Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
There is no conflict.
What do you think conflicts?
As for seeking support at the FSDO level, while they can offer their opinion, it carries no legal weight; the FSDO is not authorized to interpret the regulation. That is reserved for the regional and chief legal counsel. If you get an answer at the FSDO level and another FSDO doesn't abide it, or you're violated based on what a FSDO told you, then you've nothing to fall back on. You can't use as your defense, "the FSDO told me."
As noted above; the regulation is in writing.
You are entitled to seek clarification at any time from the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. It may take a year or more to get a response.
There are better options than contacting legal counsel for an interpretation, you can work up the chain at the FSDO to the RO. The FSDO doesn't "interpret" the regs, they "apply" the regs.
And like you said, there are no conflicts, because this is an "all or nothing" regulation. Either it applies to all practical tests and associated regulations, or none, because as I said, the argument that it "doesn't apply" to ATP can be made for anything else, because it conflicts with all of them, but the purpose of the SFAR is within (and in the preamble from the Federal Register I posted) and since it was published, it applies. Otherwise, it would have never been published. As long as you have a valid exception, you should be ok, or they need to change that SFAR.