Plain language FARs?

[hawg2hawk]

Anyone heard anything on the FAA's progress rewriting the FAR's so we can understand them without a law degree? The FAA issued a statement last year saying it was starting the revisions, but since then, nothing.
Failing that, any good recommendations on the best "translated FAR" book out there? Guess I got spoiled by reasonably straightforward regs in the military.
I'd rather poke a sharp stick in my eye than try to decode that crap and hope I'm right.

 

[Anaconda]

the only "plain language" book i've seen is published by jeppesen. if i'm not mistaken it doesn't cover part 121 however, if that's what you are interested in.

www.jeppesen.com

http://www.avshop.com/411303010.html

 

[Draginass]

Plain language FARs???? Are you crazy??? That would mean the same interpretation by multiple FAA inspectors, less work for aviation lawyers, pilots that might understand the intent and letter of regulations, cats and dogs living together, . . . . the end of civilization as we know it.

I'll believe it when I see it!

 

[dondk]

You can find the preamble to some reg's at AFS6000 I believe. The guy who actually wrote the reg's does have a question andd answer section with full explanations to the actual meaning. Now it does not cover 121, all 61, part of 135 and most of 91 if memory serves correctly.

I do not know if that helps, but there is some "limited" understanding out there, until you get the FSDO's involved then it all changes depending on the FSDO!

 

[ShawnC]

I saw a plain language FAR book at my local pilot shop, I'll try to get the name for you. It also includes the explanations of why they enacted that particular rule too.

 

[Caveman]

'...straightforward military regulations..."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Whooooeeee! That was a good one.

Some of my favorite straightforward military regulations:

Try to make sense out of either the JFTR (Joint Forces travel Regulations) or the DoDPM (Department of Defense Pay Manual). Beyond convoluted.....

Have you read the MCM lately (Manual for Courts-Martial).

How about the word 'promulgated'.

Take a look at either of the services personnel assignment policies.

The U.S. military or any branch of the U.S. government is the last place to look for anything even slightly resembling straightforward language.

 

[Jetjr]

Jepp-Sanderson published a book more than ten years ago called "Part 135 Explained", (I think). I'm sure that it was sold by Jepp-Sand.

It was in a very clear, three part format:
1) The regulation was quoted,
2) One of two Lawyers with an "Aviation Background" tried to explain the reg in simple terms.
3) To help see how the reg worked, a sample "bust" was reported and explained.

Even though it was part 135, I feel that it is very helpful.

Jim

 

[Timebuilder]

This question came up a few months ago, and I made a post expressing my displeasure with the "gray" nature of the regs.

One our most respected posters followed up with the idea that the regs are written that way "on purpose" to allow the government to make interpretations "as necessary", or something to that effect.

This idea of lifting the veil of confusion, as Draginass pointed out, is completly foreign to any government entity. Clarity would inevitably mean loss of jobs in both the public and private sectors. The greatest power is the power to instill fear, and the inability to understand what is really required is the basis of this fear. If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? It's another brick in The Wall....

Think about this: how absurd is it to have inspectors in the field be empowered to make a decision, be wrong, and have those who are regulated be unable to obtain redress should they be so trusting as to believe that the inspector is giving the correct opinion? This is an agency, like the IRS, who wants its cake and be able to eat it too.

I don't see any reform happening in my lifetime, and I plan on being here for a while.

I think that ALL of the FAA folks that I know personally would agree with this perspective.

 

[hawg2hawk]

The U.S. military or any branch of the U.S. government is the last place to look for anything even slightly resembling straightforward language.

Just ran across this, and as much as I hate to resurrect it, I just has to!

JFTRs, MCMs, and any type of personnel or pay regulation (ptooey!) is beneath the scope of this discussion. I think we can all agree that they are irrevocably f***ed and designed to do us harm. This discussion deals only with the sacred tomes which guide our heavenward flight. Or something. The U.S. Government writes some f'ed up products, I agree. Just curious though, who do you think writes the FARs?

So which is clearer?

§ 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.

or:

AFI11-2E-8V3

4.4.5. Unqualified Personnel . Unqualified personnel who are not in training will not occupy any pilot crew duty position during any phase of flight, unless waived by OG/CC.

I had to read the first statement 5 or 6 times before I thought I got it. The second one, I pretty much got the first time around. Not a direct comparison, but good enough to make my point.

I think the FAR's are designed for enforcement, not usability. But hey, if you like 'em...

So what's the latest? The FAA was working on this at some point.

 

[igneousy2]

So which is clearer?

§ 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.

or:

AFI11-2E-8V3

4.4.5. Unqualified Personnel . Unqualified personnel who are not in training will not occupy any pilot crew duty position during any phase of flight, unless waived by OG/CC.

I had to read the first statement 5 or 6 times before I thought I got it. The second one, I pretty much got the first time around. Not a direct comparison, but good enough to make my point.

I think the FAR's are designed for enforcement, not usability. But hey, if you like 'em...

So what's the latest? The FAA was working on this at some point.

Sorry, I disagree...your military reg is vague and is not as specific as the reg is.

In the civilian world you don't have an all powerful "OG/CC" that we can run to to make decisions. The regulation has to be very specific and allow possible variances so operations can continue without having to wait for the FSDO to open on Monday.

I bet the "OG/CC" has another manual to go to that dictates to him/her when they are permited to allow variances from this regulation.

It doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison to me.

I've found the regs to be pretty clear most of the time, the "gray" areas are usually created by pilots who are trying to test the limits of the regulations. Just do some research on this board to find out "if a flight is a charter or not". In reality it's a pretty simple matter to know if it is or it isn't. The only time it seems gray is if you're trying to make the shoe fit when it doesn't.

Later

 

[hawg2hawk]

I'll agree I didn't use the best example.

So, you're happy with the FAR's as written?

 

[PropsForward]

keep'em as they are. I like stereo instructions!

 

[hawg2hawk]

Guess that's a good argument for primacy. First learned is best learned. I hate the (&^%*&^%*% things personally.

 

[igneousy2]

I'll agree I didn't use the best example.

So, you're happy with the FAR's as written?

nah, I'm not happy with the Regs, There are too many, Although, I think a good number are written because of stupid things that operators, pilots, and/or mechanics do to try and circumvent the spirit of the rules. Do you really need to be told that you shouldn't try to fly formation with a plane who's pilot hasn't given you permission to fly formation with him? Apparently someone has tried this at some point in the past to warrant a rule.

 

[Batfish]

Best straight forward reg book out there

Failing that, any good recommendations on the best "translated FAR" book out there? Guess I got spoiled by reasonably straightforward regs in the military.
I'd rather poke a sharp stick in my eye than try to decode that crap and hope I'm right.

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