyer said:
I think I am missing the point you are trying to make :)
Click to expand...

I have been making the point that ACs CAN be regulatory in nature. As I had said in one of the posts before and as stated in the AIM, "Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public.", which means that an AC is regulatory if it is referenced. Just trying to say that a dogmatic statement about an AC not being regulatory is not correct. Especially when there are a lot of impressionable students out there reading through this site. Primacy reigns supreme.

...regulatory...just wanted to say it one more time...and, I'm done...:rolleyes::bandit:
 
91-3A said:
I have been making the point that ACs CAN be regulatory in nature. As I had said in one of the posts before and as stated in the AIM, "Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public.", which means that an AC is regulatory if it is referenced. Just trying to say that a dogmatic statement about an AC not being regulatory is not correct. Especially when there are a lot of impressionable students out there reading through this site. Primacy reigns supreme.

...regulatory...just wanted to say it one more time...and, I'm done...:rolleyes::bandit:
Click to expand...

Well if it is referenced with an associated FAR then they would violate you on that FAR not on the AC.
 
mshunter said:
Did you even read the AC?

However, the FAA has not authorized the use of PCATD's for conducting practical tests nor for accomplishing recency of experience requirements.
Click to expand...

Cessnaflyer said:
Well if it is referenced with an associated FAR then they would violate you on that FAR not on the AC.
Click to expand...

Dosen't get much more plain english than that. A PCATD *is not* an FTD.

O.K. Go ahead and get "current" with a PCATD, and then submit you logbook to the FAA after a ramp check, tell them that you are infact current. Then tell them where you got current, and with which FTD you did it with.

You: "Yeah, I used the FTD at XYZ's FBO to get current."

FAA" "But that FBO only has a PCATD. You are not current, and just flew in IMC. You can hand over your certificates before you leave sir. We are going to keep them for 90 days."

P.S. Why is the name "Cessnaflyer" and the avatar is a Musketeer? Isn't that sacralidge?
 
Cessnaflyer said:
Well if it is referenced with an associated FAR then they would violate you on that FAR not on the AC.
Click to expand...
So I guess you cant' use a PC-ATD for anything since, after all, nothing in the FAR authorizes or defines one, right? It's only in a "non-regulatory" AC.

I think you're being far too literal. Yes, it's not "regulatory" in the sense that it's not a regulation passed after a notice and comment period in accordance with the US Administrative Procedure Act.

But saying "it's not regulatory" is like saying "there's no such thing as a BFR ("biennial" was dropped about 12 years ago) or "there's no such thing as the FAR" (it's really "Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations"). Technically true but misleading about what the rules are, reflecting a jailhouse lawyer's grasp of them, or at the least playing a semantic game with no practical benefit.

btw, there are NTSB cases that refer to ACs to support their decision, sometimes for the benefit of the pilot, providing a "non-regulatory" defense to a "regulatory" violation.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
But saying "it's not regulatory" is like saying "there's no such thing as a BFR ("biennial" was dropped about 12 years ago) or "there's no such thing as the FAR" (it's really "Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations"). Technically true but misleading about what the rules are, reflecting a jailhouse lawyer's grasp of them, or at the least playing a semantic game with no practical benefit.

.
Click to expand...


lol! I still refer to "FARs" when speaking, but write them as "14 CFR 91.xxx".:D

Agree, it's semantics. And I too have seen ACs referenced in NTSB AARs, generally in recommendation or causal factors sections.
 
For what it's worth, there is a version of X-plane that IS approved by the FAA for training purposes.

You have to have a projector or something for use as a sim, but the software IS approved.

I believe that's what they have in the sim at SkyMates.
 
killbilly said:
For what it's worth, there is a version of X-plane that IS approved by the FAA for training purposes.

You have to have a projector or something for use as a sim, but the software IS approved.

I believe that's what they have in the sim at SkyMates.
Click to expand...

American Flyers sims are X-Plane software. But the key is that it's used in an FTD, not a PCATD. It simulates an actual cockpit, and has all the controls placed in the representative positions, and acurate sized instruments.
 
On a related thread...do any of the other CFIIs hate Frasca's products? Or are other brands of FTD just as sucky?
 
Roger said:
On a related thread...do any of the other CFIIs hate Frasca's products? Or are other brands of FTD just as sucky?
Click to expand...

I've used Frasca's and one other (CST300 I thnik). Of the two, Frasca take it everytime. But the software could be better.:banghead:
 
Roger said:
On a related thread...do any of the other CFIIs hate Frasca's products? Or are other brands of FTD just as sucky?
Click to expand...

I have hundreds of hours of given in 141s and a 142, which are old and quirky but do the job. RFC had 3 visual 141s, two non-visual, and one 142. The 142 is the quirkiest, but that is probably just because of the increase of equipment in it. They were great in getting the students up to a proficient level of knowing about site pictures, climb and descent procedures, and maneuvers and emergencies before they even touched the planes. I don't necessarily hate the old Frascas, but I definitely don't enjoy them.:bandit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top