Rotor & Wing NVG Article- Army Minimums
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: miami
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Velvet. You are most correct about the gap in FAA regulation on this. But trust me when I say, and as others have said, if you are flying single pilot in a bird that is anything less than 4 axis over night to an unlighted area over the ocean, goggles or not, man I hope it is important because you are playing with fire.
When it comes to the regs, overwater FAR's talk about having floats on helos
However, look at this way( hypothetical): the weather forecast says 6 miles in haze and overcast layers at 2K, 5K, and 10K. No wind and the moon isn't up for 3 more hours. After 5 minutes pointed at 90 degrees outbound to whatever coastline you are flying from it is freaking dark. Goggles will have nothing to enhance and it is an instrument game from there on out. Visit the US Naval Observatory and hit "data services" then select sun and moon data for the day. PM me if you have questions.
The FAA DOES say that if you don't have a visual surface reference, or at night, a visual surface light reference to safely control the helo...you are in the wrong, and you aren't allowed to operate IFR outside controlled airspace below 1200' above the surface (unless your operation has been looked at by the administrator for exception).
I have made a career flying over the water in two maritime, military services, and we aren't keeping any secrets about the issue. There are plenty of fatal accidents on file (non-combat related) where spatial disorientation claimed the lives of fine aviators in the sexiest of machines.
If you have no visible horizon, goggles or not, then you need something to orient, like an attitude indicator, and there you are... ON INSTRUMENTS. Best lesson I can pass on to you is: don't look at the regs to justify your overwater operations, they will be found lacking. It sounds like you have already seen some dark events, now use that hindsight and recall if you had a horizon...if you didn't, then you probably got lucky (regardless if the regs don't prohibit you from doing it)
Official sunset to sunrise over any significant body of water...play it as if you were IMC. If you are not instrument rated...the risk is not worth the gain.
When it comes to the regs, overwater FAR's talk about having floats on helos
However, look at this way( hypothetical): the weather forecast says 6 miles in haze and overcast layers at 2K, 5K, and 10K. No wind and the moon isn't up for 3 more hours. After 5 minutes pointed at 90 degrees outbound to whatever coastline you are flying from it is freaking dark. Goggles will have nothing to enhance and it is an instrument game from there on out. Visit the US Naval Observatory and hit "data services" then select sun and moon data for the day. PM me if you have questions.
The FAA DOES say that if you don't have a visual surface reference, or at night, a visual surface light reference to safely control the helo...you are in the wrong, and you aren't allowed to operate IFR outside controlled airspace below 1200' above the surface (unless your operation has been looked at by the administrator for exception).
I have made a career flying over the water in two maritime, military services, and we aren't keeping any secrets about the issue. There are plenty of fatal accidents on file (non-combat related) where spatial disorientation claimed the lives of fine aviators in the sexiest of machines.
If you have no visible horizon, goggles or not, then you need something to orient, like an attitude indicator, and there you are... ON INSTRUMENTS. Best lesson I can pass on to you is: don't look at the regs to justify your overwater operations, they will be found lacking. It sounds like you have already seen some dark events, now use that hindsight and recall if you had a horizon...if you didn't, then you probably got lucky (regardless if the regs don't prohibit you from doing it)
Official sunset to sunrise over any significant body of water...play it as if you were IMC. If you are not instrument rated...the risk is not worth the gain.
Phrogman,
Well said - whatever happened to risk assessment.
The safety of this operation is the responsibility of the Operator not the Regulator. Look at the FAA guidance on Operational Control and then let us know if compliance is being shown:
N 8000.347 Operational Control: Revised Operations Specificaitons A008 and A002
Cut to the chase, go direct to and read from Page 23.
Jim
Well said - whatever happened to risk assessment.
The safety of this operation is the responsibility of the Operator not the Regulator. Look at the FAA guidance on Operational Control and then let us know if compliance is being shown:
N 8000.347 Operational Control: Revised Operations Specificaitons A008 and A002
Cut to the chase, go direct to and read from Page 23.
