Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA seeks to raise Airline Pilot Standards

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA seeks to raise Airline Pilot Standards

Old 8th Apr 2012, 20:56
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bluegrass
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely, the difference between a twin Cessna in the filth at night is actually good training but is far removed from the ambiance of an airliner flightdeck and in-the-same-loop CRM and all the rest of it in the rarified atmosphere and noise at FL410
I'll take the real-world relevance of "filth" trained over "ambiance" any day.
LongBeachTrijet is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2012, 21:15
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Most of my friends went through flight instruction, charter, corporate and finally airline flying. They are all great pilots who never took any short cuts to the right seat. They didn't need to be told about what to do if you lost airspeed, they knew how to handle it. The airline didn't have to. AF lost airspeed and not one pilot knew how to handle it. That is what experience is all about. Experience should be something you come to the airline with, not what they have to teach you. Hire competent pilots and pay them what they bring to you. Don't hire new hires that are cheap and try to train them.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2012, 17:08
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wanted to clarify a few things:

This is NOT a 1500 hour rule. It will not matter if -121 airline pilots, including new-hire FOs, have 1500 hours.
What IS required is an ATP (a full, PIC ATP):
So, if a pilot has 1500 hours, but can't pass that ATP checkride, they are not eligible to fly -121. In fact, the FAA is proposing that some categories of pilots will need less than 1500 hours...but will still have to have a full ATP.

The new-hires will NOT need a type rating, just an ATP-Multiengine Land.

Pilots CAN still fly for the smaller carriers that have 19 seats or less, as they are able to operate under regulations called -135, which are less stringent than -121 (-121 is Delta, United, Freedom, Colgan, SkyWest, etc.).

From what we have seen the carriers in the US are not doing much to get ready for these regulations to start, which is 1 AUG 2013. It does not seem to me that they will be able to recruit enough pilots, and massive flight cancellations will occur. Maybe they are just hoping to lobby Obama and get his administration to change the regs-that is what FedEx/UPS did with regards to the new Flight/Duty/Rest regs.

cliff
VCP
atpcliff is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 04:05
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Cliff,

You might want to read the NPRM. To keep E-R and other schools happy, they have proposed a "Restricted ATP" (the FAA's term.) They are up front that it will not meet ICAO ATP standards and they say it will not be valid for any operation that requires an ATP for PICs but it is an ATP and that's all Congress mandated. I would not call that a "full" ATP.

Also:

23. Add §121.436 to read as follows:
§121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.
(a) No pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless he holds an airline transport
pilot certificate, an appropriate aircraft type rating for the aircraft being flown, and has
1,000 hours as second in command in part 121 operations, pilot in command in operations
under §91.1053(a)(2)(i) or §135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any combination thereof.
(b) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as second in command unless the
pilot holds an airline transport pilot certificate and an appropriate aircraft type rating (my bold) for the aircraft being flown. A pilot type rating obtained under §61.55 does not satisfy (again, my bold) the requirements of this section.

(c) Compliance with the requirements of this section is required by August 1, 2013.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 05:51
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pilots CAN still fly for the smaller carriers that have 19 seats or less, as they are able to operate under regulations called -135, which are less stringent than -121 (-121 is Delta, United, Freedom, Colgan, SkyWest, etc.).
The maximum seats for scheduled air service under FAR 135 is 9 or less. Air carriers operating 19-seat aircraft must be certificated under FAR 121. This went into effect in 1997.
Island-Flyer is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2012, 18:55
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Island Flyer
The maximum seats for scheduled air service under FAR 135 is 9 or less. Air carriers operating 19-seat aircraft must be certificated under FAR 121. This went into effect in 1997.
Just a couple of wee nits to pic …

1. Persons (and I’m using the word “persons” in the regulatory sense) desiring to operate, or who are operating, civil aircraft as an air carrier or commercial operator are certificated under 14CFR part 119 (“Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators”) not “FAR 121.”

