If you could change a FAR...

[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.

 

[C-135 Backer]

I would change the FAR that limits you do only 30 Hours in 7 days and the FAR that makes you take one day off every 7. As a commuter, I would rather go to work and fly 30 - 45 hours in a 6 - 8 day period. I also would change the FAR that governs min crew rest and set that at 12 hours.

 

[JetPilot500]

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.

If that is the case, what would be the point of all of those approaches to airports that don't have a tower or weather reporting?

 

[ifly4food]

If that is the case, what would be the point of all of those approaches to airports that don't have a tower or weather reporting?

That is a good point. Commercial ops must have weather reporting on the field, but part 91 ops don't. Maybe all fields with an approach should have ASOS installed.

 

[Captain X]

How about clarifying the intent of a FAR?

That stupid ass rule about 200kias below class B is rediculous when you are in a jet (or TProp) approaching a primary B airport.

If I'm on a visual approach and leave the floor of on ring of the B, but will enter the next ring I shouldn't have to slow if I don't wanna.

Push them leevers thru the fu**in' radar and let's boogie!!!

 

[ShawnC]

That is a good point. Commercial ops must have weather reporting on the field, but part 91 ops don't. Maybe all fields with an approach should have ASOS installed.

That's a great idea ifly4food, but I think the problem that they will run into espically with more and more GPS apporachs coming in is that they are going to run out of radio freqencies for the each ASOS.

Maybe with the new weather reporting system, we can recieve METAR like weather from all the ASOS's in the general area on a MFD or something?

Though I am speculating here, I believe that they have the provision that one can go down and peek at the weather because weather can and does change quite quickly.

 

[ultrarunner]

I would CLOSE ASE, period. It'll keep the stupid pilots from killing those in the back of the plane that are paying for better decision making, and NOT GETTING IT.

 

[pireps]

For some people, creating more FARs won't matter. Unfortunately there are plenty of pilots out there who manage to hurt or kill themselves (and others) almost on a daily basis, just check out the NTSB website. Taking off over gross weight, VFR into IMC, etc. it doesn't end! Perhaps one problem is that some people take the regs as THEIR OWN min's for operation rather than finding a personal safety limit of when to turn around, not go, etc.

Anyways, I believe we need to get rid of non-precision approaches altogether. The possibility of prematurely going below MDA, accidentally missing a fix, not going around when the time's up, etc is just too high. And let's get rid of NDB's while we're at it. They're nice on an ILS for situational awareness but that's about it.

Oh and let's totally ban zero-zero takeoffs for part 91. How can someone in a C-172 with one vacuum pump believe it is safe to go when the "big boys" with dual EFIS and all the bells and whistles can't go?

And how about those ridiculous VFR weather minimums that are learned for the written and then forgotten? Let's see:Class G: take off with one mile visibility and clear of clouds... yeah that's real safe. We'll just stay below that overcast layer at 600 feet and we'll be alright!

 

[flywithastick]

For some people, creating more FARs won't matter.

Agreed. But more rules isn't the answer in most cases.

Anyways, I believe we need to get rid of non-precision approaches altogether. The possibility of prematurely going below MDA, accidentally missing a fix, not going around when the time's up, etc is just too high. And let's get rid of NDB's while we're at it. They're nice on an ILS for situational awareness but that's about it.

So no more GPS apchs either, huh. OOOOOOK.

Oh and let's totally ban zero-zero takeoffs for part 91. How can someone in a C-172 with one vacuum pump believe it is safe to go when the "big boys" with dual EFIS and all the bells and whistles can't go?

Why? Where are all the GA planes falling out of the sky?

And how about those ridiculous VFR weather minimums that are learned for the written and then forgotten? Let's see:Class G: take off with one mile visibility and clear of clouds... yeah that's real safe. We'll just stay below that overcast layer at 600 feet and we'll be alright!

yes, they can be quite safe in G airspace clear of clouds at 80 or 90-kts. Done it many times. you've forgotten that the little bug smashers fly a lot slower and lower quite safely in most instances. something about approach categories are coming to mind... Also, you've also not considered the fact that light GA planes (usually operating pt 91) aren't carrying 19 or so pax in the back. It's apples and oranges.

 

[pireps]

Perhaps I went a little to the extreme, and I agree that GPS approaches are a good thing if correctly executed. But all too often I read in an accident synopsis that a "legally" current and qualified pilot attempted an approach in low IMC and then somehow mysteriously crashed. And I am so sick and tired of it! So what can we do about it? Preventing poor judgment is an awfully daunting task. Stricter guidelines for training? Tighter rules? More enforcement? I don't know the answer.

 

[TXCAP4228]

But all too often I read in an accident synopsis that a "legally" current and qualified pilot attempted an approach in low IMC and then somehow mysteriously crashed. And I am so sick and tired of it! So what can we do about it? Preventing poor judgment is an awfully daunting task. Stricter guidelines for training? Tighter rules? More enforcement? I don't know the answer.

Nothing will ever be 100% safe. Flying is safer than driving, and that's a pretty good standard for comparison. At some point it isn't the FAR that makes you safe, its YOU that makes you safe.

We don't need new or more FARS for that.