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle of the Pacific
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before operational control can be made an issue, the following phrase needs to be clearly defined:
"visual surface reference, or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter." (excerpt from FAA Part 135.207)
Visual surface light reference
I know that everyone will have an opinion as to the definition of the above-referenced term, but what is the actual definition that will be utilized during enforcement of this rule?
Please understand that I am not in disagreement with you- I am merely playing the devil's advocate here in an attempt to get to the bottom of this issue.
There is common sense, and then there is the law- I'm looking for the law in this instance.
"visual surface reference, or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter." (excerpt from FAA Part 135.207)
Visual surface light reference
I know that everyone will have an opinion as to the definition of the above-referenced term, but what is the actual definition that will be utilized during enforcement of this rule?
Please understand that I am not in disagreement with you- I am merely playing the devil's advocate here in an attempt to get to the bottom of this issue.
There is common sense, and then there is the law- I'm looking for the law in this instance.
TheVelvetGlove,
You are looking for a subjective answer to a rule which is essentially objective. It might be better if you highlighted the more important part of FAR 135.207:
"visual surface reference, or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter."
Clearly a prescriptive rule would not work in this case because it depends upon a number of issues - not the least of which is the handling qualities of the helicopter. The external references required for 'safely controlling a helicopter' with an autopilot is not the same as those for a basic Robinson R22.
The rule calls for an exercise of judgement; clearly you know the issues but are you exercising good judgement?
Jim
You are looking for a subjective answer to a rule which is essentially objective. It might be better if you highlighted the more important part of FAR 135.207:
"visual surface reference, or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter."
Clearly a prescriptive rule would not work in this case because it depends upon a number of issues - not the least of which is the handling qualities of the helicopter. The external references required for 'safely controlling a helicopter' with an autopilot is not the same as those for a basic Robinson R22.
The rule calls for an exercise of judgement; clearly you know the issues but are you exercising good judgement?
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle of the Pacific
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim,
If I am following you correctly, then what you are saying is that the handling properties of the particular helicopter are to be taken into consideration when making a determination as to whether or not an offshore VFR NVG operation is being conducted legally? That sounds like a subjective approach to answering the question at hand.
To state that it is NOT legal to fly offshore at night in a VFR aircraft with no autopilot, with NVG's employed as the sole means of visually orienting the helicopter (meaning that to proceed unaided would be impossible)...... and then turn around and say that it WOULD be legal to do so if the aircraft had an autopilot, seems very subjective to me. Perhaps I am not following you though...
There is VFR and there is IFR- each has it's set of rules and required equipment. I am only addressing VFR operations in a VFR helicopter.
As far as risk assessment goes, what if the pilot has been left to his own devices and the operator has not provided him with any means of performing a risk assessment (meaning: the company has no risk matrix forms, so special software, or any type of enhanced operational control)?
The pilot is then left with whatever weather reporting & forecasting is available in his region, the FAA Area & Terminal Forecasts, sun and moon rise/set tables and moon phase tables. He then sits down and performs a guesstimation as to whether or not conditions will prevail that will allow him to make the VFR NVG flight legally.
Before he can determine whether or not he is legal, he must know what "legal" means. If it is not legal to orient a helicopter solely by a solid horizon line that is produced by NVG light amplification- then that would be very important for him to know.
Please allow me to present a hypothetical scenario; then tell me whether you think the operation is illegal, and why it is illegal (under FAA Part 135).
Hypothetical:
Aircraft: light twin engine, non-stabilized, basic VFR instrumentation with attitude indicator, standby attitude indicator, radar, radio altimeter, dual Garmin 430's with ILS operational, HSI, turn & bank indicator, no autopilot, single pilot, Anvis 9 NVG equipped.
Program: FAA Part 135, VFR and NVG only- no IFR operations.
Pilot: FAA ATP or FAA commercial helicopter with instrument helicopter.
