FAR's:Tricky,Favorites,Most Hated?

B

bigblockz8

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
429
Display Name
Display name:
Gore
I have recieved a last minute invite to join a friend's law class. They're studying the CFR and are on FARs. What are the most confusing,redundant,retarded/useless, coolest, and interesting ones out there?

I have a short list that comes to mind:
Fun 91.15 — Dropping objects

Confusing 61.113? The Private Pilot compensation rules, I forget the exact FAR(s)

These are the only two that come to mind. I am hoping that the more experienced folks (compared to my 15hrs in a training environment) would be able to add to this. Any type of background story or examples would greatly be appreciated. From $100 hamburger issues- full on 777 captain tales,anything.

In several hours I will be in a classroom full of law students that could have easily been my baby sitters. Anything that could perplex them or benefit them would be great.

The ATP scheduled cancelled so I'm left holding the bag...
 
Last edited:
bigblockz8 said:
I got a last minute invite to join a friend's law class. They're studying the CFR and are on FARs. What are the most confusing,redundant,retarded/useless, coolest, and interesting ones out there?

I have a short list that comes to mind:
Fun 91.15 — Dropping objects

Confusing 61.113? The Private Pilot compensation rules, I forget the exact FAR(s)

These are the only two that come to mind. I am hoping that the more experienced folks (compared to my 15hrs in a training environment) would be able to add to this. Any type of background story or examples would greatly be appreciated. From $100 hamburger issues- full on 777 captain tales,anything.

In several hours I will be in a classroom full of law students that could have easily been my baby sitters. Anything that could perplex them or benefit them would be great.

The ATP scheduled cancelled so I'm left holding the bag...
Click to expand...

You could start by pointing out to them that FAR's are Federal Acquisition Regulations.

If they want to be correct (and by studying law I would assume so) then they need to refer to them as 14 CFR Part ***.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
You could start by pointing out to them that FAR's are Federal Acquisition Regulations.

If they want to be correct (and by studying law I would assume so) then they need to refer to them as 14 CFR Part ***.
Click to expand...

Great! I just learned something! 14 CFR Part ____ it is!

Personally I still like the FAR/AIM vs. 14 CFR/AIM

Thanks for the reply!
 
Before jumping into the CFR's they should begin with Title 49, Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs as this is the basis of all 14 CFR's.
 
How about flying when the plane is not "airworthy." How is that done under 14 CFR Part ____?
 
Dislike: PP compensation rules; definitions of night - stick with just one.
Hate: Allowing fish-counters and weathermen to dictate how high we have to fly over whales and seagulls, and the FAA for letting them control aviation.
 
I've always liked 91.3 (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

I've had occasion to wish that the DMV code had a similar regulation.

OTOH there's 91.103 - Preflight action, Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

I read this and all I see is me spending 7 hours googling the departing airport, the destination airport and every tree and building in between, literally gathering *all available* information. I know that's not quite what it means, but I can still imagine being held accountable for some tiny detail that was available that I didn't check.
 
Old Geek said:
OTOH there's 91.103 - Preflight action, Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

I read this and all I see is me spending 7 hours googling the departing airport, the destination airport and every tree and building in between, literally gathering *all available* information. I know that's not quite what it means, but I can still imagine being held accountable for some tiny detail that was available that I didn't check.
Click to expand...

There are way too many OWT's bouncing around the internet and local airports about how a pilot missed a minor detail about something, went flying and had something unrelated happen, then the FAA found out about the missed minor insignificant detail and then proceeded to burn the pilot at the stake for said minor detail. :rolleyes:

Use common sense and don't let these "mavens of regulation" coerce you into believing the FAA has nothing better to do than try to take away your certificates for every minor infraction.
 
With the possible exception of one who has been unjustly taken through the ringer (and even then, it's more likely the ringer driver than the reg itself), if one literally "hates" an FAR, he or she probably shouldn't be flying. The psychological problems run way too deep
 
Old Geek said:
I've always liked 91.3 (b)
I've had occasion to wish that the DMV code had a similar regulation.
Click to expand...

