If you could change a FAR...

[C-135 Backer]

I would change the FAR that limits you do only 30 Hours in 7 days and the FAR that makes you take one day off every 7. As a commuter, I would rather go to work and fly 30 - 45 hours in a 6 - 8 day period. I also would change the FAR that governs min crew rest and set that at 12 hours.

 

[JetPilot500]

No, no ,no. You misunderstand me. I'm saying it's best to make part 91 approaches meet the requirements of part 121 and 135 where you must have the weather reported above minimums before beginning an approach.
I didn't mean we should ban all approaches, I meant we should ban cowboy "go take a look" approaches where you can shoot it even though it's zero-zero.

If that is the case, what would be the point of all of those approaches to airports that don't have a tower or weather reporting?

 

[ifly4food]

If that is the case, what would be the point of all of those approaches to airports that don't have a tower or weather reporting?

That is a good point. Commercial ops must have weather reporting on the field, but part 91 ops don't. Maybe all fields with an approach should have ASOS installed.

 

[Captain X]

How about clarifying the intent of a FAR?

That stupid ass rule about 200kias below class B is rediculous when you are in a jet (or TProp) approaching a primary B airport.

If I'm on a visual approach and leave the floor of on ring of the B, but will enter the next ring I shouldn't have to slow if I don't wanna.

Push them leevers thru the fu**in' radar and let's boogie!!!

 

[ShawnC]

That is a good point. Commercial ops must have weather reporting on the field, but part 91 ops don't. Maybe all fields with an approach should have ASOS installed.

That's a great idea ifly4food, but I think the problem that they will run into espically with more and more GPS apporachs coming in is that they are going to run out of radio freqencies for the each ASOS.

Maybe with the new weather reporting system, we can recieve METAR like weather from all the ASOS's in the general area on a MFD or something?

Though I am speculating here, I believe that they have the provision that one can go down and peek at the weather because weather can and does change quite quickly.

 

[ultrarunner]

I would CLOSE ASE, period. It'll keep the stupid pilots from killing those in the back of the plane that are paying for better decision making, and NOT GETTING IT.

 

[pireps]

For some people, creating more FARs won't matter. Unfortunately there are plenty of pilots out there who manage to hurt or kill themselves (and others) almost on a daily basis, just check out the NTSB website. Taking off over gross weight, VFR into IMC, etc. it doesn't end! Perhaps one problem is that some people take the regs as THEIR OWN min's for operation rather than finding a personal safety limit of when to turn around, not go, etc.

Anyways, I believe we need to get rid of non-precision approaches altogether. The possibility of prematurely going below MDA, accidentally missing a fix, not going around when the time's up, etc is just too high. And let's get rid of NDB's while we're at it. They're nice on an ILS for situational awareness but that's about it.

Oh and let's totally ban zero-zero takeoffs for part 91. How can someone in a C-172 with one vacuum pump believe it is safe to go when the "big boys" with dual EFIS and all the bells and whistles can't go?

And how about those ridiculous VFR weather minimums that are learned for the written and then forgotten? Let's see:Class G: take off with one mile visibility and clear of clouds... yeah that's real safe. We'll just stay below that overcast layer at 600 feet and we'll be alright!

 

[flywithastick]

For some people, creating more FARs won't matter.

Agreed. But more rules isn't the answer in most cases.

Anyways, I believe we need to get rid of non-precision approaches altogether. The possibility of prematurely going below MDA, accidentally missing a fix, not going around when the time's up, etc is just too high. And let's get rid of NDB's while we're at it. They're nice on an ILS for situational awareness but that's about it.

So no more GPS apchs either, huh. OOOOOOK.

Oh and let's totally ban zero-zero takeoffs for part 91. How can someone in a C-172 with one vacuum pump believe it is safe to go when the "big boys" with dual EFIS and all the bells and whistles can't go?

Why? Where are all the GA planes falling out of the sky?

And how about those ridiculous VFR weather minimums that are learned for the written and then forgotten? Let's see:Class G: take off with one mile visibility and clear of clouds... yeah that's real safe. We'll just stay below that overcast layer at 600 feet and we'll be alright!

yes, they can be quite safe in G airspace clear of clouds at 80 or 90-kts. Done it many times. you've forgotten that the little bug smashers fly a lot slower and lower quite safely in most instances. something about approach categories are coming to mind... Also, you've also not considered the fact that light GA planes (usually operating pt 91) aren't carrying 19 or so pax in the back. It's apples and oranges.

 

[pireps]

Perhaps I went a little to the extreme, and I agree that GPS approaches are a good thing if correctly executed. But all too often I read in an accident synopsis that a "legally" current and qualified pilot attempted an approach in low IMC and then somehow mysteriously crashed. And I am so sick and tired of it! So what can we do about it? Preventing poor judgment is an awfully daunting task. Stricter guidelines for training? Tighter rules? More enforcement? I don't know the answer.

 

[TXCAP4228]

But all too often I read in an accident synopsis that a "legally" current and qualified pilot attempted an approach in low IMC and then somehow mysteriously crashed. And I am so sick and tired of it! So what can we do about it? Preventing poor judgment is an awfully daunting task. Stricter guidelines for training? Tighter rules? More enforcement? I don't know the answer.

Nothing will ever be 100% safe. Flying is safer than driving, and that's a pretty good standard for comparison. At some point it isn't the FAR that makes you safe, its YOU that makes you safe.

We don't need new or more FARS for that.