Operating Enviroment: Primarily offshore- departing from land and landing on land, but offshore for the entire route, with no offshore structures enroute, but some uninhabited or sparsely populated land masses within 30 miles of the route of flight.
Flight info-
Enroute flight time- 1:20
Weather: Area Forecast shows scattered to broken clouds with bases from 4000-6000 and tops 7000-8000. Temp 21 C, Dewpoint 16 C. No visibility given. No PIREPS below FL250. Radar is clear. We'll be flying at about 2500 MSL.
Time: 0200
Moon phase and angle: 28% disc, 45 degrees above the horizon and sinking.
I am airborne and maintaining aircraft attitude visually by means of the solid horizon line that is produced by the NVG's, and I am cross-checking my attitude with the attitude indicator and other instruments. If I flip up the NVG goggles, I see absolutely nothing. I've got another hour to go before I arrive, and so far the weather is as forecast and there are no rain showers ahead of me.
Am I legal? If not- why? I'd like to first establish whether or not it is legal- then determine whether or not it is safe or prudent.
All responses are appreciated.
If I am following you correctly, then what you are saying is that the handling properties of the particular helicopter are to be taken into consideration when making a determination as to whether or not an offshore VFR NVG operation is being conducted legally? That sounds like a subjective approach to answering the question at hand.
To state that it is NOT legal to fly offshore at night in a VFR aircraft with no autopilot, with NVG's employed as the sole means of visually orienting the helicopter (meaning that to proceed unaided would be impossible)...... and then turn around and say that it WOULD be legal to do so if the aircraft had an autopilot, seems very subjective to me. Perhaps I am not following you though...
There is VFR and there is IFR- each has it's set of rules and required equipment. I am only addressing VFR operations in a VFR helicopter.
As far as risk assessment goes, what if the pilot has been left to his own devices and the operator has not provided him with any means of performing a risk assessment (meaning: the company has no risk matrix forms, so special software, or any type of enhanced operational control)?
The pilot is then left with whatever weather reporting & forecasting is available in his region, the FAA Area & Terminal Forecasts, sun and moon rise/set tables and moon phase tables. He then sits down and performs a guesstimation as to whether or not conditions will prevail that will allow him to make the VFR NVG flight legally.
Before he can determine whether or not he is legal, he must know what "legal" means. If it is not legal to orient a helicopter solely by a solid horizon line that is produced by NVG light amplification- then that would be very important for him to know.
Please allow me to present a hypothetical scenario; then tell me whether you think the operation is illegal, and why it is illegal (under FAA Part 135).
Hypothetical:
Aircraft: light twin engine, non-stabilized, basic VFR instrumentation with attitude indicator, standby attitude indicator, radar, radio altimeter, dual Garmin 430's with ILS operational, HSI, turn & bank indicator, no autopilot, single pilot, Anvis 9 NVG equipped.
Program: FAA Part 135, VFR and NVG only- no IFR operations.
Pilot: FAA ATP or FAA commercial helicopter with instrument helicopter.
Operating Enviroment: Primarily offshore- departing from land and landing on land, but offshore for the entire route, with no offshore structures enroute, but some uninhabited or sparsely populated land masses within 30 miles of the route of flight.
Flight info-
Enroute flight time- 1:20
Weather: Area Forecast shows scattered to broken clouds with bases from 4000-6000 and tops 7000-8000. Temp 21 C, Dewpoint 16 C. No visibility given. No PIREPS below FL250. Radar is clear. We'll be flying at about 2500 MSL.
Time: 0200
Moon phase and angle: 28% disc, 45 degrees above the horizon and sinking.
I am airborne and maintaining aircraft attitude visually by means of the solid horizon line that is produced by the NVG's, and I am cross-checking my attitude with the attitude indicator and other instruments. If I flip up the NVG goggles, I see absolutely nothing. I've got another hour to go before I arrive, and so far the weather is as forecast and there are no rain showers ahead of me.
