Human Nature, FARs, and the Meaning of Life

MuseChaser

MuseChaser

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
2,038
Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
I have to confess, I don't really enjoy debate, arguing, disagreement, discord, and the like. Friendly competition, being excited about mutual achievements, helping each other with achieving those.. umm.. achievements... that all is joyful stuff. However, the increasing need shown by an increasing number of people in our society to be "right," and the corresponding need to prove that anyone who disagrees with them is "wrong," really sucks the joy out of life, and the life out of me. Discussions of personal rationales, interpretations, and beliefs can be enlightening, but really only when each person's motivation is to help the person with whom they're conversing, and not to "win" or prove themselves superior. I'm guilty, too.. when I feel strongly about a given stance, opinion, or fact that I'm sure of, it's hard to listen to folks say things you know, or at least feel strongly, are wrong.

Having said that, one of the things I've noticed in my relatively short time on this forum is that almost ANY discussion of the FARs is lengthy, potentially rancorous, and there's usually a ton of disagreement as to interpretation, especially in regards to letter-of-the-reg vs. intent. A great deal of the discussions stem from folks with limited familiarity of the regs misinterpreting them, or working from "my friend told me that..." type of information, or differing personal tolerances for "fudge factor," kind of like the difference between folks who do 56 mph in a 55, and those who are comfortable doing 62 mph. Technically, both are speeding and against the law.

What I'm getting at is that the FARs are so involved and, for those who don't particularly enjoy the process of parsing legalese, some of them can be difficult to interpret correctly. As pilots we have the responsibility to do so, but could they not be written in a much clearer manner, and pared down so that they were written towards goals and intent, rather than minutia?

A case in point... there's a recent thread about acting as a safety pilot under BasicMed. The regs allow for it, but only if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. If the safety pilot is NOT PIC and the pilot under the hood is, then the safety pilot must hold at least a third class medical because he is then a required crew member. Obviously, that makes no sense, and is not the intent of the regulations, but there it is.

In the interest of collegial harmony, it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up".. maybe an "FAR for Dummies".. never liked the title of that series, but the intent is good! ;)

OK... rant off.
 
Gordon Baxter (long time writer for Flying magazine), when writing about his studying for the IR said “If lawyers had to dig through all this stuff to settle a case, we’d settle them on the front lawn with short barreled pistols!”
 
MuseChaser said:
In the interest of collegial harmony, it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up".. maybe an "FAR for Dummies".. never liked the title of that series, but the intent is good! ;)
OK... rant off.
Click to expand...
Since the FARs are written by the government, for the government, doesn't that mean they're already "for Dummies"?
 
It is the nature of rules that there's always gray area. They're written by imperfect humans, hence they're imperfect. So of course they're going to be open to differing interpretations. Sorry this sort of debate discourages you, but I like a good informed discourse. I'm not big on cursory insults and epithets (unless the former are really, really clever) but sometimes that's what you get.
 
I think the FARs are not the only regs that seem convoluted and open to interpretation or gray area. Other regulations are similar (tax, finance, environmental, firearms, etc.). Some parts are clear and well accepted and understood. Other parts are murky.

It would take a lot to tighten up any basket of regs, but it’s done from time to time for individual areas to match the intent with the interpretation.
 
It will never be simplified. If you look at the FARs or any other complex system or rules like say tax law it doesn't take much to figure out why. Someone sees an issue so they want to make a rule... except that rule creates a huge unreasonable problem for some group of people so you make an exception. Then you've just opened up this huge loophole so you make new rules to lock down the exemption. Then a couple of decades pass and nobody really remembers why we made this rule in the first place but it's been there for so long and so much a part of the culture that there's just natural institutional resistance to simply getting rid of it. So they come up with some all new body of complicated rules that, after revision and revision by committee, basically just means we're going to do what we've been doing the entire time but now under a new set of rules.

Really the written rule- the written law is only half of the equation. There are so many laws on books that are not enforced, nobody cares about, and will never be enforced. There are many more out there that nobody intends to enforce unless someone is being really obnoxious and the authorities need something to actually charge them with. This stuff all works together as part of a system and isn't getting changed unless there's a big enough problem to cause a lot of people a lot of grief.
 
steingar said:
It is the nature of rules that there's always gray area. They're written by imperfect humans, hence they're imperfect. So of course they're going to be open to differing interpretations. Sorry this sort of debate discourages you, but I like a good informed discourse. I'm not big on cursory insults and epithets (unless the former are really, really clever) but sometimes that's what you get.
Click to expand...
This.

