|
|
||
|
||
| Author: Yeup Date: 10/13/2021 4:18:25 PM +0/-0 Show Orig. Msg (this window) Or In New Window | ||
And sometimes they get it wrong, just as simple. Reason regulations go through the NPRM and public comment period. Over 20 years ago the NPRM concerning helicopter IFR alternate minimums was supported greatly with comments until someone read it and realized it wouldn't work! Required a Supplemental NPRM which came out a year later. Better to get it right the first go around rather than make it law and suffer the embarrassment when everyone reads it and realizes whatever is in the offing just won't function. |
||
| Reply Return-To-Index Display Full Msg Thread Rules of Engagement Terms of Use | ||
|
|
||
|
||
 One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-2 to 99% of HAA operations! 10/11/2021 11:48:03 AM
 One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+3/-0 Hmmm.... 10/11/2021 12:13:36 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-2 To 99% Of HAA Operations 10/11/2021 12:21:59 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-5 You nerds 10/11/2021 1:10:08 PM
Four Weeks!! If your schedule changes day to night inside of a 4 week
+0/-4 period, you CANNOT use 135.267(c) 10/11/2021 1:56:40 PM
FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-0 GetReal 10/11/2021 2:13:37 PM
FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-0 (b) Just limits The Amount Of 10/11/2021 2:28:39 PM
not quite right.
+0/-0 Anonymous 10/11/2021 3:53:12 PM
Youi realize that (b) is the foundation for (d).
+0/-0 (b) and (d) are paired together 10/11/2021 3:14:05 PM
There is absolutely no reason for an HAA operator to use (c) anyway
+0/-0 None at all! 10/11/2021 3:32:16 PM
I incorrectly said increases from 8 hrs to 10rs, but I meant
+1/-0 from 8 hrs to 16 hrs. 10/11/2021 4:19:54 PM
I incorrectly said increases from 8 hrs to 10rs, but I meant
+0/-0 You Can Amass 8 Hours Of Flying 10/11/2021 4:54:31 PM
correct, but under (c), you can exceed it in the (NT)
+0/-0 24 hour window 10/11/2021 6:31:18 PM
correct, but under (c), you can exceed it in the
+0/-0 You Cannot Exceed It Without 10/11/2021 7:04:48 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-0 cheap 10/11/2021 8:01:09 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+2/-0 In other 10/11/2021 9:07:51 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c) (NT)
+1/-1 Anonymous 10/12/2021 6:03:40 AM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+1/-1 True 10/12/2021 10:45:22 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+2/-0 Anonymous 10/13/2021 2:37:17 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 Yeup 10/13/2021 4:18:25 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 Duh! 10/13/2021 9:33:34 AM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 That’s 10/26/2021 7:11:12 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 That’s 10/26/2021 7:11:44 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 That Is Why The Letters From 10/26/2021 7:26:12 PM
|
