Human Nature, FARs, and the Meaning of Life

flyingcheesehead said:
In contrast, here's a different example:

(b)(2) To log PIC time, you must:
(i) be the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which you are rated,
(ii) be the sole human occupant of the aircraft,
(iii) act as PIC on an aircraft or in an operation that requires more than one pilot, or
(iv) be a CFI giving dual instruction.

In this case, since the last word of the second-to-last item is "Or", you only need to meet one of those qualifications to log PIC time. (And yes, this is a very simplified version of 61.51(e).)
Click to expand...

This style has always bugged me because in some documentation styles, reading that literally would indicate the first three are required TOGETHER before the “OR”.

Every line needs an “or” to make that one accurate.
 
denverpilot said:
This style has always bugged me because in some documentation styles, reading that literally would indicate the first three are required TOGETHER before the “OR”.

Every line needs an “or” to make that one accurate.
Click to expand...
That would run counter to the normal rules of English.
 
denverpilot said:
As if those are logical and sane? LOL.
Click to expand...
Well, you've got me there, but when someone asks, "Do you want chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, or rocky road," I never assumed that they meant "Do you want chocolate and vanilla and strawberry, or rocky road."
 
denverpilot said:
This style has always bugged me because in some documentation styles, reading that literally would indicate the first three are required TOGETHER before the “OR”.

Every line needs an “or” to make that one accurate.
Click to expand...

Even better would be to have the original statement worded, "In order to log PIC time, any ONE of the following criteria must be met" or "... ALL of the following criteria must be met." That saves looking for the buried "and" or "or" further down in the text list.
 
MuseChaser said:
Even better would be to have the original statement worded, "In order to log PIC time, any ONE of the following criteria must be met" or "... ALL of the following criteria must be met." That saves looking for the buried "and" or "or" further down in the text list.
Click to expand...
There are so many examples of lists like this that doing as you describe for every one of them would be cumbersome. I think that's why there is such a thing as "rules of construction" in the legal profession.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are so many examples of lists like this that doing as you describe for every one of them would be cumbersome. I think that's why there is such a thing as "rules of construction" in the legal profession.
Click to expand...

Understood; for documents written for those IN the legal profession, it makes perfect sense and it saves a few words. However, all pilots are expected to be versed in the FARs, but are not expected to be or required to be legal professionals. Can you imagine if operating manuals for vehicles were written using mechanic's vocabulary and idioms? I mean, yeah, I'd like that and maybe some others here would too, but for the general car-owing-and-driving populace it'd be a nightmare. I recognize that, as pilots, we have a responsibility to invest time in becoming familiar with the regulatory side of our aviation pursuits, just as we all have a responsibility to pay our taxes. Both processes could be a LOT easier with a little more common sense used in the creation of the pertinent government documents.

As far as the rules of construction making things less cumbersome, why not improve upon them further? Lists that are cumulative, meaning everything in the list must be satisfied, could be indicated with an underline ... "In order to log PIC time.." while cafeteria lists (only one item must be satisfied.. yeah, I'm making up these words, but they work for me) could be plain text .. "In order to log PIC time.." . Even less cumbersome, less wordy, clearer, you don't have to search for a buried "and" or "or," .. total win. Just one of many possible ways to improve upon this and make things clearer for the end user, which SHOULD be the goal... making it as easy as possible to understand and abide by the FARs. As they are currently written, the goal seems to be to able to confuse and violate those responsible for adhering to them.
 
Last edited:
MuseChaser said:
As far as the rules of construction making things less cumbersome, why not improve upon them further? Lists that are cumulative, meaning everything in the list must be satisfied, could be indicated with an underline ... "In order to log PIC time.." while cafeteria lists (only one item must be satisfied.. yeah, I'm making up these words, but they work for me) could be plain text .. "In order to log PIC time.." . Even less cumbersome, less wordy, clearer, you don't have to search for a buried "and" or "or," .. total win.
Click to expand...

How would a person find out what the underlines meant?

The current practice at least has the advantage of being consistent with normal English usage.
 
Palmpilot said:
How would a person find out what the underlines meant?

The current practice at least has the advantage of being consistent with normal English usage.
Click to expand...

The preface? Key page? The same way we know what the vertical bold lines mean in the left hand margin in some texts (added or changed text since previous release)? Like I said, I understand your point, but "because that's the way it's done in some circles" doesn't mean there isn't a better way.
 
MuseChaser said:
The preface? Key page? The same way we know what the vertical bold lines mean in the left hand margin in some texts (added or changed text since previous release)? Like I said, I understand your point, but "because that's the way it's done in some circles" doesn't mean there isn't a better way.
Click to expand...
I see that there is a "rules of construction" regulation in FAR 1.3, but until I looked just now, I'm not sure I knew that they were there. They don't address the "or" issue, but it would make sense to included it there. In any case, I would much rather that a convention that is consistent with normal English usage be kept, rather than replaced with a convention that is even more obscure.
 
Palmpilot said:
Well, you've got me there, but when someone asks, "Do you want chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, or rocky road," I never assumed that they meant "Do you want chocolate and vanilla and strawberry, or rocky road."
Click to expand...

Huh. You weren’t thinking they were asking Neopolitan or Rocky Road? ;-)
 
MuseChaser said:
Even better would be to have the original statement worded, "In order to log PIC time, any ONE of the following criteria must be met" or "... ALL of the following criteria must be met." That saves looking for the buried "and" or "or" further down in the text list.
Click to expand...
I agree. The wording makes a huge difference. With a little rewriting, they could be so much clearer.

Here's our minimum qualifications for employment ate my company:

  • 1500 hours total fixed-wing time as pilot-in-command (PIC) or second-in-command (SIC) in a multi-engine turbo-prop aircraft, jet aircraft or combination thereof with GTOW 12,500 or greater. A minimum of 1000 hours total fixed-wing PIC time in a multi-engine turbo prop aircraft, jet aircraft or combination thereof in aircraft with GTOW 12,500 or greater is preferred.
So, do they mean 1500 hours total fixed wing time as (PIC) or (SIC in a multi-engine turbo-prop aircraft, jet aircraft or combination...) or do they mean 1500 hours as (PIC or SIC) in a multi-engine turboprop aircraft, jet aircraft or combination...

Then, if you figure out that one, the one that always has the F-16 pilots asking questions is:

Do they want PIC in (multi-engine turbo-prop aircraft), (jet aircraft) or combination... or do they want PIC in multi-engine (turbo-prop aircraft, jet aircraft, or combination...)? If it's the latter, then F-16 guys aren't qualified to apply. I don't know why they didn't write it as PIC or SIC in jet aircraft, multi-engine prop aircraft or combination... Just by putting the jet aircraft first, all that ambiguity goes away.
 
MuseChaser said:
Even better would be to have the original statement worded, "In order to log PIC time, any ONE of the following criteria must be met" or "... ALL of the following criteria must be met." That saves looking for the buried "and" or "or" further down in the text list.
Click to expand...
On further reflection, while I'm still not sure this idea is necessary, I no longer see it as too cumbersome. However I would change "any one" to "at least one," to make it clear that meeting more than one of the criteria would also be acceptable. Otherwise, we can expect that SGOTI would eventually argue that the wording makes the criteria mutually exclusive!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top