Am I legal? If not- why? I'd like to first establish whether or not it is legal- then determine whether or not it is safe or prudent.
All responses are appreciated.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: miami
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Velvet, of course you are legal at take off, the weather forecast allows for that and the hypothetical operation sounds well equipped (although I like the dual pilot option). Now if I were to investigate a mishap involving this operation and had the opportunity to talk with the surviving pilot, I would have to ask if the weather at the time of the crash was VMC or IMC, how can you tell? You mentioned the moon was sinking and only 28%...can you see it or is it obscured? The overcasts will likely diminish the ability to see the oceans surface at that altitude.
Dewpoint spread isn't much in this hypothetical situation of yours, so let me throw in another variable (just for fun). Since there is no reported visibility for the entire route, then there will likely be no mention of the marine layer 15 miles off shore where some warmer water meets a loving airmass, how long do you think you would be flying above or even in the clouds before you realized you were in IMC conditions? If you have no way of determining the vis or the on scene cloud conditions with the naked eye I might ask how you would call it operating VFR if you can't see the weather for what it is and without the knowledge of what it will be at your destination. Legally, the horizon "angle" doesn't play in the definition of VMC, just clouds and vis. And then your NVG battery light flashes and you suddenly remember you forgot to change out the other one the last time you saw that light...and there are no spare AA's to be had
Blink Blink Blink Blink...are you going to be legal when the NVG's go out? As you said, you can see absolutely nothing.
Good discussion points you bring up, but enforcing the legality of this stuff is impossible unless you run into the cloud police up there, it always seems to come to light after the crash for some reason.
Dewpoint spread isn't much in this hypothetical situation of yours, so let me throw in another variable (just for fun). Since there is no reported visibility for the entire route, then there will likely be no mention of the marine layer 15 miles off shore where some warmer water meets a loving airmass, how long do you think you would be flying above or even in the clouds before you realized you were in IMC conditions? If you have no way of determining the vis or the on scene cloud conditions with the naked eye I might ask how you would call it operating VFR if you can't see the weather for what it is and without the knowledge of what it will be at your destination. Legally, the horizon "angle" doesn't play in the definition of VMC, just clouds and vis. And then your NVG battery light flashes and you suddenly remember you forgot to change out the other one the last time you saw that light...and there are no spare AA's to be had
Blink Blink Blink Blink...are you going to be legal when the NVG's go out? As you said, you can see absolutely nothing. Good discussion points you bring up, but enforcing the legality of this stuff is impossible unless you run into the cloud police up there, it always seems to come to light after the crash for some reason.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle of the Pacific
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phrog,
You hit the nail on the head-
What will be the probable findings of an NTSB investigation conducted after an inadvertent IMC event that resulted in a crash? The NTSB will eat the pilot and the operator for lunch. But what will be the prosecutor's argument? Which rules will he point to, and what thoughts will he conjure, to bury those who are responsible for the tragedy?
Your additional variable to the hypothetical begs an important question for which I have never heard a satisfactory answer- how in the world do you determine flight visibility under NVG's when you are under low illumination levels offshore, and there are no points of reference? A difficult thing to do, especially when there is a little moisture in the air.... and I agree that if I am to maintain VFR, then I must be able to determine visibility at all times.
In answer to your question regarding when I would know when I was in a cloud- probably shortly after flipping on the landing light.
As far as seeing the "surface" - we know that at certain moon angles and illumination levels, that you will not see the surface of the ocean at all at night- just that far-away horizon line formed by contrast in the goggles.
As far as enforcement goes- I realize that will be a difficult task...but I am not looking to skirt the rules here- I just want to know what I can and cannot legally do with NVG's in a VFR helicopter.
You hit the nail on the head-
What will be the probable findings of an NTSB investigation conducted after an inadvertent IMC event that resulted in a crash? The NTSB will eat the pilot and the operator for lunch. But what will be the prosecutor's argument? Which rules will he point to, and what thoughts will he conjure, to bury those who are responsible for the tragedy?