2. The actual use of “FAR” happens to be the shortened reference for the “Federal Acquisition Regulations” which has nothing to do with airplanes, pilots, or anything of the sort.

3. 14CFR part 121 is entitled “Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations;” and

4. 14CFR part 135 is entitled “Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations and Rules Governing Persons On Board Such Aircraft.”

5. Part 135 applies to those persons who were either issued an air carrier or an operating certificate and operations specifications under the requirements of part 135 or under SFAR No. 38–2 of 14CFR part 121 before January 19, 1996, or those persons who, after this date, applied for, applies for, or obtains an initial air carrier or operating certificate and operations specifications to conduct scheduled passenger carrying operations, and uses or expects to use an airplane belonging to one of the following groupings for scheduled passenger-carrying operations:
a) Nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seat configuration of 10–19 seats;
b) Transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that have a passenger seat configuration of 20–30 seats; or
c) Turbojet engine powered airplanes having a passenger seat configuration of 1–30 seats.

6. Part 121 applies to those persons who hold or are required to hold an air carrier certificate or an operating certificate engaging or planning to engage in domestic, flag, or supplemental operations.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2012, 20:11
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Residence - Georgia || Flying Domicile Changes Periodically
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With respect to the question about requiring pilots to have logged a minimum of 1500 hour BEFORE getting hired by a US airline, according to information available from the US FAA public website, predictions for the US aviation industry – outside of the US commercial airline portion of that industry – indicate that all other flight operations will average approximately 34.4 million hours per year from now to 2023 (slightly less initially and slightly more toward the end of that time as the annual growth rate is projected to be approximately 3.2% per year, on average). An average of 34.4 million hours per year provides an average of 2.86 million hours per month over this period. The estimated requirements for pilot are that up to 500 pilots per month will be required to fill vacant airline FO seats for the next 10+ years. If each pilot is required to have logged a minimum of 1500 hours prior to applying for an airline job, this would require approximately 750K hours. Or, said differently, in order for 500 pilots per month to be able to log a minimum of 1500 hours prior to being eligible to be hired into the airline business, just a bit over 26% of all the hours flown outside of commercial airline service every month would have to be available to these “airline aspirants.”
BTDTB4 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2012, 04:43
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really?

Really you seriously just told me FAR means "Federal Acquisition Regulation" and then proceed to lecture me on the difference between 121 and 135?

I hope you're fully aware that FAR the common industry term in the United States for "Federal Aviation Regulation" in reference to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The fact that I have to tell you this indicates that you have no clue about US regulations pertaining to aviation.

With regards to your assertion that FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations, aka Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) Part 135 operators may operate in scheduled service under FAR (again, this is what we in the United States call Title 14 of our Code of Federal Regulations) with a passenger seating configuration I'm not sure what regulation you quoted as you provide no reference. Currently FAR (referring to the Federal Aviation Regulations) 135.1 was revised to remove the applicability you quoted.

However, the 8900.1 Volume 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2-129F (Table 2-4) has an excellent chart that clearly illustrates that a scheduled operator with greater than 9 passenger seats or a payload of greater than 6500 pounds must operate under the rules pertaining to Part 121.


Scheduled Operations (common carriage passenger operation; departure, location, and time and arrival location offered in advance by the operator)
Common Carriage (holding out to transport persons or property for compensation or hire)
• Interstate, or
• Foreign, or
• Overseas, or
• Carriage of mail
• Turbojets, or
• Multi-engine airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats, OR more than 7,500 pounds payload capacity
• Within or between 48 contiguous states, entirely within a state, territory, or possession, or special authorizations
121

Domestic
----------------
• Turbojets, or
• Multi-engine airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats, OR more than 7,500 pounds payload capacity
• Entirely outside U.S., take-off or landing outside 48 contiguous states, or between Alaska, Hawaii, territories, and outside U.S.
121
Flag
----------------
• Airplanes with 9 or fewer passenger seats AND 7,500 lbs. or less payload capacity, or any rotorcraft
135