I use 91.3 when driving anyway. It's either that or get murdered out there in the active warzone. No touchy feely rule justifies intentional death or worse even though the law unconditionally requires it.

OTOH there's 91.103 - Preflight action
Click to expand...

Don't forget airworthiness details and digging through SB/AD and whatever else that you don't know where to start looking. Even if they hand you the maintenance logs, so what, most non mechanics don't know what that means. I bet it's possible to bust every single pilot that ever rented on at least half a dozen violations.
 
Don't forget the Part 91...if you're unlucky (pun intended) to come the negative attention of the FAA, they will throw 91.13 at you...the "kitchen sink" FAR:

No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Click to expand...
 
Dumbest: Flight time = compensation
 
Rotor&Wing said:
There are way too many OWT's bouncing around the internet and local airports about how a pilot missed a minor detail about something, went flying and had something unrelated happen, then the FAA found out about the missed minor insignificant detail and then proceeded to burn the pilot at the stake for said minor detail. :rolleyes:

Use common sense and don't let these "mavens of regulation" coerce you into believing the FAA has nothing better to do than try to take away your certificates for every minor infraction.
Click to expand...

I read those two regulations as saying:
1. You're in command. Do what you have to do to ensure the safe conduct of your flight. Be prepared to explain your actions if asked.

2. Know WTF you're doing, and take reasonable care.

If you have an engine failure due to mechanical issues - the FAA is not going to sanction you for the fact that your tire pressure was off. If you didn't check the oil level on preflight and your failure was related to that, that's different.

As R&W says, FAA has lots better to do than try to take away your certificates for every minor infraction. At the Washington FSDO, from what I've seen they're so busy doing surveillance on the carriers and commercial operators that they rarely have time for anything other than accident investigations, initial CFI rides, and the other mandatory stuff they have to do.
 
I can come up with a much longer list of hated and ridiculous Federal Acquisition Regulations than I can aviation regs.

The real problem with the PP compensation rules isn't so much the reg, but how one attorney in the FAA decided to interpret them.

The various definitions of "night" and how they are used is utterly ridiculous.

The fact that I can repack the wheel bearings and repair landing light wiring on my plane but not repair panel/cabin light wiring is another fine example of wasted type on paper (and various other stupid limitations on owner maintenance items).

Jeff
 
Do you have access to the AOPA forums?

This one was a hoot. The fun starts at post 19:
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=75537

bigblockz8 said:
I have recieved a last minute invite to join a friend's law class. They're studying the CFR and are on FARs. What are the most confusing,redundant,retarded/useless, coolest, and interesting ones out there?

I have a short list that comes to mind:
Fun 91.15 — Dropping objects

Confusing 61.113? The Private Pilot compensation rules, I forget the exact FAR(s)

These are the only two that come to mind. I am hoping that the more experienced folks (compared to my 15hrs in a training environment) would be able to add to this. Any type of background story or examples would greatly be appreciated. From $100 hamburger issues- full on 777 captain tales,anything.

In several hours I will be in a classroom full of law students that could have easily been my baby sitters. Anything that could perplex them or benefit them would be great.

The ATP scheduled cancelled so I'm left holding the bag...
Click to expand...
 
Well I got through the class. It was interesting to see future lawyers/legal consultants interpreted the PIC logging reg as. That one required a brief mini ground school lesson introducing examples. That led to a heated discussion and a lot of confusion.

I took my FAR/AIM and several were written out and then broken down. I used all of the additional ones posted here. Thanks for the replies. There will be a part two in two more days so I have to think of some outlandish scenarios.

I like the one about SB/AD's and violations. The FBO I used to go to never had the logs out other than for practical tests so I wonder how many renters would be busted.

Does anyone actually inspect and research/cross check logs? I only do ARROW and I was told not to worry about that.
 
JeffDG said:
That's not in 14 CFR.

That's in a letter from the Chief Counsel.
Click to expand...

Says something perhaps about the Chief Counsel then... ;)

Doesn't really matter, until someone fights it, it's essentially law created outside of the intended process for changing CFRs.

