If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150
I have to ask why you feel it's
reasonable to turn this guy in to the FSDO but not to copy license plate numbers of speeders and turn them in. I didn't make the post, but I do have some reasons. Way back when... when I was learning to fly and learning how the regs worked, it was made clear to me that the FAA's rules proscribed things that were outright dangerous, but did =not= proscribe things that =might= be dangerous, leaving it to the pilot in command to make that kind of judgement, based on his level of experience, skill, judgement, equipment, and circumstances. It was not a "lowest common denomenator" thing. The FAA regs were to be taken seriously, and it was expected that pilots would excercise =judgement= to fly safely, rather than rely on "safe for anybody" rules to do so. Cars are handled differently. Anybody with a warm body can drive, and usually do so with their brains safely at home. The rules are designed so that the lowest common denomenator would be safe driving within the law. Say what you will about flight training, pilots are trained to higher standards than drivers (whose exam consists primarily of parallel parking without modifying anybody else's car, and stopping at stop signs). Back In Those Days (tm), violating an FAR was (seen by me to be) a much bigger deal than rolling slowly through a stop sign. Things seem to have changed some, and the FAA regs seem to be taking the place of judgement more and more. Maybe it's me that has changed my perspective, but if indeed the rules are becoming more petty, then this will have consequences in the attitude of pilots who are excercising judgement, good or bad. Jose r.a.a, r.a.o, and r.a.s trimmed, as I don't follow those groups -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Way back when... when I was learning to fly and learning how the regs
worked, it was made clear to me that the FAA's rules proscribed things that were outright dangerous, but did =not= proscribe things that =might= be dangerous, leaving it to the pilot in command to make that kind of judgement, based on his level of experience, skill, judgement, equipment, and circumstances. It was not a "lowest common denomenator" thing. I don't agree with that at all. Neither does the FAA, for that matter. The regulations ARE geared to the lowest common denominator. The ultimate proof of that is that the FAA will readily waive them. Aerobatics in a non-aerobatic aircraft? No problem, been waived many times before, for anyone who looks like he knows what he's doing. You don't really think Bob Hoover's Twin Commander was beefed up for his routines, do you? It had some special equipment to handle his engines-out routines, and that was about it. And he certainly wasn't the only one - just the best known. Operating overgross? The FAA will routinely give you a ferry permit to fly as much as 20% over gross, if you look like you know what you're doing. How do you think the transcon ferry pilots do it? Operating with a known deficiency? I can call the FSDO up right now and get them to fax me a ferry permit, sign it, and launch with virtually any deficiency you can name, as long as I consider it safe for the given flight. You probably can't. It's all a matter of having the right piece of paper (or, these days, plastic). Low altitude aerobatics? The FAA hands out floating waivers for aerobatics down to ground level. It's actually even worse than that - the FAA designates private individuals to do this. Tina once took a flight with a guy like that - he had her spin down into the downwind over an airport that has airline service AND had over 5000 people on the airport property at the time. But he had the right piece of paper, so it was all legal. The FAA regulations are indeed lowest common denominator regulations. That's why the FAA winds up handing out tons of waivers for the people who have a need to break them publicly. Those who have no need to do this publicly don't bother with the paper. Say what you will about flight training, pilots are trained to higher standards than drivers A newly minted private pilot is about as prepared to exercise the privileges of his certificate as a newly licensed driver is to exercise the privileges of his license. It's just that because the equipment and practices of aviation are obsolete and unnecessarily complex and quirky, the pilot needs more training. He's really no more prepared - they start out equal, and after that the agerage pilot quickly falls behind because he doesn't spend nearly enough time behind the yoke. Do you realize that the average driver spens 200+ hours a year behind the wheel? I don't believe you will find ONE non-professional pilot who has spent 200+ hours a year for the past five years flying who won't tell you the same - that the regulations are lowest common denominator regulations. Most professional pilots believe this too (certainly the ones I know) but won't say it publicly because it might look bad. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airbus A 380 is rolling | Martin Hotze | Piloting | 94 | June 14th 05 03:23 AM |
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 1 | April 29th 05 07:31 PM |
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 | kage | Owning | 0 | April 29th 05 04:26 AM |
Rolling a Non Aerobat 150 | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 4 | April 28th 05 05:06 PM |
??Build rolling tool chest? | Michael Horowitz | Owning | 15 | January 27th 05 04:56 AM |