Wait so FSDOs are just going to start making up answers regarding pilot certification? I thought the FAA at least would get that right.
Kind of like saying a FSDO might issue a 717 type instead of DC-9.
editL Not sure why my post had to be motivational. Just correcting misinformation.
Here's my experience with the FSDO.
Back when the FAA said that all first officers need a "Second In Command Type Rating", the Air Carrier Inspector and my company got together to find a way to certify three or so thousand first officers. Basically, it was an 8710 form, with the name of the director of training electronically signing the 8710 form so basically, all the pilot would have to do is travel to his local FSDO with proper airline and state ID and turn it in.
So, I went to the local FSDO and one inspector said I didn't require a second-in-command type rating because I've already done a 121 SIC check and was current and that I was wasting his time.
I called ATL for clarification and indeed, the FAA was requiring SIC type ratings.
He wanted a fax from the ACI in Georgia, which he received to confirm that I needed one, but I had to set another appointment.
The next appointment came, I turned in my paperwork and then I was told that I had a falsified signature on the 8710 form because it was electronically signed and wasn't actual pen and ink. Besides, I'd have to go down to PHX CMO (Cert. Mgmt Office?) in order to process that since it was a 121 issue.
Well, the PHX CMO...
Oh hell, well you get the gist!