I'd add a phenomenon I've seen. For many there is a presumption that the regs are difficult even when they are written clearly. I've diagnosed two related afflictions:
  • Regaphobia. A self-fulfilling, irrational fear of reading regulations based on a belief they are incomprehensible. The sufferer simply avoids even trying.
  • Regulitis. Disease which causes people of average or better intelligence to lose basic reading comprehension skills when looking at regulations.
 
midlifeflyer said:
This.

I'd add a phenomenon I've seen. For many there is a presumption that the regs are difficult even when they are written clearly. I've diagnosed two related afflictions:
  • Regaphobia. A self-fulfilling, irrational fear of reading regulations based on a belief they are incomprehensible. The sufferer simply avoids even trying.
  • Regulitis. Disease which causes people of average or better intelligence to lose basic reading comprehension skills when looking at regulations.
Click to expand...
Ah...the regulatory version of NDB approaches. ;)
 
MuseChaser said:
it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up"
Click to expand...
If you want a "tightened up" version on various maintenance FARs search for Bill O"Brien. He was one of the few FAA bureaucrats--his term--that made sense of out nonsense. And it was after I attended one of his safety seminars that I saw how "easy"--his term again--it can be to navigate the FAA web of intrigue. There is plethora of info that support/explain a wide variety of FARs: ACs, Orders, Notices, LOIs, etc. Unfortunately, you have to dig for it, but it's there.

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircra...rs/mro/article/10375113/bill-obrien-1943-2008
 
MuseChaser said:
I have to confess, I don't really enjoy debate, arguing, disagreement, discord, and the like. Friendly competition, being excited about mutual achievements, helping each other with achieving those.. umm.. achievements... that all is joyful stuff. However, the increasing need shown by an increasing number of people in our society to be "right," and the corresponding need to prove that anyone who disagrees with them is "wrong," really sucks the joy out of life, and the life out of me. Discussions of personal rationales, interpretations, and beliefs can be enlightening, but really only when each person's motivation is to help the person with whom they're conversing, and not to "win" or prove themselves superior. I'm guilty, too.. when I feel strongly about a given stance, opinion, or fact that I'm sure of, it's hard to listen to folks say things you know, or at least feel strongly, are wrong.

Having said that, one of the things I've noticed in my relatively short time on this forum is that almost ANY discussion of the FARs is lengthy, potentially rancorous, and there's usually a ton of disagreement as to interpretation, especially in regards to letter-of-the-reg vs. intent. A great deal of the discussions stem from folks with limited familiarity of the regs misinterpreting them, or working from "my friend told me that..." type of information, or differing personal tolerances for "fudge factor," kind of like the difference between folks who do 56 mph in a 55, and those who are comfortable doing 62 mph. Technically, both are speeding and against the law.

What I'm getting at is that the FARs are so involved and, for those who don't particularly enjoy the process of parsing legalese, some of them can be difficult to interpret correctly. As pilots we have the responsibility to do so, but could they not be written in a much clearer manner, and pared down so that they were written towards goals and intent, rather than minutia?

A case in point... there's a recent thread about acting as a safety pilot under BasicMed. The regs allow for it, but only if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. If the safety pilot is NOT PIC and the pilot under the hood is, then the safety pilot must hold at least a third class medical because he is then a required crew member. Obviously, that makes no sense, and is not the intent of the regulations, but there it is.

In the interest of collegial harmony, it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up".. maybe an "FAR for Dummies".. never liked the title of that series, but the intent is good! ;)

OK... rant off.
Click to expand...

One has to recognize the FARs are civil law not criminal law. Most the language used in the sections would not withstand judicial review and certainly most juries would not convict a person for many violations. Criminal law would not permit a government official to interpret (modify the language) the law by issuing opinions as occurs with the FAA.
 
Every time the FAA tries to make the FARs less ambiguous, the number of pages expands greatly. This was especially evident in the big Part 61 rewrite that came out in 1997!
 
denverpilot said:
Oh good god that book is truly and irrefutably horrid. I don’t have time to quote all the utter Bravo Sierra in that book, but the only reason it remains on my aviation bookshelf is as a warning to others for the worst aviation book I’ve ever purchased.
Click to expand...
I love when folks quote that book to me as an authoritative resource.
 
MuseChaser said:
.....In the interest of collegial harmony, it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up".. maybe an "FAR for Dummies".. never liked the title of that series, but the intent is good! ;)

OK... rant off.
Click to expand...

