 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Private pilot with less than 400 hours and with current bfo told he was illegal to fly due to new federal aviation regulation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 155674 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199008 |
| Day | Sat |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : ane |
| State Reference | MN |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | general aviation : instructional |
| Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | flight crew : single pilot |
| Qualification | pilot : private |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 23 flight time total : 267 flight time type : 23 |
| ASRS Report | 155674 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | Other |
| Function | other personnel |
| Qualification | other other : other |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa other other : unspecified |
| Resolutory Action | other |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
As a non-INS rated private pilot with fewer than 400 hours flight time, I know I am subject to annual flight reviews according to far 61.56 effective 8/X/89. Prior to 8/X/89 my last biennial flight review occurred on 4/X/89. As I understood the implementation of this new rule, my 4/89 biennial flight review would be effective for a full 2 yrs through 4/91; i.e., the FAA would allow biennial flight reviews logged prior to 8/X/89 to remain valid for the normal 2 yr period. I found this explanation in print in the 9/89 issue of AOPA pilot magazine. After 4/91 I would then be subject to the annual flight review until I logged 400 hours. 3 flight instrs I know confirmed my understanding of this interim exemption. However, on 8/X/90, when I arrived at a new FBO to be checked out in their small aircraft, the flight instrument and FBO owner both insisted that I was overdue in requiring an annual flight review. Also, when I called the FAA's minneapolis GADO and explained my situation, the person I talked to refused to take a position either way (I don't think he really new the answer). And there is no special interim exemption explicitly stated in 61.56. Anyway, not knowing what the FAA's position on this really was, I accepted the instrument's requirement for the annual flight review. But I still don't know whether the FBO and CFI were ignorant and erring on the side of caution, or whether I flew on an invalid ticket for the 4 months from 5/90-8/90. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: analyst checked with FSDO for proper application of the far. It states clearly that reporter has correct interpretation and was perfectly legal to fly until following april. Callback to reporter was to answer his question. He stated he had reread the new regulation and discussed with others, but was glad to have ASRS confirmation. Also suggested may have been FBO approach to assure new renters were up to standard.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: PVT PLT WITH LESS THAN 400 HOURS AND WITH CURRENT BFO TOLD HE WAS ILLEGAL TO FLY DUE TO NEW FEDERAL AVIATION REG.
Narrative: AS A NON-INS RATED PVT PLT WITH FEWER THAN 400 HRS FLT TIME, I KNOW I AM SUBJECT TO ANNUAL FLT REVIEWS ACCORDING TO FAR 61.56 EFFECTIVE 8/X/89. PRIOR TO 8/X/89 MY LAST BIENNIAL FLT REVIEW OCCURRED ON 4/X/89. AS I UNDERSTOOD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS NEW RULE, MY 4/89 BIENNIAL FLT REVIEW WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR A FULL 2 YRS THROUGH 4/91; I.E., THE FAA WOULD ALLOW BIENNIAL FLT REVIEWS LOGGED PRIOR TO 8/X/89 TO REMAIN VALID FOR THE NORMAL 2 YR PERIOD. I FOUND THIS EXPLANATION IN PRINT IN THE 9/89 ISSUE OF AOPA PLT MAGAZINE. AFTER 4/91 I WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO THE ANNUAL FLT REVIEW UNTIL I LOGGED 400 HRS. 3 FLT INSTRS I KNOW CONFIRMED MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS INTERIM EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, ON 8/X/90, WHEN I ARRIVED AT A NEW FBO TO BE CHKED OUT IN THEIR SMA, THE FLT INSTR AND FBO OWNER BOTH INSISTED THAT I WAS OVERDUE IN REQUIRING AN ANNUAL FLT REVIEW. ALSO, WHEN I CALLED THE FAA'S MINNEAPOLIS GADO AND EXPLAINED MY SITUATION, THE PERSON I TALKED TO REFUSED TO TAKE A POS EITHER WAY (I DON'T THINK HE REALLY NEW THE ANSWER). AND THERE IS NO SPECIAL INTERIM EXEMPTION EXPLICITLY STATED IN 61.56. ANYWAY, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FAA'S POS ON THIS REALLY WAS, I ACCEPTED THE INSTR'S REQUIREMENT FOR THE ANNUAL FLT REVIEW. BUT I STILL DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE FBO AND CFI WERE IGNORANT AND ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION, OR WHETHER I FLEW ON AN INVALID TICKET FOR THE 4 MONTHS FROM 5/90-8/90. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: ANALYST CHKED WITH FSDO FOR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE FAR. IT STATES CLEARLY THAT RPTR HAS CORRECT INTERP AND WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO FLY UNTIL FOLLOWING APRIL. CALLBACK TO RPTR WAS TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION. HE STATED HE HAD REREAD THE NEW REG AND DISCUSSED WITH OTHERS, BUT WAS GLAD TO HAVE ASRS CONFIRMATION. ALSO SUGGESTED MAY HAVE BEEN FBO APCH TO ASSURE NEW RENTERS WERE UP TO STANDARD.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.