Commuter
----------------
• Airplanes, other than turbojets, with 9 or fewer passenger seats AND 7,500 pounds or less payload capacity, or any rotorcraft used in scheduled passenger-carrying operations with a frequency less than 5 round trips per week on at least one route between two or more points according to the published flight schedules
135
On-demand
----------------

The 30 seat restriction under FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) 135 applies only to non-scheduled flight operations. All scheduled "commuter" operations are restricted to 9 or less. This is why Great Lakes, Aloha Island Air, and a number of other US commuter airlines converted to FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations, I'd for you to think I'm talking about the Federal Acquisition Regulations on an aviation website) 121 in the late 1990's.
Island-Flyer is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2012, 21:27
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
Really you seriously just told me FAR means "Federal Acquisition Regulation" and then proceed to lecture me on the difference between 121 and 135?

I hope you're fully aware that FAR the common industry term in the United States for "Federal Aviation Regulation" in reference to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The fact that I have to tell you this indicates that you have no clue about US regulations pertaining to aviation…………………………….(et al)
Whoa … slow down parder… I wasn’t trying to kick over your rice bowl – (and no, there isn’t any preconceived ethnic slander hidden in those words) – I was merely pointing out something because I didn’t have much else to do yesterday ……..

However … now that I’ve received such a response let me say that YES, I did REALLY and SERIOUSLY, just tell you that FAR means "Federal Acquisition Regulations." Why did I do that? Because “FAR” is the shortened reference to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Don’t believe me? I’d suggest you look it up. Simply type “F” “A” “R” into your Google Search Engine and hit the “enter” key. I’d be interested to know what comes up at the top of the list that appears.

I am fully aware that a lot of folks mean the rules that govern the operation of airplanes when they use the term “FAR” … but that doesn’t mean that because it’s used that way that it is correctly used. How many times have you seen/heard someone on television or radio talk about “AXING” someone a question. AXING is what Lizzie Borden did to her parents – she didn’t have a long interrogatory with them. If you stood in front of me and told me that you AXED your business partner … I would likely smile – and ASK you if he got mad … or if he bled all over you … or some other form of “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding” sort of response to such a verbal error. Also, I think you’ll find that in my history on this forum I’ve rarely, if ever, lectured anyone on anything – although I have been tempted to do so - on more than one occasion. I have pointed out, and I’ll probably continue to point out, errors – both in word and deed – but for whatever its worth, I’ve always attempted to do it in a civil manner … sometimes reaching for a humorous twist … (I’ll leave comments on the success of those endeavors to others…). If I came across as less than civil in your mind – perhaps you would consider an apology from me for that indiscretion.

I am fully aware that a lot of folks have used “FAR” as a reference to the combination of regulations dealing with aviation … and it’s probably a carry-over from when the Civil Air Regulations were re-codified. The simple fact is that all regulations in the US are part of a code of regulations – and those that deal with aviation come under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (hence the shortened reference “14CFR”). Of course there are few “hold-overs” that don’t deal with regulatory issues all the time and that are likely not all that interested in the correct references for those rules and regulations. OK. Fine. Their choice … as it is yours.

So, when you explained that your airline and a number of other US commuter airlines converted to FAR 121, the fact is that you all “obtained operations specifications” under 14CFR part 121, and you did so in compliance with §135.2(b), which states “A certificate holder described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may not, after March 20, 1997, operate an airplane described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii) or (a)(1)(iii) of this section in scheduled passenger-carrying operations, unless it obtains operations specifications to conduct its scheduled operations under part 121 of this chapter on or before March 20, 1997.” For your information the reference to “this chapter” in this quote, means Chapter I, Subchapter G – Air Carriers and Operators for Compensation or Hire: Certification and Operations.

