Why is so much "safety" regulation arbitrary?

[IO540]

It is apparent that most general aviation "safety" regulations are not based on science but instead emanate from a committee.

Take colour vision. I've heard all the standard "pro" arguments but they have been comprehensively debunked e.g.

http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/topicdocuments/colourvision.pdf

I suppose that if all regulations purporting to be for "safety" had to be justified with scientific data, countless thousands of people would be out of a job.

Many years ago I sat on a British Standards committee (to do with various electrical items). Most members were representatives from manufacturers of said equipment, obviously sent there to get intelligence on regulations well ahead of time and to influence them as far as possible. The amount of overt axe grinding was obscene, and the end result (the standards document) was not based on any rational reasoning.

Aviation seems to be very similar, with committees within the CAA and nowadays within JAA. The lowest common denominator (the delegate desiring the most strict rule) is going to win every time.

[englishal]

Old Boys network possibly?

Many of the medical standards make no sense whatsoever, the FAA will allow pretty much anyone with pretty much any medical condition to obtain a medical certificate after a review and in a short time span, probably at no cost This is because scientific data goes to show that even if you have had a coronary bypass operation (for example) three months ago, you are unlikely to drop dead at the yoke.

What really gets my goat is on one hand you have people being refused a JAA Class 2 medical for some reason, then all they do is obtain a NPPL, an NPPL medical (signed by a Doctor who understands the whatever condition) and go and rent exactly the same aeroplane and fly it in exactly the same aispace, taking exactly the same number of passengers with them........You could argue that the flight was carried oun in LESS safety as they have not benefited from the wonderful JAR syllabus which includes smoe instrument training......:O (don't take this the wrong way NPPL holders, it is not a dig, just an example to show how nuts the system is)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

...NPPL medical (signed by a Doctor who understands the whatever condition) ...
... but knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about aviation medicine ... (Yes, it does matter, I had to explain to my GP why an ear problem actually mattered for flying, he hadn't a clue.)

Re committees. A scientific opinion on something which is essentially epidemiological (rather than a physics-type hard-science cause-and-effect thing) tends to be a matter of how seriously one takes inadequate statistical information. The basic rule of public life in this country is that where there is an absolutely clear decision based on irrefutable technical data then the technocrats take the decision, but if the data is less clear than that the decision is bounced over to politicians.

It is the job of politicians to sit around in committees and take decisions which affect real people's real lives based on inadequate information, ie, they guess. That's what we elect them for. If they guess wrong they get torn apart in the press; if they guess right nobody notices.

(For transparency: I know this because I am an elected politician and get asked to contribute to such decisions, so I know from personal experience that there is never enough good enough data.)

[IO540]

GTW

If there is no good data to work on, why legislate at all?

This isn't deciding on whether people should be able to have conifers 2m or 3m tall, which will always be subjective. It is quite specific stuff, the policy on which could be based wholly on evidence.

[rustle]

... but knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about aviation medicine ... (Yes, it does matter, I had to explain to my GP why an ear problem actually mattered for flying, he hadn't a clue.)

That says far more about your GP than about the CAA/JAA or NPPL :suspect:

[Mike Cross]

If there is no good data to work on, why legislate at all?
Because people (and I've seen it on here) say "Something ought to be done." Doesn't really matter what "it" is so long as it is "something".

[IO540]

That is an explanation, not an excuse, Mike :O

There is always somebody who wants to have a go. If they were listened to, nothing would get done. We'd have a regulation limiting the maximum shoe width, so one can operate the pedals properly.

What is needed is a LAW prohibiting regulation that claims to be in the name of safety, unless based on safety data. Now, there's a job for somebody!

[slim_slag]

on paper there already is something like that in the UK, it's called a Regulatory Impact Assessment. Like all things coming out of central government nowadays it's easy to believe it's more spin than substance.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/index.asp

I don't know if it's retrospective, and as so much regulatory power has been handed over to EU institutions it might not make much difference what the UK wants to do anyway.

[Mike Cross]

And as you may know if you are an AOPA member, the CAA ignored the need for a RIA before imposing their latest set of charges. The Cabinet Office has confirmed that a RIA was required but no action is to be taken.

Which begs the question "What's the bl@@dy point?"

Cynic that I am I don't believe the point of legislation is safety anyway. It's more to do with politics than anything else.

Why for example should you have to prove a safety case for saying it's the commander's responsibility to ensure the flight can safely be made. Do you need to wait for a series of accidents to take place so that you have some data to prove it's a good idea?

[IO540]

It's obvious that somebody should be responsible, and that's ok IMV because it doesn't introduce a compliance cost in any way.

Anything which costs, or limits freedom, is what I have in mind.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

GTW
If there is no good data to work on, why legislate at all?
Look, I mostly deal with stuff like residents' parking, rough sleepers, emptying bins, but I'm sure this translates accross all public policy making.

Let's give it a go, shall we. There's this concept of "controlled airspace", right? So, there's a policy for whether and where and when and how to designate it, right? Now, the whole point of making a policy is so that you can just look up the rules when you're making any individual decision, without having to go expensively back to first principles each time, right?

But ... over the years and decades the world changes, and what might have seemed like a wonderful policy when it was invented might no longer be completely relevant to current circumstances.

Therefore it is sensible to review policies from time to time, to see whether they need changing or scrapping or whatever.

Everybody still with me? I haven't said anything contentious yet?

OK, so we review the "controlled airspace policy", which means looking at the evidence, ie facts and suchlike. In doing this we discover:

(1) The average number of times per year that an airliner full of passengers is brought down by collision with a light aircraft inside controlled airspace in the UK is 0.

(2) The average number of times per year that an airliner full of passengers is brought down by collision with a light aircraft outside controlled airspace in the UK is 0.

Now, (1) clearly proves that controlled airspace is working perfectly, so we need more of it, whereas (2) clearly proves that controlled airspace is completely unnecessary, so we can abolish all of it. Based on real evidence, hard facts.

"Obviously" both such conclusions are complete bollocks. So what is the only thing that the putative "controlled airspace policy review committee" can actually do in real life?

Guess, on the basis of inadquate information.

(Before anyone bothers to start nitpicking this is all grossly oversimplified of course, but not as oversimplified as the ludicrous view that all public policy should only be decided on the basis of incontrovertible hard evidence.)

[IO540]

GTW, you forgot one thing, which is that CAS doesn't impose a significant economic cost on GA. It's just the extra juice used up not flying a great circle route.

If CAS were extended to be everywhere, say universal Class D, and the attitudes to transits remained, then GA would come to an end.

I suppose common sense is hard to formalise.