If you were writing the FARs 91anew...

Hiperbiper

Hiperbiper

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
633
Location
Shreveport La.
Display Name
Display name:
Chris Carlson
After many "hanger flying" sessions with everyone from GOD (Marion Cole) to the mechs to the A&P skools students to the lowest no-lettered newbie at DTN I wondered; if the Rules (FAR's as we now know them) were to no longer be in force and it was up to us (the Collective wisdom of the AME's, CFI's, A&P's, IA's, Airport managers, FBO's ect) to come up with common sense rules required to keep people from making the NTSB pages and keep flying affordable; what would the NEW FAR's look like??

Clean slate.

What would you put in? Please give a reason with your're rule so that readers might understand the reason for the rule!

I'll fire the first shot:
All PPL training MUST include a 50nm flight back to a defined landing area WITH THE VIEW LIMITING DEVICE in place. The course back to a defined landing place must have at least 5 heading changes of 90* or more and altitude changes of 1500" or more twice during the flight excerise. Students may use all resources available (VOR, GPS, ADF, etc.) as the aircraft is equipped (including portables). PTS standards are +/- 100" and 20* .


Reason: I'm not trying to make IFR capable pilots out of Newbies but a poor weather making call shouldn't cost you your life. Todays nod towards "flying the needles" for VFR training is, in IMPO woefully poor. Hence the statistic of VFR flight into IMC.

Chris
 
Last edited:
I'd change the O2 requirement laws, they are too stiff. There's no reason to fear flying above 10,000ft, and certainly no reason to require O2 above 14,000.

And I'd put a requirement that any TFRs or ADIZes be approved by a 3/4ths majority of GA pilots.
 
  • Statue miles or nautical miles, pick one.
  • Reduce the confusing vis and cloud clearance requirements for VFR to... 3 miles vis and 500, 1000, 2000 in all airspace other than Class A.
  • Get rid of special VFR.
  • Night flight away from the vacinity of the airport should require an IFR rating and flight plan.
  • Annual flight review.
 
Hiperbiper said:
I'll fire the first shot:
All PPL training MUST include a 50nm flight back to a defined landing area WITH THE VIEW LIMITING DEVICE in place. The course back to a defined landing place must have at least 5 heading changes of 90* or more and altitude changes of 1500" or more twice during the flight excerise. Students may use all resources available (VOR, GPS, ADF, etc.) as the aircraft is equipped (including portables). PTS standards are +/- 100" and 20* .


Reason: I'm not trying to make IFR capable pilots out of Newbies but a poor weather making call shouldn't cost you your life. Todays nod towards "flying the needles" for VFR training is, in IMPO woefully poor. Hence the statistic of VFR flight into IMC.

Chris
Click to expand...
I have three problems with yours:

1. Training requirements are in FAR 61 not 91, so you're actually making the FAR more complicated than it already is.

2. Micromanaging in a regulation is generally a bad idea.

3. VFR flight into IMC happens to instrument rated pilots (I forget the statistics but as I recall they are surprisingly close)
 
I strongly disagree with the earlier comment about night flight requiring an instrument rating and plan. Night VFR is great, and I did quite a bit of it, both before and after I got the instrument rating.

Special VFR has it's place too, and I'm not aware of pilots killing themselves in droves using it.
 
TMetzinger said:
I strongly disagree with the earlier comment about night flight requiring an instrument rating and plan. Night VFR is great, and I did quite a bit of it, both before and after I got the instrument rating.

Special VFR has it's place too, and I'm not aware of pilots killing themselves in droves using it.
Click to expand...


Ain't America great? We can agree to disagree.
 
gibbons said:
  • Get rid of special VFR.
  • Night flight away from the vacinity of the airport should require an IFR rating and flight plan.
Click to expand...

I disagree with removing those because:

There are times where you cannot meet the VFR requirements in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Better weather may only be a mile or two away. This is *really* common with coastal airports or so I've heard.

So far I have used special VFR once. I believe I used it responsibly in the intended manner. I was familiar with the area and knew there was nothing I was going to run into. The layer that was holding be back was extremely thin and if worst came to worse I would have climbed through it. Although this would not have been legal--it would have been somewhat safe thanks to special vfr.

As far as night VFR. I do it all the time. I do my best to ensure that I only takeoff into a real stable weather system that'll throw me no surprises. I can now say I have inadvertently picked up ice because of VFR at night. But it was still a LONG ways from unsafe since I took control of the situation.

You can increase regulation to hopefully decrease accidents--but the stupid will still remain stupid and you are really only limiting the people who are intelligent enough to understand the risks and operate in the environment safely.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I have three problems with yours:

1. Training requirements are in FAR 61 not 91, so you're actually making the FAR more complicated than it already is.

What I was refering to in the thread title was the whole spectrum of Private GA ops...Part 43., Part 61., Part 23. etc. What would you keep...what would you ditch and what would you keep but modify...


2. Micromanaging in a regulation is generally a bad idea.

Agreed, and you have to look no further than the FAR/AIM to prove this...

