---------------------------------------------------------- Yak-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 09/09/08: 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:23 AM - Re: Re: Yak-List Digest: Re: OL's and SAC's (A. Dennis Savarese) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:23:18 AM PST US From: "A. Dennis Savarese" Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: Re: OL's and SAC's Barry, No problem. I have them (senior moments) far more often than I would like to. If AFS 800 would have thought before they issued the letter eliminating the proficiency area for NEW OL's, they could have easily included a paragraph in the letter saying something like, "This letter, when carried in the aircraft, removes the proficiency area stated in the aircraft's Operating Limitations." But no, they had to create more paperwork for the local FSDO's for aircraft with existing OL's. The only way the proficiency area is removed from existing OL's is to have them reissued by the FSDO. To my way of thinking, that's pretty shortsighted. Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: Barry Hancock To: yak-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:19 PM Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-List Digest: Re: OL's and SAC's Dennis, Senior moment....I stand corrected. What I was referring to was the elimination of the requirement to notify the geographically responsible FSDO for maintenance flights outside the proficiency area....that was paragraph 46 in the old 8130-2. In 8130-2f the paragraphs are all changed. Thanks for bringing this up and correcting it Dennis. In my slip up I was confusing the movement that created AFS-800 and *intent* of EAAWB, CJAA, and others to get the re-issuance of OL's done away with as opposed to what has actually been made official.....measure twice, hit the send button once...my bad. That being said, there is nothing in any of the new OL's that we've had reissued for customers to remove the range restriction (all through our local FSDO) that states a requirement to have them reissued when the aircraft is relocated. But as you said, it's up to the discretion of you local FSDO. Cheers, Barry On Sep 7, 2008, at 11:59 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote: Barry, With all due respect, I don't believe the Memorandum eliminates the requirement for reissuance of operating limitations when the aircraft is relocated. It only eliminates the requirement for the appropriate paragraph 161 b, (31), (32), (33) or (34), each of which referred to proficiency area limitations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message yak-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Yak-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/yak-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/yak-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.