I believe in minimum regulation: a solid foundation of key
whats with few
hows – I just don't think FAR 91 is adequate for all the flights conducted under it.
Some examples I know of include:
- 23 hour duties with two pilots (on a two pilot jet) – not hanging around in the crew-room; I mean flying and doing turn-arounds,
- Twin engine jets flying along routes that include long sections of terrain well above the single-engine ceiling – without any escape route,
- Jets taking off in only 200 metres visibility at unattended airports, and
- Multiengine jets taking off in IMC with no chance of clearing terrain if an EFATO happens (Aspen).
While you might say, "Why not if you've got the money", these pilots are not only risking their own lives – they fly in the same airspace as everyone else, and may have owner-passengers unknowingly accepting risks. I know of one private jet owner who was unhappy to find out his pilots were flying over-water with inadequate fuel if the pressurisation failed; he found out because a friend – another business jet owner, better informed – explained why his pilots wouldn't fly a particular route non-stop.
I served on an airline Procedures Committee advocating to set a minimum baseline, and let the pilots
be pilots to meet or exceed it. Unfortunately the (fear based) culture was to spell out every tiny detail of what the pilots said and did: I recall there was almost a page on how to set frequencies on the VHFs – ridiculous IMHO.
I believe the regulators should clearly articulate a sensible black and white baseline, and let aviators get on with it – I don't agree with regulators' penchant for losing the forest in the trees.
They can only legislate to penalise – not prevent deliberate violations or absurdly risky flying, but I believe there are holes in the argument for near total self-regulation based on there being a majority of sensible pilots.