Your additional variable to the hypothetical begs an important question for which I have never heard a satisfactory answer- how in the world do you determine flight visibility under NVG's when you are under low illumination levels offshore, and there are no points of reference? A difficult thing to do, especially when there is a little moisture in the air.... and I agree that if I am to maintain VFR, then I must be able to determine visibility at all times.
In answer to your question regarding when I would know when I was in a cloud- probably shortly after flipping on the landing light.
As far as seeing the "surface" - we know that at certain moon angles and illumination levels, that you will not see the surface of the ocean at all at night- just that far-away horizon line formed by contrast in the goggles.
As far as enforcement goes- I realize that will be a difficult task...but I am not looking to skirt the rules here- I just want to know what I can and cannot legally do with NVG's in a VFR helicopter.
VG - I sympathise with your position in that your operator clearly doesn't have any qualms about sending you off to do the job and if you say no they will just employ another pilot who will say yes.
But, do your customers appreciate the risks involved or are they just happy since no-one can prove it is illegal?
The rules do seem very wishy-washy and the FAA should be ashamed - when there is a spate of accidents caused by IIMC on goggles maybe they will think again.
My humble opinion is that in order to operate on NVG, the pilot must have an IR and the aircraft must be IFR fitted including an autopilot as an absolute minimum.
The thought of people doing a quick NVG course and then going flying in an R22 or similar fills me with horror.
Is it legal? it would appear not to be illegal as far as the rules are concerned.
Is is right? No way Jose
But, do your customers appreciate the risks involved or are they just happy since no-one can prove it is illegal?
The rules do seem very wishy-washy and the FAA should be ashamed - when there is a spate of accidents caused by IIMC on goggles maybe they will think again.
My humble opinion is that in order to operate on NVG, the pilot must have an IR and the aircraft must be IFR fitted including an autopilot as an absolute minimum.
The thought of people doing a quick NVG course and then going flying in an R22 or similar fills me with horror.
Is it legal? it would appear not to be illegal as far as the rules are concerned.
Is is right? No way Jose
Wow, my head hurts!
What we are really getting down to is not simply "legal" v "risk", it is the continual evolution of aviation and aviators pushing the regulatory system to catch up. Everytime the law needs calrification to prescriptive and exacting standards it is because of some percieved loophole exploited beyond the reasonable. Then, we must go through another exhaustive draft of the legislation, have thousands of arguements, then write yet another prescriptive and tiny detailed rule with which people will try and misinterpret.
And I mean try. And they will complain "gee these rules are complicated..."
As Jim L quite clearly pointed out, and I think we all agree, that the rules state a NVFR operations must operate IAW FAR 135.207:
"visual surface reference, or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter."
Whilst that is clear, interpretations of the rule have been far less so, and if any further substantiation of that statement were required, look through this thread!! This rule and its loose inerpretations have been at the root systemic cause of many NVFR accidents in the US. But we need to look at what the INTENT of that rule was. Stop trying to play lawyer by interpreting a way around it, look at what it was trying to keep you safe from.
It was trying to avoid a scenario where a non instrument rated pilot found themselves without a visible horizon. 178 seconds ring a bell?
Nothing to do with autopilots - if it did then instrument skills and individual helicopter stabilities would count. They dont, it is about whether or not you have, or have the risk of, getting into a no horizon situation. Nothing to do with moon angles - if it did, then pilot age and visual acuity and humidity and dust and smoke and haze and cloud type and cloud level and even windscreen cleanliness would matter. They dont, it is about whether or not you have, or have the risk of, getting into a no horizon situation.
What it did do was allow all of those guys who did not have an instrument rating and autopilot go flying when it was perfectly safe to do so - like over LA on a clear full moonlit night - without the expense of the rating and autopilot. What do we do??? We bend it and twist it and ring it to the max so that we have to have more rules clarifying a great freedom just to keep ourselves safe. And then we complain about how many complicated rules there are!
