Message-ID: <36522A2D.12D7@ibm.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 20:00:13 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: The Over Gross Answer
References: <3651CD5D.7EFB@hp-greeley-om2.om.hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.136.153
X-Trace: 18 Nov 1998 02:34:11 GMT, 32.100.136.153
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 21
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!newsfeed.sgi.net!nntp.abs.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.100.136.153
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:39197

Sandy Reutter wrote:
 
> The examiner I took my cfi checkride with asked me if I could legally
> fly over gross.  I said "No way."  He said "You're wrong", and went on
> to explain the modified rules for Alaska.  Check out FAR 91.323. 

I'm not sure that helps you?  As far as I can tell, FAR 91.323
is restricted to:
 1) part 121 or 135 ops or US dep't interior flights
 2) operations within Alaska only

So it doesn't have too much applicability to a private pilot or
even a CFI instructing under Pt 91.

But it would seem to be where the "115%" idea got started -- just
like the "everyone must carry D cell battery flashlight" idea, 
essential restrictions on the scope of the original FAR were omitted

Regards,
Snowbird

