>
> I got half way through that and had to quit. That was more confusing than
> the letter from the lawyer to me.
>
I don't know what was said in the letter from the lawyer to you,
but I maybe I can help unconfuse you about the interview.
Basically, they have been aware of the "glitch" for a while and had some discussion with the rule-writers about how to clarify things. They agreed that the intent was to allow the instruction to count towards higher ratings.
Earl sounded a little peeved that "someone" had to push the issue and demand an interpretation NOW, so that's why we got the unpopular decision and cut off any further room for negotiation.
Now they have to re-write the rule to get back to the original intent.
BUT... now here's where you mighta got lost... there's some new revisions coming out soon, and we don't know yet how THEY might effect things. So the orgs are waiting 'til they get a chance to actually READ the new law before deciding what to do about it. (I hope congress is listening)
In the meantime, ther'e talk about putting ALL CFI's under one subpart (or whatever they call it) so the problem would go away on it's own.
At least that's how I understood it,
Rick
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment