Some of the above appears to partly support my argument. That is, cognitive ability and tolerance to the effects of alcohol - or altitude - vary between individuals and even within the same individual on different days. Yet, rather than applying a practical test, we impose a fixed number.
Not saying that walking the straight line is the be-all and end-all of tests, but the cops at least have a starting point when they pull over someone suspected of DUI and decide how far they are going to press the issue. Our system cuts us no slack whatsoever.
Re the birds. Do you reckon a birdstrike is more likely over water at 8000 feet or over a mountainous area at 18000? (not talking the Australian 'Alps' but proper mountains). I have seen birds at high levels that would pose a far greater risk to a cold windscreen than your average seagull down low. Plus those pesky high flying Canadian Geese that most definitely are not soaring at flight levels over the tundra. They are flapping at N1 Max Cruise. The below 8000 ft limitation was unlikely to have been imposed as a result of any statistical analysis or assessment of whether birds could only flap their wings in the lower atmosphere - more likely someone simply did not get the words in the original certification standard right, and it has remained ever since.
I could go on with arbitrary numbers in aviation. Maximum altitude for flap or gear operation anyone? And why the same number for completely different aircraft types? These are certification standards which must be demonstrated by test, nothing more. The aircraft builder may test beyond those standards. Or may not. What dire results occur if you exceed it by 500ft? 1500ft? Not saying that anyone should deliberately exceed any limitation, but an understanding of how and why a limit is derived is sometimes useful.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 1st Dec 2014 at 06:11.