Plain language FARs?

[avbug]

Everything explained is a good publication, though it does contain errors. I posted that here some time ago, and the author invited me to send him information regarding those errors, said he'd welcome them. I tried, and at first received abusive replies and then he refused to communicate. Despite his lack of cooperation, I just convinced a charter office to order a bunch of the books for their chief pilot, director of operations, dispatchers, maintenance department, and others. I showed it to them, demonstrated the speed with which a topic could be found due to the detailed index, and they loved it. Purchased one, and then keep ordering more.

The regulations are among the shortest in the entire Code of Federal Regulations compendium. These are among the easiest to understand, and are quite plain.

Have you ever looked at the tax code?

Yes, Timebuilder, the regulations were written with the intent of being flexible, and adaptable, and are a living document. This is the intent. And yes, the Administrator has the authority of an act of congress to interpret and administer the regulation, as well as dictate it. This is delivered through legal counsel, clearly and effectively. There is very little of what could be called "grey area."

I find the regulations for the most part to be quite clear and distinct.

What I also find is that most folks don't take the time to crack a book and read them. Many seem to feel that they should be able to absorb them by osmosis.

Jeppesen publishes three books rearding detailed explainations and applications of the regulations, dealing with certificate operations, general operations, and maintenance. Each book is about thirty bucks, and you really should get them and read them. These detail specific applications of the regulation in enforcement action, and identify numerous cases to show exactly how the regulation works and how it's applied. You may find it to be an eye opener.

 

[A Squared]

A few thoughts on the idea of "plain language" regulations:

1) Regulations *are* plain language. They are written in English. some of the words may not be very commonly used in general usage but they are all English. I don't recall ever seeing latin words used in the regulations. Any word you find in a regulation, you will find in a dictionary. Occasionaly a word in a more liberal dictionary (yes there are liberal and conservative dictionaries) will have several definitions of a word which are diverse enough to cloud the meaning of a regulation containing that word. In such a case, you should take a look at a legal dictionary for the meaning of the word when used in a legal sense. Now, you may say, "well if you need a special dictionary, it is not "plain language"". Well yes and no. In law, words have specific meanings, whereas in general use those words may have many meanings. But, this is no different than any other field of specific knowledge. Take aerodynamics. What does the word "chord" mean? In common usage Chord, has many meanings, in aerodynamics it has only one specific meaning. In order to understand aerodynamics, you have to know what is meant by the word "chord" in hte context of aerodynamics. In engineering "stress" and "strain" have very specific meanings and they are not interchangeable, wheras in common usage those two words are used in many different ways and often are used synonymously. To understand an engineering report, you have to know what the engineering definition of "stress" and "strain" are. Law is no different, you have to know specifically what is meant by "notwithstanding"

2) Like Avbug said, many of the misunderstandings of the regulations come because pilots just don't read them. You gotta read them. It doesn't do any good for the book to sit on your shelf, or under your pillow at night, or wherever; you have to open the book and read the words. I see this time and time again on these forums. People ask questions that are better answered by opening the book and reading what it says. Inevitabley, you get 6 different answers, all of them incorrect, because the guys answering the question don't read the book either. People would rather have someone else tell them what something means instead of reading it themselves.

3) Many of the regulations which are beleived to be "grey areas" or "unclear" are not "grey" in the least, they are very black and white, but people don't like what they mean, so they prefer to believe that there is a "grey area" A classic example is logging SIC in a single pilot airplane. The regulation is pretty d amn clear; the SIC has to be required by the regulations. But, people don't like that , so they say .... "wellll, "regulation" really means "insurance requirements" no, it doesn't, it means "regulations"; or " regulations really means company policy". No it doesn't, "regulations" means regulations. However clear this may be, it is clouded by people attempting to "interpret" it to mean something it clearly doesn't mean to further their own agenda.

4) "Regulations are written in a way that is hard to understand." Perhaps, perhaps not. I'll agree, often the syntax is clunkey and hard to follow. The sentences do not flow like conversational sentences. The thing is, it is very difficult to impart specific, detailed meaning in a conversational manner. You can't have regulations that read like a novel, and have them impart the same specific, detailed, meaning. In order to read a regulation for understanding, you have to read it carefully, think about the meaning of each phrase, and add the meaning of each phrase together to get the meaning of the sentence. The regulations has to say "exactly" what it means. Take for example the previously mentioned regulation on passengers in a pilot seat:

§ 135.113 Passenger occupancy of pilot seat. No certificate holder may operate an aircraft type certificated after October 15, 1971, that has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of more than eight seats if any person other than the pilot in command, a second in command, a company check airman, or an authorized representative of the Administrator, the National Transportation Safety Board, or the United States Postal Service occupies a pilot seat.

