Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group What's the FAA going to do about thier "glitch"?

Theoretically, that is correct. But remember how radically differennt
the final sightseeing rules looked from that actual NPRM for those?
Given enough political pressure, the FAA can do what ever the heck they
feel like during rule making. We need to wait and see on this one.

Helen

Bill C wrote:
> A change as big and important as this REQUIRES inclusion in an NPRM. It is not in the one presently awaiting the final rule so it cannot be included in that final rule. Last word I got from 610 is it will have to wait for a future NPRM.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@...> wrote:
>
>> There are serious rumblings that this may be fixed when the new rules
>> come out. The most recent expected release date for the new rules is
>> the week of Dec 13th. Until then, we wait to see.
>>
>> Helen
>>
>> Thomas Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> Is there an update to this?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of working with a sport pilot cfi, but would like to have
>>> all the time spent on the sport pilot certificate count towards the
>>> ppl(or at least have the option).
>>>
>>> Rod Machado posted this a while back...
>>>
>>> http://www.rodmachado.com/?p=64
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rickpitcher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
>>>> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>, "Gary Orpe" <garyo@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/