If you could change a FAR...

[ifly4food]

No don't ban CDOs... some of us commute!!!

I would change several FARs... I could never narrow it down to one. Here's my top three.

91.13: Careless/ reckless needs to be defined. I have fought too many disciplinary cases where a pilot gets nailed for something stupid like taking the wrong airplane under this clause. The pilot may be stupid, but reckless is extreme.

91.?? 200kt below the floor of Class B airspace (a.k.a. the ATL "Speed Trap"): When you slow for it and ATC asks you to pick your speed back up, something's wrong. Dumb rule. Why do they vector us down there anyhow? Prop trash I guess.

91.xx instrument approaches: All pilots should have to have the reported weather above minimums before beginning an approach, as commercial flying does. The "go take a look" policy in part 91 flying has claimed too many lives because it invites pilots to bust minimums.

 

[flywithastick]

91.xx instrument approaches: All pilots should have to have the reported weather above minimums before beginning an approach, as commercial flying does. The "go take a look" policy in part 91 flying has claimed too many lives because it invites pilots to bust minimums.

for the sake of a debate, let me take the other side of this one. One of the best things we have going as US citizens is the right to make decisions as individuals *when other's safety is not infringed upon*. When operating commercially (i.e., hauling other people around), generally you're making decisions for many others and the consequences of a bad decision can be more extreme. This warrants less lattitude allowed the pilot.

Kind of like playing Russian Roulette. It's probably legal in most states (that aren't trying to demonize gun ownership), but could be argued as not very smart. On the other hand, pointing a gun at *someone else's* head and pulling the trigger is itself surely a crime in all states.

This sound logical?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Why [ban CDO's]? If you don't like them, don't bid them!! Personally, I think they are great.

Not everybody is as senior as you are. I remember vividly (because it wasn't that long ago) when I didn't have a choice about flying stand-ups.

How about this, then: let's re-write the FAR so that CDO's are voluntary only.

Sorry, but I think they're tough duty!

 

[ifly4food]

for the sake of a debate, let me take the other side of this one. One of the best things we have going as US citizens is the right to make decisions as individuals *when other's safety is not infringed upon*. When operating commercially (i.e., hauling other people around), generally you're making decisions for many others and the consequences of a bad decision can be more extreme. This warrants less lattitude allowed the pilot.

Kind of like playing Russian Roulette. It's probably legal in most states (that aren't trying to demonize gun ownership), but could be argued as not very smart. On the other hand, pointing a gun at *someone else's* head and pulling the trigger is itself surely a crime in all states.

This sound logical?

Under that philosophy, then we shouldn't have any FARs at all. How safe would that be?

Let's say we make it "a pilot may not begin an instrument approach when the reported weather is below minimums unless the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft". Of course, that's getting awful specific for an FAR. Also, if you try a cowboy approach and crash into my house at the end of the runway, you're affecting more than yourself. For the safety of everyone involved it's better to ban them altogether.
Everyone may benefit from lower insurance premiums too. I hadn't thought of that before.

 

[nosewheel]

Briefly..I would have to go with changing duty times and rest times. I would also throw out 121 supplemental . Why, when we are all flying the same equipment in the same airspace would flying cargo be any different ?

 

[flywithastick]

Another item I'd change is the requirement for a 3rd class medical to flight light planes. The LSA proposals are in the right direction, but too complicated. Just allow people with a pvt cert and a state DL to fly planes with some max weight/speed combination. For example, 1400-lb MGW & 120kt max speed, etc.

Under that philosophy, then we shouldn't have any FARs at all.

Now don't get rediculous. Everything has a given risk and benefit. The FAR's as written seem pretty reasonable in balancing the risk of various types of flight with the benefit, except as above.

For the safety of everyone involved it's better to ban them altogether.

All IFR apchs? That would lower insurance premiums (in theory), but not do much for actually completing trips.

There are portions which still allow significant flying freedom (all under pt 91 that I'm aware of) such as uncontrolled IFR flight, NORDO operations, non-current solo flight, no transponder operations. I believe it's all part of a philosophy allowing some lattitude as an pvt or pt 91 pilot, thank goodness.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I've always thought that more instrument flying should be included to get the private certificate. Maybe even an approach as part of the PTS.

Doctors and Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to fly high performance airplanes without at least a thousand hours.

 

[Timebuilder]

I also like the idea of some requirement for regular flying, such as an hour a month in the PPL MD's Bonanza to maintain proficiency. It doesn't make sense for the average pilot's "average" skills to lie unused for months at a time, and then be called upon for a trip, sometimes in less than ideal circumstances.

Much of the body of regulations is a reaction to events, rather than a sensible, homogenous fabric of good operating practices. Remember, it was during my lifetime that the FAR's were a short list of Do's and Don't's, long before we decided that every aircraft accident warrants a legal proceeding or a regulatory investigation.

While well intentioned, we have given up a large portion of our freedom to a class of individuals who must have a part in almost every phase of our lives. We are told that this is for our own good, but the reality is that they have become the offical regulators of how much freedom we are permitted to have, "if it please the court".

 

[flywithastick]

...you say something, flychicaga?

Sorry - you probably aren't going to get a lot of people actually reading your posts with that avitar.

 

[ifly4food]

All IFR apchs? That would lower insurance premiums (in theory), but not do much for actually completing trips.

There are portions which still allow significant flying freedom (all under pt 91 that I'm aware of) such as uncontrolled IFR flight, NORDO operations, non-current solo flight, no transponder operations. I believe it's all part of a philosophy allowing some lattitude as an pvt or pt 91 pilot, thank goodness.

No, no ,no. You misunderstand me. I'm saying it's best to make part 91 approaches meet the requirements of part 121 and 135 where you must have the weather reported above minimums before beginning an approach.
I didn't mean we should ban all approaches, I meant we should ban cowboy "go take a look" approaches where you can shoot it even though it's zero-zero.