Yeah, it would be really nice if it just said something simple like: "No passenger shall sit in a pilot seat." Nice, but the thing is, there's a world of difference in what those two sentences mean. First problem is; what is a passenger? Is a postal inspector a passenger? maybe is a fed on surveillance a passenger? Maybe. Pretty soon you see that it is easier who specify who *may* occupy a pilot seat, rather than who *may not* sooo.... we say "only a pilot or a fed may sit in a pilot seat in flight" OK does that mean that a passenger with a private pilot certificate can sit in a pilot seat? well no, so we have to specify the pilot in command or second in command .... uh-oh, what about a check airman giving a line check? He's not a PIC or SIC ... so we have to add that to the list.

So we start out with "No passenger" and very quickly we end up with: "any person other than the pilot in command, a second in command, a company check airman, or an authorized representative of the Administrator, the National Transportation Safety Board, or the United States Postal Service"

Ok, how about this item: "aircraft type certificated after October 15, 1971, that has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of more than eight seats"

now, for whatever reason, it has been decided that this restriction applies to a) aircraft type certificated after Oct 15, 1971,
and
b) aircraft with more than 8 seats, not counting pilot seats.

I don't know why this is so, but remember, we are discussing the "form" of the regulations, not the "content" That in mind, I would invite anyone to take a stab at writing something in "plain language" which is simpler and less awkward, which still clearly communicates both a) and b).

Lastly, there's accountability; who does the regulation apply to? who do you charge with hte violation? If the regualtion says "no passenger shall..." the regulation applies to the passenger's actions. There's a violation, the FAA begins an enforcement against the certificate holder for violation 135.113, the certificate holder says; Hey this reg applies to passengers, we're not passengers, bring your enforcement avgainst the passenger, he's the one who violated the regulation" .. and the certificate holder is right. SO the regulation is written "No certificate holder may operate an aircraft ...." which makes it clear that it is applicable to the certificate holder's actions. Again, it doesn't read like a novel, but there's a real reason that it's phrased that way.

Yes the regulations are tougher to read than Louis Lamour, but that's going to be inherent. Louis Lamour isn't trying to write specific detailed instruction which do not leave loopholes. Regulations require reading for comprehension, you can't just skim them and pick up the "drift" like you can with cowboy novels.

I'll expand my previous challenge to include all of the aviation regulations. Take any regulation from CFR 14, and re-write it so that your version imparts the exact same meaning as the original, yet is easier to read and understand. Post the original and your version. Seriously; try it. I think the experience would be revealing. Sure there are a few which could be perhaps a little more readable, but I think that by and large you will find that the regulations have to be written the way they are in order to mean what they must.

 

[Tinstaafl]

I partly agree with you, however there are usually several ways in which the same meaning can be imparted while making the reading easier. To strictly follow your logic we could have the rules written using sentence structure appropriate to the 18th or 19th centuries. But we don't. Language useage & understanding changes over time and 'good' law is that which is comprehensible by those to whom it applies, as well as enforceable etc.

Something that enhances readability & ease of comprehension is to group similar categories of information, use point form notation and follow a standard sequence of data presentation such as definitions given at the beginning (immediately prior to a rule if unique to that rule, or pre-defined at the head of a section or cluster of rules), inclusions first, exclusions second, then the restriction or approval then exceptions & alternative conditions as a result of those exceptions.

-----
Definitions:

Passenger seats:
* Includes all seats that are not in the cockpit
* Includes cockpit seats that are not pilot seats,
* Excludes pilot seats.


Rule 123:

Inclusions: This rule applies to:

* All aircraft with a MTOW greater than 12 500lb, or
* Aircraft with a MTOW less than 12 500lb that
.........* have 8 or more passengers seats, and
................* are used in Part 135 operations, or
................* are used in Part 121 operations, or
................* are painted purple with lime green stripes

Exclusions:

* Aircraft with a MTOW greater than 12,500,
......* painted white with pink polka dots


Restrictions:

* Must not be operated during daytime, and
* Must not have any external light that illuminate the aircraft's paint scheme

Exceptions:

* May be operated during daytime provided
..........* Visibility is less than 500m, and
..........* The aircraft is operated at, or above, FL600 excluding
......................* Climb after take off
......................* Descent for the purposes of
................................* making an instrument approach,or
................................* landing

--------------------


An interesting example of the use of readability principles is the use in Australia of 'plain english' language in home & vehicle insurance policies. They are no less legally enforceable than the old legalese construction and you will be hard pressed to find an insurer who hasn't switched.

