View Single Post
Old 11th Jan 2015, 10:23
  #89 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052

Your question makes an assertion about the persons for whom rules are written, and asks whether I understand that the rules are written for those persons.

Your assertion is not completely accurate. But let's assume for a moment that it is.

The point of this thread is that the rules are an overkill, if the policy aim of those rules is safety.

Eventually Sunfish will confirm that the compass on his yacht does not have to be periodically calibrated by a licensed compass adjuster. Yet he managed to use that compass to navigate when all the electronic gizmos went haywire. How did that compass know that it was fitted to a yacht rather than an aircraft, and that it didn't have to be periodically calibrated by a licensed compass adjuster? How did it know?

Any mediocre pilot like me can manage to fly an aircraft safely from A to B, VFR, without a compass, an altimeter or ASI (or any GPSs or EFB). Any mediocre pilot like me can manage to fly an aircraft safely from A to B, VFR, and know how accurate the compass, altimeter and ASI are, and if I extend myself to the outer reaches of my intellectual capacity, I can work out if the Mode C info is accurate.

There's a reason for drawing those tracks, drift lines and distance markers on a map. There's a reason for those big white numbers on runways, and the runway magnetic alignment and elevation information in ERSA. The sun rises and sets in the same general directions each day. The pointers in the Southern Cross reliably do what those pointers do.

I'll say it for a third time: It's not about the desirability of serviceable and accurate instruments. It's about the presumption of innate incompetence and criminality of Australians, mixed with scaremongering that plays on the fears of ignorant punters, that has produced the regulatory Frankenstein destroying GA.

I'm unsurprised by the cognitive bias of punters that results in screams for more regulation, in the misguided belief that more and more rules will reduce the risk of the 30,000' death plunge. What is surprising to me is that people who should know better - those with considerable knowledge and experience in aviation - also succumb to, or worse - leverage off - cognitive bias, by calling for more and more regulation or trying to justify existing regulation that has been shown to have no material affect on safety (or worse, has been shown to have a negative impact on safety).
Creampuff is offline