To me, that's probably more annoying than any FAR could ever be... that said Chief Counsel can just make up crap and call it law -- instead of putting the problem back into the hands of the law crafters via an appropriate and required NPRM process for comments from the "served".

Jeff Oslick said:
The various definitions of "night" and how they are used is utterly ridiculous.

The fact that I can repack the wheel bearings and repair landing light wiring on my plane but not repair panel/cabin light wiring is another fine example of wasted type on paper (and various other stupid limitations on owner maintenance items).
Click to expand...

+ 1 for both of those.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
You could start by pointing out to them that FAR's are Federal Acquisition Regulations.

If they want to be correct (and by studying law I would assume so) then they need to refer to them as 14 CFR Part ***.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Better tell the FAA it's not the FAR since they use the term.

And if you want to be accurate, the "other" FAR is wrong. If you want to be correct you should refer to them as 48 CFR Part ***.

In both cases, "FAR" is a short-hand term used to refer to the group of regs. Neither is the formal legal citation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Better tell the FAA it's not the FAR since they use the term.

And if you want to be accurate, the "other" FAR is wrong. If you want to be correct you should refer to them as 48 CFR Part ***.

In both cases, "FAR" is a short-hand term used to refer to the group of regs. Neither is the formal legal citation.
Click to expand...

The changes are being made. In any correspondence within the FAA using the acronym FAR for Federal Aviation Regulation is not permitted, it must be 14 CFR ****.

Another forthcoming change is the word Administrator. The change will be to Administration.

As with anything else government, change is slow. :rolleyes:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Another forthcoming change is the word Administrator. The change will be to Administration.
Click to expand...

That's going to create confusion because "the Administration" is commonly used to refer to a presidential administration.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
You could start by pointing out to them that FAR's are Federal Acquisition Regulations.

If they want to be correct (and by studying law I would assume so) then they need to refer to them as 14 CFR Part ***.
Click to expand...

That's hard to pronounce. Unless you need to refer to a specific part, why not just "14 CFR"?
 
bigblockz8 said:
Does anyone actually inspect and research/cross check logs? I only do ARROW and I was told not to worry about that.
Click to expand...
You bet my tickets I do, every time I get into someone else's plane to give them training. Whoever told you not to worry about that gave you real bad advice.
 
FWIW, the regs I find are least well understood by the average Private Pilot are the ones on logging (61.51), especially PIC time and instrument time/events (including cross-reference to 61.57(c) for instrument currency), and the ones on priviliges and limitations (61.113 and cross-reference to 91.146). Another one I find isn't well known is the requirement in Part 43 for aircraft owners to record every update of their GPS database -- and the FAA is now, after several years of warning folks, starting to write people up for failing to do that. And as hinted at above, many pilots flying rental or borrowed planes don't fully understand their responsibilities for ensuring legal airworthiness beyond the ARROW check.
 
GPS updates should really be reclassified as servicing, not maintenance, IMO.

A regulation that I don't like is the one that requires a safety pilot to have an instrument rating if the flight is conducted under instrument flight rules, even if the pilot under the hood is IFR current.
 
The rule about 100 hour inspections should be changed to read any aircraft that is held out to the public for hire is to be on an approved progressive inspection, to be completed each 12 calendar months.
 
43.3 should be changed to add:

Any owner can return to service their own aircraft operated for personal transportation.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The changes are being made. In any correspondence within the FAA using the acronym FAR for Federal Aviation Regulation is not permitted, it must be 14 CFR ****.

Another forthcoming change is the word Administrator. The change will be to Administration.

As with anything else government, change is slow. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As with anything government, both changes were unnecessary bureaucratic silliness that added very little value, but costs a lot. ;)
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The changes are being made. In any correspondence within the FAA using the acronym FAR for Federal Aviation Regulation is not permitted, it must be 14 CFR ****.

Another forthcoming change is the word Administrator. The change will be to Administration.
Click to expand...
Got a reference to anything even quasi-official that says anything about either of these pieces of silliness? I'd especially like to see the prohibition on using the term FAR.