 

[A Squared]

An interesting example of the use of readability principles is the use in Australia of 'plain english' language in home & vehicle insurance policies. They are no less legally enforceable than the old legalese construction and you will be hard pressed to find an insurer who hasn't switched.

THis can only be a good thing, however, Insurance policies are loaded with terms such as subrogation, indemnify, "jointly and severally liable" until they become an inpenetrable forest of words that most people have never heard of.

That is not true with the aviation regulations. The vast majority of them are already written in plain, everyday words. Sure, you have to know what is meant by "instrument approach procedure" or "Air Traffic Control" but what pilot does not? Words like "notwithstanding" are actually very few and far between. Perhaps, as you say some clarity could be added by distilling regulations to lists of "bullet points", perhaps not. To some degree the regulations already incorperate this format where appropriate. The rules on VFR visibility and cloud learences even include a table of a different requirements. It would be a nightmare trying to write those requirements out.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Whilst there may be some language within the plain english versions of contracts that is reminiscent of 'old style' legalese, that doesn't negate the point. Plain english contracts are orders of magnitude easier to comprehend than legalese. Even words that may not be entirely familiar are more readily understood thanks to the familiar grammar & context.

A small example: Compare a contract that uses multiple instances of 'the party of the first part' & 'the party of the second part' verses one that first defines the terms & then uses 'Us' or 'We' & 'You' as replacements.

 

[BoDEAN]

Sad us pilots have to "decode" the rules and regulations lol!
Sad but true

 

[qmaster3]

FARS for DUMB PILOTS

In my opinion by Faaaaaar the best book out there for decoding regs is Everything Explained for the Professional Pilot by Richie Lengel. I think there is an ad for it on this site, usually on the left sidebar, or you can read a bunch of pages from it at the website www.aviation-press.com. He does a fantastic job of decoding the govt/lawyer jargon and spit it out in a readable form. He is even sarcastic and funny which makes reading the stuff much more bearable. That book and some aircraft specific stuff was ALL I used to study for and get my current job. I have become a big fan of the book. The price has been well worth it since it has replaced all of the crappy books I bought while I was in training. Can't say enough good things about it. -Batfish

Like me. I am buying.



LOL...During an emergency do no "request" a damm thing. TELL THEM WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

 

[A Squared]

A small example: Compare a contract that uses multiple instances of 'the party of the first part' & 'the party of the second part' verses one that first defines the terms & then uses 'Us' or 'We' & 'You' as replacements.

Ahhh, I see you've slipped in an edit which addresses a point I was going to make, nonetheless, I'll barge on ahead, as it doesn't negate the point.

If you use terms like us, we, and you, you have to define those terms in order for the contract to be meaningful. That is well and good, and certainly it makes the contract more readable. A contract, however, is specific to 2 parties through it's entirity, regulations are incumbent upon a large group of people, and certain regulations are applicable only to subsets of that group. You will see see regulations which start: no person, no pilot of a civil aircraft, no pilot of an aircraft, no operator, no certificate holder, and each mean a different group of people. To carry your analogy, to do the same with the regulations would require a paragraph for each individual regulation defining who "you" is, because "you" varies significantly from reg to reg.

That being said, the regulations already do this to a degree. Part 1 provides specific definitions for terms, and those words are used in the actual text of the regulations. An example is "flight time" Flight time is defined in Part 1 as "pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under it's own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing" and then once defined, the term "flight time" is used throughout the regulations instead of inserting "from the time an aircraft moves under it's own power ...yadda, yadda" each and every time the concept of flight time is referenced in the regulations.

At any rate, show me an example of what you mean. Take the aformentioned 135.113 or any regulation of your chosing and show me how you would write it so it is more readable and understandable, yet not change the meaning or make it any less specific.

 

[Tinstaafl]

I didn't 'slip in an edit'. I nearly always edit my posts after submitting because I find it easier to proof read in the final display format AND because a period of time between initial composition & a subsequent reading often shows me a better way of composing my point.

erm.... didn't I say that the contract types that I mentioned had a section with definitions? I thought I did.

Oh yes, here it is: "... one that first defines the terms..."

