Fun with literal reading of regulations

RussR

RussR

En-Route
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
4,488
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Russ
A few recent threads (including my own) have reminded me of the "joy" of taking things literally*.

- The "logbook" thread where the literal reading of 61.51e(4) says that a student solo pilot "may" log PIC (but presumably doesn't have to).
- My comments in the "XC Requirements" thread about CFI endorsement for a student solo XC.
- The "you don't need to be rated to fly an experimental aircraft solo" thread.

I thought it would be a fun thread to point out some examples of regulations where the strict literal reading of the regulation is either clearly not what's intended, or not how it's usually applied. Please let's not take this too seriously and get in arguments. It's supposed to be fun with poor wording.

I'll start with my most recent favorite example, CFI renewal. 61.197a(2) spells out that a CFI can renew their certificate if they have at least 5 checkride signoffs and at least 80% pass on the first attempt. However, the wording actually says:

during the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt.
Click to expand...

So, if you have 5 applicants take checkrides, and 4 pass on the first try, you're good. But what if you had a 6th signoff, but for whatever reason they didn't take the checkride? Now you have 6 signoffs, but only 4 actually passed the test on the first attempt! That's less than 80%, so a literal reading of this regulation says that doesn't qualify. I don't think any of us would feel that's the intent though.

Or like 91.205c(4), which says for VFR night flight you must have "if the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light." As opposed to a non-electric landing light? What would that be? A candle? A flamethrower? I do know airmail pilots used to be in the habit of releasing flares.

* I've been unintentionally driving my wife, and my mom, crazy for many years by being too literal. I am a perfect example of the engineer joke that if my wife send me to the grocery store and says "buy 2 gallons of milk, if they have bananas, buy 6," I'm likely to come back with 6 gallons of milk. Poor women.... my dad (and daughter actually too) understands though!
 
RussR said:
Or like 91.205c(4), which says for VFR night flight you must have "if the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light." As opposed to a non-electric landing light? What would that be? A candle? A flamethrower? I do know airmail pilots used to be in the habit of releasing flares.
Click to expand...
Exactly…they had to ensure that those other forms of lighting weren’t used.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, if you have two landing lights, one must be removed?
Click to expand...
If you’re going to read it literally, you need to read the whole thing. It says it must “contain”, not that it’s limited to.

Of course, the original landing light for a PA-12 was normally “contained” in the baggage compartment, and had to be installed on the wing to be “operational”.

What if it's a "taxi light"?
Click to expand...
a taxi light isn’t a landing light.
 
RussR said:
A few recent threads (including my own) have reminded me of the "joy" of taking things literally*.

- The "logbook" thread where the literal reading of 61.51e(4) says that a student solo pilot "may" log PIC (but presumably doesn't have to).
- My comments in the "XC Requirements" thread about CFI endorsement for a student solo XC.
- The "you don't need to be rated to fly an experimental aircraft solo" thread.

I thought it would be a fun thread to point out some examples of regulations where the strict literal reading of the regulation is either clearly not what's intended, or not how it's usually applied. Please let's not take this too seriously and get in arguments. It's supposed to be fun with poor wording.

I'll start with my most recent favorite example, CFI renewal. 61.197a(2) spells out that a CFI can renew their certificate if they have at least 5 checkride signoffs and at least 80% pass on the first attempt. However, the wording actually says:



So, if you have 5 applicants take checkrides, and 4 pass on the first try, you're good. But what if you had a 6th signoff, but for whatever reason they didn't take the checkride? Now you have 6 signoffs, but only 4 actually passed the test on the first attempt! That's less than 80%, so a literal reading of this regulation says that doesn't qualify. I don't think any of us would feel that's the intent though.

Or like 91.205c(4), which says for VFR night flight you must have "if the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light." As opposed to a non-electric landing light? What would that be? A candle? A flamethrower? I do know airmail pilots used to be in the habit of releasing flares.