On to NVG. According to all the FAA literature (and that of SC-196) NVG is not to be used to alter or reduce the requirements of NVFR. FAR 135.27 WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR NVG. THERE WAS NO INTENT FOR IT TO COVER NVG. ALL EXPERT ADVICE AND FAA DOCUMETS TO DATE FAIL TO GIVE YOU A LEGAL AUTHORISATION TO ALTER FAR 135.27 BY USING NVG.
All Subject Matter Expertise (SME) so far on this thread have said that NVFR over water at night using NVG in the cirumstances mentioned represent an unacceptable practice. Clearly, the operation proposed does not meet the intent of FAR 135.27, nor in my opinion, the literature supporting NVG operations and you would be both technically in breach of the law, and, probably more importantly when you go to bed at night after the accident, disregarding and ignoring SME written advice and guidance.
It is not reasonable to look to the FAA to continue to control every possible interpretation of the rules and regs particularly in the face of rapidly developing technology. At some point to protect yourself from the law, you have to act "as a reasonable person" would have acted in the same circumstance, armed with the same knowledge (or knowledge that a reasonable person would have actively obtained).
That is the line we have to get to when introducing new technology like NVG. Would a subject matter expert think that is a reasonable thing to do?
What we are really getting down to is not simply "legal" v "risk", it is the continual evolution of aviation and aviators pushing the regulatory system to catch up. Everytime the law needs calrification to prescriptive and exacting standards it is because of some percieved loophole exploited beyond the reasonable. Then, we must go through another exhaustive draft of the legislation, have thousands of arguements, then write yet another prescriptive and tiny detailed rule with which people will try and misinterpret.
And I mean try. And they will complain "gee these rules are complicated..."
As Jim L quite clearly pointed out, and I think we all agree, that the rules state a NVFR operations must operate IAW FAR 135.207:
"visual surface reference, or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter."
Whilst that is clear, interpretations of the rule have been far less so, and if any further substantiation of that statement were required, look through this thread!! This rule and its loose inerpretations have been at the root systemic cause of many NVFR accidents in the US. But we need to look at what the INTENT of that rule was. Stop trying to play lawyer by interpreting a way around it, look at what it was trying to keep you safe from.
It was trying to avoid a scenario where a non instrument rated pilot found themselves without a visible horizon. 178 seconds ring a bell?
Nothing to do with autopilots - if it did then instrument skills and individual helicopter stabilities would count. They dont, it is about whether or not you have, or have the risk of, getting into a no horizon situation. Nothing to do with moon angles - if it did, then pilot age and visual acuity and humidity and dust and smoke and haze and cloud type and cloud level and even windscreen cleanliness would matter. They dont, it is about whether or not you have, or have the risk of, getting into a no horizon situation.
What it did do was allow all of those guys who did not have an instrument rating and autopilot go flying when it was perfectly safe to do so - like over LA on a clear full moonlit night - without the expense of the rating and autopilot. What do we do??? We bend it and twist it and ring it to the max so that we have to have more rules clarifying a great freedom just to keep ourselves safe. And then we complain about how many complicated rules there are!
On to NVG. According to all the FAA literature (and that of SC-196) NVG is not to be used to alter or reduce the requirements of NVFR. FAR 135.27 WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR NVG. THERE WAS NO INTENT FOR IT TO COVER NVG. ALL EXPERT ADVICE AND FAA DOCUMETS TO DATE FAIL TO GIVE YOU A LEGAL AUTHORISATION TO ALTER FAR 135.27 BY USING NVG.
All Subject Matter Expertise (SME) so far on this thread have said that NVFR over water at night using NVG in the cirumstances mentioned represent an unacceptable practice. Clearly, the operation proposed does not meet the intent of FAR 135.27, nor in my opinion, the literature supporting NVG operations and you would be both technically in breach of the law, and, probably more importantly when you go to bed at night after the accident, disregarding and ignoring SME written advice and guidance.