The Oz rules were the ones I mentioned that had been re-written (in part), although they to have problems with their hodge podge of multi-layered legacy & interim legislation. But (!) the newly written pieces were a wonderful improvement on the old.

As for me rewriting a FAR, that's a straw man argument. I have little knowledge of the entire structure of US legislation from the constitution down and profess no expertise with FARs. It takes lawyers who understand the interrelationship to other parts of the law to write law and that's why there are specialists who do that. That *doesn't* mean that the FARs are the raison detre of legislative composition. You seem to be saying that the FARs are the only form of legislative construction? Have you seen equivalents from elsewhere in the world? I have and I don't find the FARs to be the best of breed all though they're not the worst either

It *doesn't* have to be in legalese and Australian law demonstrates that to a reasonable extent. I think the UK equivalent is rather worse than Oz or FAA.


However, here's some example from Oz rules written in 1998. These ones are from the 60 series pertaining to flight sims & flight training devices.:



CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998
- REG 60.030 Initial evaluation and qualification


(1) If CASA receives an application for the qualification of a flight simulator or flight training device, CASA must conduct an evaluation (an initial evaluation) of the simulator or device, including consideration of:

.....(a) any inspection or trial of the simulator or device; and

.....(b) the data provided in the QTG; and

.....(c) information available from any test conducted during the initial evaluation.

Note CASA may arrange for an evaluation to be conducted by an evaluation team: see regulation 60.090.

(2) If, after the initial evaluation, CASA is satisfied that:

.....(a) the operator's quality system will be suitable for the simulator or device; and

.....(b) the simulator or device meets a qualification level;

CASA must qualify the simulator or device at the qualification level.

(3) CASA may qualify a simulator or device that will simulate a new type of aircraft for which fully validated aircraft data is not available at an interim qualification level that is based on partially validated aircraft data.

(4) An interim qualification level applies for the period agreed between CASA and the operator of the simulator or device.

(5) If CASA qualifies a simulator or device, it must at the same time approve the QTG for the simulator or device.


CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998
- REG 60.040 Period of validity of flight simulator qualification or flight training device qualification


(1) A flight simulator qualification or flight training device qualification is in force for:

.....(a) 12 months from the date of issue of the flight simulator qualification certificate or flight training device qualification certificate; or

.....(b) if a shorter period is specified in the certificate — that period.

(2) However, a qualification ceases to be in force if:

.....(a) it is cancelled by CASA under regulation 60.050; or

.....(b) there is a change of operator of the simulator or device; or

(c) the simulator or device is deactivated or relocated.

(3) A qualification is not in force for the period of any suspension imposed by CASA under regulation 60.050.


...and here's a redacted version of some from the Civil Aviation Orders to do with instructor ratings. The Orders are a much older set of rules & subservient to the regulations:



FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR (AEROPLANE) RATING
SUBSECTIONS

1 Application
2 Interpretation
4 Requirements for issue of ratings
5 Examinations
6 Exemptions
7 Duration
8 Renewal
9 Authority given by rating
10 Logbook and licence endorsements
11 Training in activities for which a rating is required
Appendixes I, II and III

1 APPLICATION
1.1 For the purposes of subregulation 5.14 (1):
.....(a) the flight tests that must be passed; and
.....(b) other requirements that must be satisfied;
for the issue of each grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating are set out in subsections 4 and 6.

(redacted)

2 INTERPRETATION
2.1 In this section, unless the contrary intention appears:
Replacement Page Amdt 246: 15 July 2004 Issue 9: 18 October 2000 Incorporates Amendment Nos. 117, 147, 163, 205, 207, 211, 224, 226, 235

SECTION 40.1.7 -2- Issue 9 aeroplane night V.F.R. rating means an aeroplane grade of night V.F.R. rating.
aeroplane instrument rating means:
.....(a) a command (aeroplane) instrument rating; or
.....(b) a co-pilot (aeroplane) grade of instrument rating.
command (aeroplane) instrument rating means:
.....(a) a command (multi-engine aeroplane) grade of instrument rating; or
.....(b) a command (single engine aeroplane) grade of instrument rating.
Grade One flight instructor means a person who holds a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 1.
Grade Three flight instructor means a person who holds a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 3.
Grade Two flight instructor means a person who holds a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 2;
instructor rating means a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating of one of the following grades:
.....(a) grade 1;
.....(b) grade 2;
.....(c) grade 3.

