CFI Sport = Impotence !

[bryancobb]

Hi drseti,
I'm not representing this as being what I think. I'm just reading what that surprising letter from the attorney that AFS-610 sent me says.

It lists the ONLY privileges afforded a CFI sport. It shows a list of them as 61.413 (a) thru (g).

I hope you're right. Find out I'm wrong and I'll be a friend forever. I personally think the way the rules were initially put in effect is the way it was intended.

[comperini]

It lists the ONLY privileges afforded a CFI sport. It shows a list of them as 61.413 (a) thru (g).

That's my point to you.. I think you're interpreting the letter to say "flight review for a sport pilot", but that's not what it says.

[bryancobb]

I hope I didn't come across as a know-it-all type. I didn't mean to. I may be dead wrong. I've just been as I said, a little "MIFFED" since I read that letter. I suppose I am just venting. Sorry.
BC

[bryancobb]

"A BIG RED NOSE AND A GOOFY PAIR OF SHOES FOR A CLOWN"

is the same as

"A BIG RED NOSE FOR A CLOWN" and "A GOOFY PAIR OF SHOES FOR A CLOWN"

[comperini]

Yes, but your sentence uses only the word AND... I don't see the word OR in it anywhere.

[bryancobb]

"A BIG RED NOSE OR A GOOFY PAIR OF SHOES FOR A CLOWN"

is the same as

"A BIG RED NOSE FOR A CLOWN" OR "A GOOFY PAIR OF SHOES FOR A CLOWN"

[comperini]

"A BIG RED NOSE OR A GOOFY PAIR OF SHOES FOR A CLOWN"

is the same as

"A BIG RED NOSE FOR A CLOWN" OR "A GOOFY PAIR OF SHOES FOR A CLOWN"

No, its not the same. In your first example, the entire quoted text must be true, for the sentence to be true.

In your second sentence, only one of the two sets of quoted text on either side of the word "or" must be true, for the sentence to be true.

[bryancobb]

FICTION

I am a Commercial Pilot who owns a Seneca IV worth about $250k, and my best friend is a Sport CFI who owns a Kitfox III.
I fly often with my friend in his Kitfox. My Biennial is about to expire.
My Sport CFI friend offers to endorse my logbook that I have completed a flight review. I say OK and he does. Six months later I land my Seneca with the gear up and do $100k of damage.
DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MINUTE THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL READ THAT FAA LAWYER'S LETTER AND FEEL THAT MY FRIEND EVEN HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO MAKE THE ENTRY THAT ALLOWED ME TO FLY MY SENECA FOR 2 MORE YEARS?

[drseti]

No, its not the same. In your first example, the entire quoted text must be true, for the sentence to be true.

In your second sentence, only one of the two sets of quoted text on either side of the word "or" must be true, for the sentence to be true.

Hey, guys, we're talking FAA here. Don't expect good Boolean logic!

[comperini]

good Boolean logic!

heheh, good one

[drseti]

Six months later I land my Seneca with the gear up and do $100k of damage.

Only 100k? I'd say you got off cheap!

[comperini]

DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MINUTE THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL READ THAT FAA LAWYER'S LETTER AND FEEL THAT MY FRIEND EVEN HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO MAKE THE ENTRY THAT ALLOWED ME TO FLY MY SENECA FOR 2 MORE YEARS?

That letter didn't address flight reviews at all, and did not answer that question. That letter only answered the "can subpart k training count toward a private pilot certificate". That's the point I'm trying to get across. In previous posts, I cited EAA references (yeah, I know... they don't make the rules), and I cited my POIs statement directly from AFS-610.

As a previous poster said "if its not prohibited, its allowed". I don't see where its prohibited.

You could write AFS-800 yourself, and get the "official" ruling, to prove the rest of us wrong.

[comperini]

Hey, guys, we're talking FAA here. Don't expect good Boolean logic!

Ok, so I wrote a little program to test different variations of FAA with "good boolean logic". Here's what I came up with:

FAA: Good Boolean Logic? = FALSE
FAA: Good Logic? = FALSE
FAA: Logic? = FALSE
FAA: Good? = divide by zero.

What the heck??

[bryancobb]

Next time you folks callme a "BOOLEAN," I'm tellin' soebody!!!

LMAO

[frfly172]

I think (sometimes i do) That the insurance co doesnt really care what type aircraft you do a flight review in if you fly several types of aircraft.They just want to see continueing training.The insurance cos dont specify you have to have a flight review in the most complex aircraft you fly.Sounds good to me.