3. VFR flight into IMC happens to instrument rated pilots (I forget the statistics but as I recall they are surprisingly close)
Click to expand...

Also agreed. But at least the IR pilot has a fighting chance in IMC.
If crashes due to VFR into IMC is one of the biggest killers in GA then maybe a change in the PTS for the PPL could address it? Sometimes even smart people do dumb things...

JMPO

Chris
 
Hiperbiper said:
If crashes due to VFR into IMC is one of the biggest killers in GA then maybe a change in the PTS for the PPL could address it? Sometimes even smart people do dumb things...
Click to expand...
That is a good point and there's even a philosophical aspect to it: do we address perceived weaknesses in some training and currency issues with regulatory changes that take time and have to follow notice and comment procedures or, at least where we can, with more flexible changes to things like the PTS, which do not have to go through that process.

Look for example at how the PIC changed from completely complete discretion for the CFI giving it to a minimum task table in the PTS. For that matter, look at how the PTS itself evolves in response to perceived problems with it's special emphasis areas.

I don't have a final answer; my tendency toward "don't add regulations unless they are really necessary and not just because you think it would be a good idea to control someone else's conduct" reflects personal biases about law and politics that will not be shared by a lot of prople, but it's sure an interesting question.
 
I guess this one is a mix of part 61 and part 91...

I'd call PIC two different things, like Pilot Controlling (PC) for logging and Pilot in Command (PIC) for who's actually in charge. That would stop endless arguments about logging of PIC.

Chris
 
gibbons said:
  • Statue miles or nautical miles, pick one.
Click to expand...

THAT is a good one. :)

I'd keep the special VFR rules though. I've only used it once to get into my home airport when I would have busted the IFR approach otherwise.
 
TMetzinger said:
I strongly disagree with the earlier comment about night flight requiring an instrument rating and plan. Night VFR is great, and I did quite a bit of it, both before and after I got the instrument rating.

Special VFR has it's place too, and I'm not aware of pilots killing themselves in droves using it.
Click to expand...

I like night VFR. But out here in CA, we've got a lot of lights that help you identify which way is UP.
 
All reg proposals have to be approved by 90% of the POA membership before they are approved! Or, we could just make it "by me"!

A pilot can share flights and expenses without cowering for fear of the FAR on the topic, as long as they are not trying to make a profit at it.

Every pilot entering the traffic area, before listening on the radio MUST query on frequency, "ATITA, PA!"

just kiddin'.
 
Hiperbiper said:
All PPL training MUST include a 50nm flight back to a defined landing area WITH THE VIEW LIMITING DEVICE in place. The course back to a defined landing place must have at least 5 heading changes of 90* or more and altitude changes of 1500" or more twice during the flight excerise. Students may use all resources available (VOR, GPS, ADF, etc.) as the aircraft is equipped (including portables). PTS standards are +/- 100" and 20* .


Reason: I'm not trying to make IFR capable pilots out of Newbies but a poor weather making call shouldn't cost you your life. Todays nod towards "flying the needles" for VFR training is, in IMPO woefully poor. Hence the statistic of VFR flight into IMC.
Click to expand...
I would deal with this by requiring all private pilots to make precautionary off-field landings on at least 3 different surfaces (roads, green fields, brown fields, etc.)...too many airplanes out there without adequate instrumentation for ANY kind of IMC flight. I might even go so far as to require a dual cross-country in less than 1000 & 3, but that might put a financial strain on those Arizona flight schools ;)

SkyHog said:
I'd change the O2 requirement laws, they are too stiff. There's no reason to fear flying above 10,000ft, and certainly no reason to require O2 above 14,000.
Click to expand...
Nope...none whatsoever...unless you count the fact that some people turn blue and get really stupid above 10,000 feet. ;)

Fly safe!

David
 
I sat here thinking about your question for a while :rolleyes: , and the suggestions listed above. Can't say I think much of any of the suggestions. :( The regs seem to be working well enough, as long as everyone actually follows the rules. :) Accidents seem to happen when people exceed their training, or assume that the "minimums" apply to everyone with an airman certificate, or some ATC at a towered airport manages to run planes into each other. :hairraise: I don't think we would want to see additional grades of certificate, like PP1 for the first 100 hours, and PP2 for the second, with different privileges.:no:
 
SkyHog said:
I'd change the O2 requirement laws, they are too stiff. There's no reason to fear flying above 10,000ft, and certainly no reason to require O2 above 14,000.

And I'd put a requirement that any TFRs or ADIZes be approved by a 3/4ths majority of GA pilots.
Click to expand...

Hypoxic effects actually start as low as 5000 MSL (especially at night) but it's a slow change and even at higher and more toxic altitudes, most often NOT perceptable to the pilot until it's too late.

Try out a hypobarric chamber where they test your mental and physical functions under reduced O2 pressure to really see it first hand.

Somehow, it doesn't seem right to agree with the FAA but since we have to have REGs, I think they're all just about right as is, including currencies and WX mins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top