(redacted)

4 REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUE OF RATINGS
4.1 An applicant for the issue of a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 3 must:
.....(a) in accordance with paragraph 4.1A, have completed a course of flight instruction that is conducted in accordance with the outline in Appendix I, at a flying school that has the approval to conduct instructor training endorsed on its AOC; and

4.1A For the purposes of subparagraph 4.1 (a), the course of flight instruction must include not less than 50 hours flight time consisting of:
.....(a) dual instruction with a Grade 1 flight instructor; or
.....(b) if subparagraph 4.1 (a) does not apply:
..........(i) not less than 30 hours dual instruction with a Grade 1 flight instructor; and
..........(ii) after each trainee instructor has received dual instruction from a Grade 1 flight instructor in the sequences to be practiced — the remaining hours in mutual practice with another trainee instructor or dual instruction or mutual practice with a Grade 2 flight instructor or a Grade 3 flight instructor.

(redacted)

4.2 An applicant for the issue of a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 2 must:
.....(a) hold or have held a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 3 for at least 6 months;
.....(b) have logged at least 200 hours flight time, in a registered aeroplane or a recognised aeroplane, instructing in other than the navigational sequences specified in the aeroplane syllabus that are relevant to the private pilot (aeroplane) licence;
.....(c) have logged at least 50 hours flight time, in a registered aeroplane or a recognised aeroplane, instructing in navigational sequences specified in the aeroplane syllabus; and
.....(d) be recommended by the chief flying instructor; and
.....(e) have passed a flight test conducted by CASA, an approved testing officer or an approved person in accordance with the Grade Two instructor rating test report form.

4.2.1 Before recommending an applicant for the issue of a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 2, the chief flying instructor must be satisfied that the applicant is capable of instructing to and assessing the standard required for pilots to fly solo.

4.3 An applicant for the issue of a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 1 must:
.....(a) have held a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 2 for the 12 months immediately preceding the date of the application;
.....(b) have logged at least 750 hours of instructional experience including 500 hours flight time, in a registered aeroplane or a recognised aeroplane, instructing in sequences specified in the aeroplane syllabus;
.....(c) in relation to the original issue of the rating, have passed a written examination in the principles of teaching and learning. The syllabus for the examination is specified in Appendix II;
.....(d) be recommended by the chief flying instructor; and
.....(e) have passed a flight test conducted by CASA, an approved testing officer or an approved person in accordance with the Grade One instructor rating test report form.


(redacted, etc etc ad nauseum)




***note: my cutting and pasting doesn't show the indenting or line & paragraph spacing used in the original very well. Had to use leading periods. Each new subparagraph gets indented from its parent & is fully blocked, not semi-blocked. I don't seem to be able to do fully blocked formatting here.***

 

[A Squared]

I didn't 'slip in an edit'. I nearly always edit my posts after submitting because I find it easier to proof read in the final display format AND because a period of time between initial composition & a subsequent reading often shows me a better way of composing my point.

Ummmm, you seem to be taking offense somehow, you shouldn't, unless it's really, really important to you. I edit my own posts more often that not, for the same reasons you state, and because I'm an atrocious typist. I merely mentioned the fact as I had read your original post in the e mail that is automatically sent to my account. I was already composing a resopnse in my head, when I actually opened the thread I saw that you had edited the last sentence. The slight you perceive is imagined.

erm.... didn't I say that the contract types that I mentioned had a section with definitions? I thought I did.

Oh yes, here it is: "... one that first defines the terms..."

Sigh..... yes, I am fully aware that you said that. I was emphasizing that point, perhaps more for the benefit of others who might be following the thread. It was never in question that you understood that point. Don't be so da mned defensive.

No it is not a straw man arguement. you position is that regulations could be written more clearly, I say show me. It doesn't require an in depth knowledge of US constitutional law or anything else. It's a simple exercise in exposition. Read one of the regulations and write something which says the exact same thing, only more understandable.

That *doesn't* mean that the FARs are the raison detre of legislative composition.

Not sure exactly what your meaning is, raison d' etre means "reason for being", Perhaps you meant "the pinnacle of legisative composition" or similar sentiment?

You seem to be saying that the FARs are the only form of legislative construction?

No, I am not. I am saying is response to those who say that the regulations should be in "plain language" that they are in fact in plain language. The syntax may be awkward at times but "legalese" is virtually non-existent in the aviation regulations.

Have you seen equivalents from elsewhere in the world?

Yes, I have, I have had occasion to read the CASA regulations. I found hte experience to be much like reading the US regulations. You had to read comprehension and consider the meaning, at times the syntax was less than smooth, but like the US regulations,.they seemed to be relatively free of legaleese.