There is FARs for Dummies. POA, Beechtalk, Mooneyspace, Cirrusworld or whatever it's called, piper..., cessna... etc etc
 
Most of the discord that we have is over very trivial matters. Think of how dull and boring it would be here without a good ****ing contest every few days.
 
Half of my frustration with the FAR's comes from the fact that the publishers don't indent things according to their place in the outline structure.
So you have to read absolutely every little letter and number just to figure out that this (i) and (ii) are below (c), which is a part of (2), but this other (i) and (ii) over there is related to (a) which is under a completely different (3), etc.
So many times I've read something and freaked out, only to realize 10 minutes later that it was part of a section only about gyroplanes or something...

If it was indented, like software code is, it would be way easier to find things and figure out the logical hierarchy of it all. Such a simple thing. Do any publishers do this?
 
kath said:
Half of my frustration with the FAR's comes from the fact that the publishers don't indent things according to their place in the outline structure.
So you have to read absolutely every little letter and number just to figure out that this (i) and (ii) are below (c), which is a part of (2), but this other (i) and (ii) over there is related to (a) which is under a completely different (3), etc.
So many times I've read something and freaked out, only to realize 10 minutes later that it was part of a section only about gyroplanes or something...

If it was indented, like software code is, it would be way easier to find things and figure out the logical hierarchy of it all. Such a simple thing. Do any publishers do this?
Click to expand...

Ahhh. Another python fan. LOL.
 
Shawn said:
View attachment 76908
Click to expand...

This post reminded me of my early days as a new grad engineer. I was working for one of the multinational Big Oil companies.
Its policies came from someplace afar, and mystical location known as the General Office, "G O" for short (to distinguish it from our mere plebeian inhabited District Offices). They covered everything, right down to including a policy on exactly how to afix the company logo sticker on a new hardhat.
A single complete set of policies came in a series of numbered black binders that filled a rather long bookshelf, each one with the letters G O embossed in gold lettering on the spine. They were affectionately known as God's Orders.
 
kath said:
Half of my frustration with the FAR's comes from the fact that the publishers don't indent things according to their place in the outline structure.
So you have to read absolutely every little letter and number just to figure out that this (i) and (ii) are below (c), which is a part of (2), but this other (i) and (ii) over there is related to (a) which is under a completely different (3), etc.
So many times I've read something and freaked out, only to realize 10 minutes later that it was part of a section only about gyroplanes or something...

If it was indented, like software code is, it would be way easier to find things and figure out the logical hierarchy of it all. Such a simple thing. Do any publishers do this?
Click to expand...
I agree with your frustration. Regulations are written in a basic outline format some of us learned in 4th or 5th grade, but most of the publishers don't use the associated indents.
 
FARs were about the easiest part of my training and checkrides. As I told the DPEs, after 29 years of law enforcement I was good at understanding and applying laws and regulations that are poorly or ambiguously worded and often in conflict with each other.
 
kath said:
Half of my frustration with the FAR's comes from the fact that the publishers don't indent things according to their place in the outline structure.
So you have to read absolutely every little letter and number just to figure out that this (i) and (ii) are below (c), which is a part of (2), but this other (i) and (ii) over there is related to (a) which is under a completely different (3), etc.
So many times I've read something and freaked out, only to realize 10 minutes later that it was part of a section only about gyroplanes or something...

If it was indented, like software code is, it would be way easier to find things and figure out the logical hierarchy of it all. Such a simple thing. Do any publishers do this?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any. I hate that to. If I can I often copy and paste into a word processor and do it myself.
 
kath said:
Half of my frustration with the FAR's comes from the fact that the publishers don't indent things according to their place in the outline structure.
So you have to read absolutely every little letter and number just to figure out that this (i) and (ii) are below (c), which is a part of (2), but this other (i) and (ii) over there is related to (a) which is under a completely different (3), etc.
So many times I've read something and freaked out, only to realize 10 minutes later that it was part of a section only about gyroplanes or something...

If it was indented, like software code is, it would be way easier to find things and figure out the logical hierarchy of it all. Such a simple thing. Do any publishers do this?
Click to expand...
They should be forced to code in Python for 6 months before being allowed to publish the regs. :D
 
kath said:
Half of my frustration with the FAR's comes from the fact that the publishers don't indent things according to their place in the outline structure.
So you have to read absolutely every little letter and number just to figure out that this (i) and (ii) are below (c), which is a part of (2), but this other (i) and (ii) over there is related to (a) which is under a completely different (3), etc.
So many times I've read something and freaked out, only to realize 10 minutes later that it was part of a section only about gyroplanes or something...