* I've been unintentionally driving my wife, and my mom, crazy for many years by being too literal. I am a perfect example of the engineer joke that if my wife send me to the grocery store and says "buy 2 gallons of milk, if they have bananas, buy 6," I'm likely to come back with 6 gallons of milk. Poor women.... my dad (and daughter actually too) understands though!
Click to expand...
The light thing makes sense. Be it candle, flamethrower or whatever, they don’t want anything that is not electric. Much easier to say it that way than make a list of everything that makes light except electric and disapproving those.
 
RussR said:
I'll start with my most recent favorite example, CFI renewal. 61.197a(2) spells out that a CFI can renew their certificate if they have at least 5 checkride signoffs and at least 80% pass on the first attempt. However, the wording actually says:



So, if you have 5 applicants take checkrides, and 4 pass on the first try, you're good. But what if you had a 6th signoff, but for whatever reason they didn't take the checkride? Now you have 6 signoffs, but only 4 actually passed the test on the first attempt! That's less than 80%, so a literal reading of this regulation says that doesn't qualify. I don't think any of us would feel that's the intent though.
Click to expand...

Why not?

It is clear. 80% of your students must pass on the first attempt. You have to send at least 5 students for checkrides.

They are two separate things. And you must meet both conditions.
 
RussR said:
* I've been unintentionally driving my wife, and my mom, crazy for many years by being too literal. I am a perfect example of the engineer joke that if my wife send me to the grocery store and says "buy 2 gallons of milk, if they have bananas, buy 6," I'm likely to come back with 6 gallons of milk. Poor women.... my dad (and daughter actually too) understands though!
Click to expand...
The literal thing I drive my wife crazy with is any question that has an “or” in it gets “yes” as an answer. “Do you want to go out, or stay at home?” “Yes”
 
luvflyin said:
The light thing makes sense. Be it candle, flamethrower or whatever, they don’t want anything that is not electric. Much easier to say it that way than make a list of everything that makes light except electric and disapproving those.
Click to expand...

But why do they not want anything that's NOT electric. Why does it matter?
I mean I know that practically speaking there's not really much of any other solutions for an "installed light" besides an electric light...but still, it's stupid to stipulate something that doesn't matter.
 
Brad W said:
But why do they not want anything that's NOT electric. Why does it matter?
I mean I know that practically speaking there's not really much of any other solutions for an "installed light" besides an electric light...but still, it's stupid to stipulate something that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Did it not matter when the reg was written?
 
from the basic med form:
VISITS TO HEALTH PROFESSIONAL WITHIN LAST 3 YEARS: List all visits in the last 3 years to a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, psychologist, clinical social worker, or substance abuse specialist for treatment, examination, or medical/mental evaluation. List visits for counseling only if it was related to a personal substance abuse or psychiatric condition. Enter the date of visit as month and year (e.g., 01/1990), name, address, and type of health professional consulted and briefly state reason for consultation. Repeat this process to add all relevant visits to medical professionals in the past 3 years. Multiple visits to one health professional for the same condition may be grouped together on one line. You do not need to report: o Occasional common illnesses such as colds or sore throats that resolved; o Routine dental, eye, and FAA periodic medical examinations; or o Consultations with your employer-sponsored employee assistance program (EAP) unless the consultations were for substance abuse or unless the consultations resulted in referral for psychiatric evaluation or treatment.​

So it says list them all....then it goes on to say don't list them all.....not even close.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Did it not matter when the reg was written?
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure what the thinking was "when it was written"....but i can't think of a single reason they couldn't have just said an "installed landing light"
 
Brad W said:
I don't know for sure what the thinking was "when it was written"....but i can't think of a single reason they couldn't have just said an "installed landing light"
Click to expand...
Pyrotechnic landing lights could be (and have been) installed.
 
and of course there's the:
Anus: (not including digital examination)​
what is the doc supposed to do for that check box?
 
