FAA ambiguity

Be careful what you wish for.


"Richard Russell" wrote in message
news
Begin rant mode.....
There is a thread in the IFR newsgroup regarding pattern entry that
currently has over 50 posts and offers many differing opinions on the
subject. Many of these disparate positions have merit. This rant is
not about pattern entry or the expected personality clashes or even
the flames that thread of this type are filled with.

What bothers me, and what I find to be absolutely incredible, is the
lack of clear direction that is provided by the numerous documents
that are produced by the FAA. The aforementioned thread is a good
example. I believe, possibly incorrectly, that most of the regulars
that frequent the aviation newsgroups are generally knowledgeable and
have a more than casual interest in the subject of aviation. The very
fact that so many experienced pilots can disagree on a subject as
basic as pattern entry is an indication to me that the FAA failed in
it's regulatory responsibilities. Surely, one would think that
between the FAR and the AIM that this, and many similar issues, would
be addressed definitively, but such is not the case. With many
issues, they seem to dance all around the subject without really
addressing it in a manner that cannot be misconstrued or
misinterpreted. I can't think of any other facet of my life where I
face so much regulation that does so little to define the proper
parameters for compliant operation.

Sorry for babbling on, but how can it be that this situation has
existed for so long without remedy? I work in a bureaucracy and
regularly deal with other bureaucracies, but I can find to parallel to
this example.

...End rant mode

Rich Russell

Richard Russell wrote:

What bothers me, and what I find to be absolutely incredible, is the
lack of clear direction that is provided by the numerous documents
that are produced by the FAA.

Obviously, the FAA feels that it's safe enough to *suggest* that we come in at
1,000' AGL, *suggest* that we enter the pattern on the downwind leg at a 45
degree angle or come straight in, *suggest* that we report our position by
distance and direction (as opposed to something like "on the VOR approach"), and
doesn't feel that safety would be significantly improved by *requiring* us to do
anything beyond get the plane down in one piece.

I don't have a problem with that, myself. They've made the recommendations and a
sensible pilot will not deviate much from them.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Obviously, the FAA feels that it's safe enough to *suggest* that we
come in at
1,000' AGL, *suggest* that we enter the pattern on the downwind leg
at a 45
degree angle or come straight in, *suggest* that we report our
position by
distance and direction (as opposed to something like "on the VOR
approach"), and
doesn't feel that safety would be significantly improved by
*requiring* us to do
anything beyond get the plane down in one piece.

I don't have a problem with that, myself. They've made the
recommendations and a
sensible pilot will not deviate much from them.


I would definitely deviate from the first one you mentioned. The
latest AC "recommends" that pilots fly patterns at 1,000' AGL. That's
not a very good suggestion at an airport that has a published pattern
altitude of 800' AGL (of which there are many examples throughout the
country). Instead, I fly the published altitude. If there is none,
THEN I'll fly the recommended 1,000' AGL.

Other regs require me to acquaint myself with all of the information
pertinent to a flight before I go. Why would I ignore an 800' AGL
pattern altitude listed for an airport, in favor of following the
recommendation in AC?


John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

What bothers me, and what I find to be absolutely incredible, is the
lack of clear direction that is provided by the numerous documents
that are produced by the FAA.

If you think it's bad on the operations side, try the maintenance side
sometime. Much worse.

Once I used to look for wisdom in FAA regulations and advisory
circulars. Once I tried to reconcile them so there was no
contradiction. It's a task that I believe is beyond the capabilities
of even a talmudic scholar. I've given up.

Occam's Razor - the simple explanation is usually the correct one. The
simple explanation is that the FAA is staffed with a bunch of useless
bloody loonies. It's not as far-fetched as you think.

The real business of the FAA is the regulation of the airlines. That's
what the general public thinks of when it thinks aviation. That's
where the visibility is. That's where the promotion opportunities are.
That's also where this level of ambiguity is simply not tolerated -
and neither is regulation that is impossible to comply with. Airlines
and their unions have legal staffs and the ears of congressmen. That
doesn't mean they have it all their own way, but it does mean that
there is some level of accountability.

Then there is the part of the FAA that deals with GA. The FSDO's,
primarily. You will NEVER see an airline employee at the FSDO in his
professional capacity. The airlines have their own offices. There is
no visibility in GA, and no real opportunity to move up. So when you
deal with the GA portion of the FAA, realize that you are dealing with
the losers of the FAA, with the occasional little airplane enthusiast
thrown in.