If it was indented, like software code is, it would be way easier to find things and figure out the logical hierarchy of it all. Such a simple thing. Do any publishers do this?
Click to expand...


I concur heartily! But: if they did indent, the right-most column would be about 3 characters wide.

Kath, I suspect you know this, but other readers may not. In technical specs, we don’t use ii, (c), IV, etc. Rather, each paragraph is numbered like this:
.
.
.
3.1
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2.
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
.
.
.

In this way, indenture is not necessary and it’s immediately evident that 3.2.2 is a subset of 3.2. Easy, obvious, lends itself well to tools like DOORS and Excel, etc. I wish the FAR were written this way.
 
MuseChaser said:
I have to confess, I don't really enjoy debate, arguing, disagreement, discord, and the like. Friendly competition, being excited about mutual achievements, helping each other with achieving those.. umm.. achievements... that all is joyful stuff. However, the increasing need shown by an increasing number of people in our society to be "right," and the corresponding need to prove that anyone who disagrees with them is "wrong," really sucks the joy out of life, and the life out of me. Discussions of personal rationales, interpretations, and beliefs can be enlightening, but really only when each person's motivation is to help the person with whom they're conversing, and not to "win" or prove themselves superior. I'm guilty, too.. when I feel strongly about a given stance, opinion, or fact that I'm sure of, it's hard to listen to folks say things you know, or at least feel strongly, are wrong.

Having said that, one of the things I've noticed in my relatively short time on this forum is that almost ANY discussion of the FARs is lengthy, potentially rancorous, and there's usually a ton of disagreement as to interpretation, especially in regards to letter-of-the-reg vs. intent. A great deal of the discussions stem from folks with limited familiarity of the regs misinterpreting them, or working from "my friend told me that..." type of information, or differing personal tolerances for "fudge factor," kind of like the difference between folks who do 56 mph in a 55, and those who are comfortable doing 62 mph. Technically, both are speeding and against the law.

What I'm getting at is that the FARs are so involved and, for those who don't particularly enjoy the process of parsing legalese, some of them can be difficult to interpret correctly. As pilots we have the responsibility to do so, but could they not be written in a much clearer manner, and pared down so that they were written towards goals and intent, rather than minutia?

A case in point... there's a recent thread about acting as a safety pilot under BasicMed. The regs allow for it, but only if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. If the safety pilot is NOT PIC and the pilot under the hood is, then the safety pilot must hold at least a third class medical because he is then a required crew member. Obviously, that makes no sense, and is not the intent of the regulations, but there it is.

In the interest of collegial harmony, it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up".. maybe an "FAR for Dummies".. never liked the title of that series, but the intent is good! ;)

OK... rant off.
Click to expand...
Silly Wabbit . . .
The regs exists to give the FAA a hammer, and political coverage - it's not important they be well written, in terms of clarity and intent, or even too precise in some cases. At least not to the FAA. . .When, as does sometimes happen, the regs are congruent with a best practice, or approach logical/reasonable intent, it's a happy accident. . .
 
Bell206 said:
If you want a "tightened up" version on various maintenance FARs search for Bill O"Brien. He was one of the few FAA bureaucrats--his term--that made sense of out nonsense. And it was after I attended one of his safety seminars that I saw how "easy"--his term again--it can be to navigate the FAA web of intrigue. There is plethora of info that support/explain a wide variety of FARs: ACs, Orders, Notices, LOIs, etc. Unfortunately, you have to dig for it, but it's there.

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircra...rs/mro/article/10375113/bill-obrien-1943-2008
Click to expand...
Yep, it is there - wherein the audience being served has to do the leg work for the presenters . . .after the presenters have mucked, obfuscated, contradicted, and generally made their pronouncements unintelligible. And, to some degree, have done so intentionally. . .
 
FARS explained in one easy to read compilation
9d3a2d91b4193874f63216e9f0be4987.jpg
 
MuseChaser said:
Having said that, one of the things I've noticed in my relatively short time on this forum is that almost ANY discussion of the FARs is lengthy, potentially rancorous, and there's usually a ton of disagreement as to interpretation, especially in regards to letter-of-the-reg vs. intent. A great deal of the discussions stem from folks with limited familiarity of the regs misinterpreting them, or working from "my friend told me that..." type of information, or differing personal tolerances for "fudge factor," kind of like the difference between folks who do 56 mph in a 55, and those who are comfortable doing 62 mph. Technically, both are speeding and against the law.