It *doesn't* have to be in legalese and Australian law demonstrates that to a reasonable extent.

Give me an example of this "legalese" in the US regulations which you keep mentioning.

After reading your excerpt of the newer CASA regulations, I guess I don't see a significant difference. The most obvious difference to me is the regulation specifies CASA's actions in the imperative voice, which is virtually unheard of in FAA regulation. That aside, if you're presenting this as an example of how much better regulation could be, I don't agree that it makes your point. Perhaps it seems "better" to you, becuse it is more familliar?

 

[Tinstaafl]

I didn't consider my tone defensive, merely responsive to your comment that I'd 'slipped in' an edit. I'd always thought raison detre was '...pinacle...'etc & even did a quick google before using it. That's what I get for searching quickly...

I still don't believe I could do a very credible job of re-writing the FARs. As said, I have only a little familiarity with them, and I think insufficient familiarity with US conventions.

I know what you mean about the imperative voice used in Oz rules but our discussion isn't about that. I was trying to highlight a more 'list' like manner of presentation. including layout & formatting style, to make comprehension easier. The first couple of examples are from regulations published in 1998 and, I think, are reasonable examples of it. The Orders hark from many, many years ago, and not so good at it but again, I think, show at least a nod to plain(er?) structure. I'll go back & try to add in at least something like the indenting used in the source. It certainly aids the reading & comprehension.

You ask for an example of how the US equiv. can be difficult to comprehend? This thread resulted from people who had/have difficulty and they gave examples.

Instead, how about considering just about any paragraph that is lengthy & uses multiple commas to join many inclusions as a fair example where point form would be an improvement?

 

[A Squared]

I know what you mean about the imperative voice used in Oz rules but our discussion isn't about that.

Yes, I realize that. My comment was more of an aside. I can't think of anyplace where the FAA regulations say "the adminstrator must..." It hints at a fundamentally different philosophy regarding the relationship between the regulator and the regulated. But again, that is an aside.

This thread resulted from people who had/have difficulty and they gave examples.

I realize that some people do have difficulty understanding them, that much is a given. My point it that I believe this is a function of them being complex subjects, not a function of them being worded confusingly, or in "legalese" Could they be made easier to undestand by simplifying the content? Certainly. Obviously it would be much easier to grasp a single consistently applied definition of "cross country" instead of 5 different defintions. That speaks to changing the content though, and not the form. The complaint is that the FAR's should be written in plain language. My contention is that thay are written in plain language. Taking the cross country example, the regulations defining cross country are written using completely ordinary words, no jargon, no legalese, no obscure polysyllabic words. They are a headache because there are 5 different kinds of cross country, not because the language used to describe them is confusing. The language is pretty clear. Perhaps as you say, some might find it easier to keep things straight if things were listed in a point format. On the specific example of cross country, I think that a table (similar to 91.155 basic VFR weather minimums) would be helpful to sort out how far you have to fly and whether or not you have to land.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Plain english contracts are orders of magnitude easier to comprehend than legalese.

Not necessarily. They may simply =look= easier to understand. Interesting experience that a number of lawyers relate.

A standard form contracts for "A Company" that have a lot of legalese, rewritten in plain English. One of the provisions has some pretty strong language in favor of "A Company". In fact, when there was a contract negotiation, almost invariably, the other party complained about that provision. When rewritten in plain English, the provision was drafted even =more= favorable to A Company. Never questioned.

BW, I'm a plain language proponent, but generally tend to think that in regulations, there are more issues that occur as a result of intentionally non-specific regs than out of language that is not pretty well understood. Have you read the FAA Sport Pilot regs? Written in plain English Q&A format. Pretty good effort, but in a couple of them I was left wondering whether it was stating a rule or not.

 

[jetdrivr]

Everything Explained!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I got a copy of the book that is advertised in the column next to all the post. "Everything Explained for the Professional Pilot." Unbelievable!!!! The info contained is defiantly on a level that I can understand, organized very well, and the index is phenomenal. This is definitely a "must have" book. Believe it or not it almost makes the "regs" fun to read!!!!

 

[spngbobsqrpilot]

These are among the easiest to understand, and are quite plain.

Section 91.103: Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include-

.....

Now. Define (and limit) "all available information".

Nowhere in part 91 does it state that the information "must include, but is limited to..."


As was once said in an indoc class, the FARs are written in such a way that you can not fly without violating an FAR.