Ever want to install a CD player or other entertainment system into
your little airplane? Good luck. Some people will tell you that it
can't be done unless you buy the $1000+ certified version. In some
FSDO's, they are even correct. In others you can get by with it - but
it's not really legit. Think the airlines would tolerate that state of
affairs? Of course not. So the FAA issued AC 25-10. It spells out
how you can install a CD player, video game, or other miscellaneous
non-required electrical equipment for entertainment purposes. It's
really quite simple to follow and very reasonable. Problem - it
applies ONLY to transport category airplanes. Not your little
bugsmasher. You're still hosed.

NOW do you get it?

Michael

On 6 Jan 2005 08:12:09 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

What bothers me, and what I find to be absolutely incredible, is the
lack of clear direction that is provided by the numerous documents
that are produced by the FAA.

If you think it's bad on the operations side, try the maintenance side
sometime. Much worse.

Once I used to look for wisdom in FAA regulations and advisory
circulars. Once I tried to reconcile them so there was no
contradiction. It's a task that I believe is beyond the capabilities
of even a talmudic scholar. I've given up.

snipped good stuff....
NOW do you get it?

Michael

I do get it, Michael. In fact, I got it from the beginning. That
doesn't diminish my astonishment that the situation can actually be as
convoluted as it seems to be. Where else would this be tolerated?
Rich Russell

I do get it, Michael. In fact, I got it from the beginning.

Sorry. I got overexcited.

That
doesn't diminish my astonishment that the situation can actually be as
convoluted as it seems to be. Where else would this be tolerated?

Nowhere, I suspect. You should realize that it's mostly not tolerated
in aviation either.

I gave you the example of the CD player for a reason. A friend of mine
has an AM/FM/Tape Player installed in his Bonanza. There is no
paperwork for it. Never has been. It has been there for maney years.
It is clearly not legal, and yet every IA seems to sign off the annual
every year.

That's little ****. A friend of mine bought a Cherokee Six in Alaska.
The pilot's seat was a lawn chair. The doors had to be duct taped
closed. She flew it to Houston. I've seen a tractor carburetor come
off a certified airplane - and I'm talking about a model that had NEVER
been approved for aviation. It made it through dozens of annuals and a
major overhaul, and was only removed when the bowl cracked.

My girlfriend bought a Straduster a few years ago. The owner had been
flying for many years, but eventually did get around to getting a
private license. With a private license and an experimental
(amateur-built) airplane, he would take people up for aerobatic rides
(without parachutes) and charge for it. I know people who file and fly
IFR who never got the instrument rating, and I know at least one who
used to do it - until he finally got rated. He went on to be a fleet
captain for a major airline and a DE in transport category jets.

This is the reality of general aviation. You won't see it at the front
desk of the FBO, with a flight school staffed by airline wannabes, but
dig a little deeper and it's all around you.

This is how people react to regulations that are unworkable. It's no
different from what you see on the highway. Almost nobody consistently
drives the speed limit. Few people come to a full stop at every stop
sign. Every gas station I've ever seen in Texas sells cold beer, and
the open container law has had no impact. Rules that are unworkable or
unacceptable are largely ignored.

GA rules are some of the most unacceptable and unworkable of all, and
they're also some of the most widely ignored. Only on these newsgroups
and in the commercial flight schools are pilots concerned about what's
legal. In the real world, they're only concerned with what they can
get away with. The intolerable is not tolerated.

There is something about these newsgroups that seems to attract a
subset of people who believe we SHOULD tolerate this. People who
believe that even though the regulations are clearly convoluted,
self-contradictory, and unworkable we should still comply. People who
even believe that it's reasonable to rat out someone to the FAA for
non-compliance. They're a vocal minority - nothing more.

Can you imagine what would happen if the majority of pilots openly
refused to comply? That's what happened in the ultralight world. The
rules set weight and operational limits that were ridiculous, and
people simply did not comply. 90% of the single seaters were
overweight, and 90% of the "instruction-only" two seaters were being
flown for personal use. So what happened? Were there prosecutions on
a mass scale? No. Everyone knew that people wouldn't stand for that.
So in the end, the FAA came up with something more reasonable (sport
pilot) in hopes that people would comply. Whether they do - or
continue to fly as they have been - remains to be seen.

Michael