It is not reasonable to look to the FAA to continue to control every possible interpretation of the rules and regs particularly in the face of rapidly developing technology. At some point to protect yourself from the law, you have to act "as a reasonable person" would have acted in the same circumstance, armed with the same knowledge (or knowledge that a reasonable person would have actively obtained).
That is the line we have to get to when introducing new technology like NVG. Would a subject matter expert think that is a reasonable thing to do?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: miami
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire...Concur. Nicely put. VG, if you are trying to make the case to your bosses, select all from this thread and print. What will a lawyer for the prosecution do? He will muster in a hoard of SME's and then call them one by one until the judge's ears are bleeding. The answer is there in the regs, how one interprets it in this business should be all about risk vs gain, if you do that right, not a lawyer in the world is going to have a chance at making their case.
An eloquent post Helmet Fire - the problem is that when it comes down to a courtroom battle between the intent of a law and the letter of a law, the letter usually wins.
Smart lawyers make a living out of twisting interpretations of laws to their clients advantage and, while there are aviation operators trying to make money in a competetive market, there will always be those looking to push the boundaries of legal interpretation.
A recent example (non-aviation) from the UK is comedian Jimmy Carr who was clearly using his mobile phone to write a text whilst driving - in clear contravention of the law regarding hand-held communications devices - BUT his lawyer claimed JC was dictating a joke instead - dictating machines are not covered by the same law and JC got off!
Here the intent of the law is quite clear - to prevent people crashing while they use their phones at the wheel - unfortunately a loophole in the letter of the law allowed the lawyer to sidestep the legislation.
So my point is that the FAA do need to legislate properly to prevent the unscrupulous from exploiting interpretations of inadequate laws even though to any reasonable observer that interpretation flies in the face of the intent of the law.
Smart lawyers make a living out of twisting interpretations of laws to their clients advantage and, while there are aviation operators trying to make money in a competetive market, there will always be those looking to push the boundaries of legal interpretation.
A recent example (non-aviation) from the UK is comedian Jimmy Carr who was clearly using his mobile phone to write a text whilst driving - in clear contravention of the law regarding hand-held communications devices - BUT his lawyer claimed JC was dictating a joke instead - dictating machines are not covered by the same law and JC got off!
Here the intent of the law is quite clear - to prevent people crashing while they use their phones at the wheel - unfortunately a loophole in the letter of the law allowed the lawyer to sidestep the legislation.
So my point is that the FAA do need to legislate properly to prevent the unscrupulous from exploiting interpretations of inadequate laws even though to any reasonable observer that interpretation flies in the face of the intent of the law.
Too true Crab. Why dont they spell out intent rather than all the leagalese that actually helps make interpretation too complex for any normal human? How about "The intent of the law on hand held devices is that the driver should be concentrating soley on the road and vehicle operation and not be distracted. Thus the use of any ancillary device requiring division of cognitive space from the primary task of driving is covered here..."
I know. Dream on....
The reasonable person arguement will not win the FAA V Silly Pilot case, for the same reasons as the Jimmy Carr failure. They are not the cases pilots/operators fear. Post accident, when you are being sued for CFIT, any sensible lawyer will invoke intent and reasonable person...and I suggest you'd be smoked. That is the case to fear and plan for.
I'd say that strictly speaking, FAR 135.207 means if you completely cover your instrument panel (unaided because it pre dates NVG) can you still safely fly the aircraft?
That clearly excludes over water at night.
Good luck VG.
I know. Dream on....
The reasonable person arguement will not win the FAA V Silly Pilot case, for the same reasons as the Jimmy Carr failure. They are not the cases pilots/operators fear. Post accident, when you are being sued for CFIT, any sensible lawyer will invoke intent and reasonable person...and I suggest you'd be smoked. That is the case to fear and plan for.
I'd say that strictly speaking, FAR 135.207 means if you completely cover your instrument panel (unaided because it pre dates NVG) can you still safely fly the aircraft?
That clearly excludes over water at night.
Good luck VG.