Brad W said:
But why do they not want anything that's NOT electric. Why does it matter?
I mean I know that practically speaking there's not really much of any other solutions for an "installed light" besides an electric light...but still, it's stupid to stipulate something that doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Ask them. Didn't someone say above something about old airmail dudes using flares or something. But I think you hit on it. What the hell else is anyone going to use. So by that logic, yeah, they coulda left the word electric out of it. I ain't gonna be the one who recommends a change to the FAR tho.

EDIT: Post #15. @MauleSkinner says it has been done. Maybe there was an airplane fire once and that's when the FAR got electrified.
 
White parachute flares were a fairly common accessory for planes that flew at night. Some wee installed in tubes with pull toggles to release and automatically ignite them. Great for lighting the airport, or farm field that you were about to land at, but the flares occasionally produced very damaging forest or field fires. That became intolerable when electric landing lights became reliable, so all alternates to electric was made illegal with the FAR.

Available firefighting equipment was not as effective then as now. Consider how long some forest fores have burned with today's assets and speed of arrival.
 
yeah I get that.... so I can understand the "mounted" qualifier.....(with the implication to exclude or at least have the ability to use instead of launched devices)...but still...some day somebody is going to figure out how to power one with a cyalume stick or with lightning bugs that is in every way superior to electrically powered lights.... but we'll be stuck with electric. Oh well. ;)
 
EdFred said:
45 degree pattern entry violates directions of turns in the pattern.
Click to expand...
So does the “overfly the field and cloverleaf” entry, which the faa diagrams also show as a right turn.
 
Pin dancing laws and regulations is always fun. Jailhouse lawyers are famous for it. There are plenty of interpretations which don't match the regulator language.

No, a safety pilot acting as PIC is not "acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted"
 
Country Flier said:
So does the “overfly the field and cloverleaf” entry, which the faa diagrams also show as a right turn.
Click to expand...
That recommendation needs to be read more literally, as “fly over the field and cloverleaf” very poorly describes the recommendation.

When well clear of the pattern—approximately 2 miles—scan carefully for traffic, descend to pattern altitude, then turn right to enter at 45° to the downwind leg at midfield.
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
45 degree pattern entry violates directions of turns in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good one. Along those lines, of course, with a left traffic pattern, if you EVER get slightly left of course on final, you have no way to correct it and need to just go around.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That recommendation needs to be read more literally, as “fly over the field and cloverleaf” very poorly describes the recommendation.
Click to expand...
The "cloverleaf" aka "teardrop" is actually a 45° entry. Every problem I've seen with it (and there have been plenty) is pilots who treat it as a pattern maneuver.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The "cloverleaf" aka "teardrop" is actually a 45° entry. Every problem I've seen with it (and there have been plenty) is pilots who treat it as a pattern maneuver.
Click to expand...
Yup…it basically says the 45 degree entry when approaching from the non-pattern side should start 3-4 miles from the downwind.
 
Country Flier said:
So does the “overfly the field and cloverleaf” entry, which the faa diagrams also show as a right turn.
Click to expand...

If you are entering, you are not IN the pattern.

But I'm pretty sure every pilot becomes familiar with ALL the information pertaining to the flight, including everything happening that isn't in a NOTAM.
 
bflynn said:
But I'm pretty sure every pilot becomes familiar with ALL the information pertaining to the flight, including everything happening that isn't in a NOTAM.
Click to expand...

Literally, you could never takeoff since the wind direction could have shifted on the takeoff roll and it would be a hazard and “Reckless Operation” to stare at the windsock instead of the runway ahead, thus having to choose which FAR to violate.
 
bflynn said:
But I'm pretty sure every pilot becomes familiar with ALL the information pertaining to the flight, including everything happening that isn't in a NOTAM.
Click to expand...
If I fly for lunch and the restaurant on the field is closed, did I violate a FAR?
 
I notice that the regulation on direction of turns says "when approaching to land" and does not explicitly mention being in the pattern.
 
Palmpilot said:
I notice that the regulation on direction of turns says "when approaching to land" and does not explicitly mention being in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but idiots gonna idiot, and create more of them by teaching students to be idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top