What I'm getting at is that the FARs are so involved and, for those who don't particularly enjoy the process of parsing legalese, some of them can be difficult to interpret correctly. As pilots we have the responsibility to do so, but could they not be written in a much clearer manner, and pared down so that they were written towards goals and intent, rather than minutia?
Click to expand...

I think Mark's got it. Luckily, I appear to have been born immune to regophobia and regulitis and I seem to be able to read the regs more comfortably than most pilots.

Here's a few tips:

Applicability. Does FAR 172.308 (not an actual FAR... Or maybe it is, but the content doesn't matter here, just the number) apply to me? Well, the first step should be to find the, uh, applicable applicability section. For 172.308, there *may* be a 172.301 stating applicability of a particular subpart, but most of the time you'll find it in 172.1. Every Part of the FARs has a .1 Applicability section so that you know whether that section may apply to you. For example, here's 137.1:

§137.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes rules governing—

(1) Agricultural aircraft operations within the United States; and

(2) The issue of commercial and private agricultural aircraft operator certificates for those operations.
Click to expand...

So, if you're not doing ag operations or trying to get a certificate to do so, you don't need to read any further in Part 137. It does not apply to you.

And and Or. There are quite a few regs that have a list of things under them, and one of the most important parts is the last word in the second-to-last item, which will be "and" or "or". So, you may be concerned with item i, but you need to read down to item iv to know whether item i applies. For example:

(a)(1) To go flying, you must:
(i) Have some money,
(ii) Have an airplane,
(iii) Have a pilot certificate, and
(iv) Have a brain.

So, you read (a)(1)(i), and think "Hey, I have money!" But can you go flying? You don't know!
Hopefully, you read (ii). You think "Hey, I have an airplane!" But can you go flying? You don't know!
Now, you finally read (iii). You think "Hey, I have a pilot certificate!" But can you go flying? Well, at least now, you know you don't know... Because of the And, you need ALL of the items to go flying, so you have to read (iv). Then, if you have a brain (as well as all the other items), you can go flying.

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).)

Shall and May. If you see "Shall", you are required to do it. If you see "May", you are allowed to do it (but not required).

A case in point... there's a recent thread about acting as a safety pilot under BasicMed. The regs allow for it, but only if the safety pilot is acting as PIC. If the safety pilot is NOT PIC and the pilot under the hood is, then the safety pilot must hold at least a third class medical because he is then a required crew member. Obviously, that makes no sense, and is not the intent of the regulations, but there it is.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't read it as the FAA intending BasicMed pilots to be able to be safety pilots and merely screwing it up... What happened is that the FAA did not want BasicMed to happen at all, Congress forced it on them via the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 (Thank you Jim Inhofe :thumbsup:), and so the FAA wrote it EXACTLY as Congress forced them to and did not allow one iota more. Well, I guess Jim Inhofe probably never had to split time with anyone, so that wasn't considered while they were writing the legislation, and here we are.

In the interest of collegial harmony, it'd be great if the FARs could be "tightened up"..
Click to expand...

They are, from time to time. Generally, one Part is done at a time. It's not an easy process, though, since "tightening up" could change the logic in place and cause an actual change. This is where public comment periods are very important, it gives us all a chance to check on whether our own particular situation would be affected.

maybe an "FAR for Dummies".. never liked the title of that series, but the intent is good! ;)
Click to expand...

Well, hopefully what I've provided above at least gets you partway there.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
I wouldn't read it as the FAA intending BasicMed pilots to be able to be safety pilots and merely screwing it up... What happened is that the FAA did not want BasicMed to happen at all, Congress forced it on them via the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 (Thank you Jim Inhofe :thumbsup:), and so the FAA wrote it EXACTLY as Congress forced them to and did not allow one iota more. Well, I guess Jim Inhofe probably never had to split time with anyone, so that wasn't considered while they were writing the legislation, and here we are.
Click to expand...

Actually, the FAA had proposed a medical relief rulemaking effort in 2014 but it died up the chain of the executive branch before it could become a NPRM.

BasicMed (specifically Section 2307 of FESSA) was delivered to the FAA as a self-enacting statute. So in order to implement it within the 365 day window, there was no time for making interpretations or expanded beyond the scope defined by Congress, which would have triggered the administrative procedure act provisions to require notice and comment.
 
What Brad said. There was no rule making comment period because act mandated an implementation date. The FAA enacts what they are told to enact, they don’t sabotage it because “they” don’t like it. The job is too cushy for them to risk it by trying to inject personal opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top