The regulation is written with the intent of change over time; it's a living document. In this case, however, nobody has changed the regulation. Legal interperetations lend clarification to the regulation and it's application.
I suspect that this particular legal interpretation will be visited with additional clarification before long.
This has nothing to do with pilots making decisions; it has to do with clarification of regulation. In this particular case, evidently clarification has raised more questions than answer, but the fact is that the FAA has long held to the facts of this interpretation, save for the addition of the reference to temperature and dewpoint.
With respect to pilots making decisions on their own...if you mean that regulations prevent you from acting in the cockpit, don't ever forget that the regulation is written in blood. If you ever have a chance to look at where they started to where they are today, and to follow the history that prompted the creations and changes of regulation, you'll find that very often these changes were written based on deaths and losses which taught great lessons.
The regulation doesn't fly your airplane, but it does prescribe what you can and cannot do with the airplane. With pilot error being the leading cause of aircraft loss, damage, injury, and fatality, providing guidelines within which pilots must remain isn't a bad thing.
Pilots tend to see regulation as restrictive. A better way to view regulation may be like the string on a kite. A child believes that rules and regulations are restrictive, and laments them. A child believes that cutting the string on the kite allows it to go higher. He then learns that cutting the string means the kite blows back, has no more resistance and lift, and falls to the ground. The string, in partnership with the wind, was responsible for holding the kite up.
Pilots, allowed to their own devices and devoid of any perceptible need to honor the regulation, frequently do very stupid things...which results in more regulation to address what the pilot can and cannot do.
Regulations are frequently given interpretation and consequently clarification, as well as being updated and changed as required. This is right and proper. It does not prevent you from making decisions as a pilot. It does not prevent you from flying, using judgement, manipulating controls, or getting paid. What it does do is give you guidelines upon which to predicate your decisions, and in many cases, protects you in those decisions by giving you a defensible criteria beyond which an employer hasn't the grounds to push.
No regulation exists which states that you cannot be more conservative, and safer, than the regulations themselves. Remember that these set minimum standards...you have the perrogative of setting yours higher, but never lower. If you feel that the regulations restrict you, then perhaps a shift in focus toward higher standards is in order.
I suspect that this particular legal interpretation will be visited with additional clarification before long.
This has nothing to do with pilots making decisions; it has to do with clarification of regulation. In this particular case, evidently clarification has raised more questions than answer, but the fact is that the FAA has long held to the facts of this interpretation, save for the addition of the reference to temperature and dewpoint.
With respect to pilots making decisions on their own...if you mean that regulations prevent you from acting in the cockpit, don't ever forget that the regulation is written in blood. If you ever have a chance to look at where they started to where they are today, and to follow the history that prompted the creations and changes of regulation, you'll find that very often these changes were written based on deaths and losses which taught great lessons.
The regulation doesn't fly your airplane, but it does prescribe what you can and cannot do with the airplane. With pilot error being the leading cause of aircraft loss, damage, injury, and fatality, providing guidelines within which pilots must remain isn't a bad thing.
Pilots tend to see regulation as restrictive. A better way to view regulation may be like the string on a kite. A child believes that rules and regulations are restrictive, and laments them. A child believes that cutting the string on the kite allows it to go higher. He then learns that cutting the string means the kite blows back, has no more resistance and lift, and falls to the ground. The string, in partnership with the wind, was responsible for holding the kite up.
Pilots, allowed to their own devices and devoid of any perceptible need to honor the regulation, frequently do very stupid things...which results in more regulation to address what the pilot can and cannot do.
Regulations are frequently given interpretation and consequently clarification, as well as being updated and changed as required. This is right and proper. It does not prevent you from making decisions as a pilot. It does not prevent you from flying, using judgement, manipulating controls, or getting paid. What it does do is give you guidelines upon which to predicate your decisions, and in many cases, protects you in those decisions by giving you a defensible criteria beyond which an employer hasn't the grounds to push.
No regulation exists which states that you cannot be more conservative, and safer, than the regulations themselves. Remember that these set minimum standards...you have the perrogative of setting yours higher, but never lower. If you feel that the regulations restrict you, then perhaps a shift in focus toward higher standards is in order.