One would hope that the FAA has more important things on its plate than something this completely useless. I find it very difficult to believe this is anywhere above "I'll have chips with my sandwich" on anyone's priority list. (Even in our government)

Heck, even the FAR uses the terms FAR. I call "BS" or is there some official reference that's required for that also?

I can hardly wait for all the SFARs to be changed to S14 CFR ****
 
Last edited:
A CFI checkride not counting as a flight review. That still boggles my mind.
 
If you really want to have some fun bring up the medical requirements....
 
midlifeflyer said:
Got a reference to anything even quasi-official that says anything about either of these pieces of silliness? I'd especially like to see the prohibition on using the term FAR.

One would hope that the FAA has more important things on its plate than something this completely useless. I find it very difficult to believe this is anywhere above "I'll have chips with my sandwich" on anyone's priority list. (Even in our government)

Heck, even the FAR uses the terms FAR. I call "BS" or is there some official reference that's required for that also?

I can hardly wait for all the SFARs to be changed to S14 CFR ****
Click to expand...

The reference I made was for standardization within the agency. If a letter is generated with a regulation reference it must be in the form of 14 CFR Part **** and not "FAR **.***". This is taught in the academy and reinforced through all correspondence.

I don't see what is so "silly" about standardization or why you are so upset about something such as this. Since the OP was looking for information for a law class I thought I would point out this issue as these future law professionals will no doubt be corresponding with the agency, so one would assume they would want to be on the same page as the people they are speaking with. :dunno:
 
So the people they're speaking with are so dense they'll forget what a "FAR" is?

Impressive brain trust. Both sides.
 
denverpilot said:
So the people they're speaking with are so dense they'll forget what a "FAR" is?

Impressive brain trust. Both sides.
Click to expand...



The OP asked a simple question, and I provided something that I thought would help him with his class.

As far as your snide remark, just go back and reread your many inane diatribes you've posted and then tell us who's lacking in the "brain trust" department. :nonod:
 
Last edited:
As usual, when you have nothing to say that actually addresses my comments, you resort to personal attacks and the mods let you get away with it, and continue to hide behind your anonymity.

Luckily I put very little value in people who anonymously post on the Internet, so whatever. Those who attempt to bully others into silence, even less.

You've used the "inane diatribe" comment before. Quite original.

Diatribe perhaps, but that is the purpose of an Internet message board. Sharing of ideas.

Inane, you might need to go look up the definition. Just because you disagree with my assessment that internal FAA memos from bureaucrats saying essentially, "make sure you file your TPS reports properly", are a waste of all our time and money, doesn't make the opinion "inane".

I'm pretty sure that those law students will know that the colloquialism "FAR" means they go read "14 CFR". If they can't figure that out, they won't be practicing law very long.

The part that's laughable is that there's someone so bored inside the Administration, even when it's decades behind in technology deployment, that they thought they had time to send "guidance" to you and others making sure you always say "14 CFR".

Part of that lag in tech deployment has been the sorry state of your employer's budget for a very long time. A number of us, me included, lobbied for that to be rectified. I believe that the number came out to $50 Billion.

Foregive me if I don't think memos about what to call the regulations is worth paying that much for.
 
denverpilot said:
So the people they're speaking with are so dense they'll forget what a "FAR" is?

Impressive brain trust. Both sides.
Click to expand...

So, if you happen to be talking to someone at the FAA who is in procurement, and you mention the FARs, which one are you talking about, because that individual will probably assume the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

14 CFR is a much more precise and less ambiguous way to discuss the regulations.
 
denverpilot said:
As usual, when you have nothing to say that actually addresses my comments, you resort to personal attacks and the mods let you get away with it, and continue to hide behind your anonymity.
Click to expand...

That's simply because his being here is a big No No IAW my PMI.

It is in direct "Conflict" with FAA Policy to represent the FAA on any web page not authorized by the Administrator.

So he hides. My PMI's statement was "He is a Phony or a FAA employee trying to get fired"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top