The regulations that I was “quoting” are 14CFR part 121, (for its title), part 135 (for its title), and specifically §135.2(a)(1) for the references regarding the “groupings” of airplanes I listed as being applicable to all persons who applied for, applies for, or obtains an initial air carrier or operating certificate and operations specifications to conduct scheduled passenger carrying operations, and uses or expects to use an airplane belonging to one of the following groupings for scheduled passenger-carrying operations.

As to your reference to 8900.1, Volume 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2-129F … I’m not interested in sparring with you about what may or may not be included in an FAA Order (Flight Standards Information Management System – FSIMS) that is written to provide direction for the activities of aviation safety inspectors working for FAA Flight Standards. If those contents were to be applied as regulatory requirements to the industry, they would appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) just like all the other regulatory requirements. I was referring to regulations – things that are required by governmental law.

Again, my intent is not to generate a horrendous argument about what are and are not regulations – nor was I intending to besmirch your reputation or your professional acumen … I was merely pointing out – not very successfully it would appear – that the reference to FAR was not correct. It wasn’t correct the other day … it is not correct today … it wouldn’t be correct tomorrow. However, this IS America, and you can feel free to use its language any way you choose.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2012, 21:52
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
You are being pedantic to the point of stupidity. Even the FAA uses the term "FAR" to refer to the Federal Air Regulations. Not to mention the ever-popular FAR/AIM book available every year.
MarcK is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2012, 11:59
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarcK
You are being pedantic to the point of stupidity. Even the FAA uses the term "FAR" to refer to the Federal Air Regulations. Not to mention the ever-popular FAR/AIM book available every year.
I didn't think we were going to get into a semantically charged exchange ... but ... I do not believe I am any more "pedantic" about the term "FAR" than you are "obtuse" with respect to the accuracy of what I have said about that term. Indeed, I used to think that I was familiar with the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). However, as I am apparently not as familiar with it as you are ... would you care to point out for me where it is in that manual that any reference to the term "FAR" can be found? However, in any event, as I pointed out to Island-Flyer, the accuracy of the language used is entirely up to the user. Do you have any additional questions you would care to AX?
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2012, 12:49
  #132 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Although not a US citizen, I have had the pleasure to attend factory conversion courses on CV880M, B707, L1011 and B747 airplanes prior to my retirement from aviation. To obtain qualifications to operate these aircraft, I had to satisfy the FAA that I understood the FAR's before the issue of a license, so I am very familiar of the pertinent FAR's.

My Google says thus:The Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs, are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States. A wide variety of activities are regulated, such as airplane design, typical airline flights, pilot training activities, hot-air ballooning, lighter-than-air aircraft, man-made structure heights, obstruction lighting and marking, and even model rocket launches and model aircraft operation. The rules are designed to promote safe aviation, protecting pilots, flight attendants, passengers and the general public from unnecessary risk.

Have a good day sir.
HotDog is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2012, 15:25
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,839
Received 19 Likes on 9 Posts
Air Rabbit, appears in AIM several times if you'd care to download the PDF and search...... FAR 91 is mentioned on the flight planning form examples, FAR Part 135 is also mentioned. Stop being a pillock.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2012, 22:58
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HotDog, “The Reverend”
My Google says thus:The Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs, are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governing all aviation activities in the United States. A wide variety of activities are regulated, such as airplane design, typical airline flights, pilot training activities, hot-air ballooning, lighter-than-air aircraft, man-made structure heights, obstruction lighting and marking, and even model rocket launches and model aircraft operation. The rules are designed to promote safe aviation, protecting pilots, flight attendants, passengers and the general public from unnecessary risk.
Have a good day sir.
Hi Rev. Dog … Thank you for your comments and for the civil manner in which you expressed them. I guess that the service provided by “Google” is largely dependent on what part of the globe the user is occupying at the time. From where I am sitting now, entering “FAR” into Google gets me a list, the top entry of which is the following:
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) https://www.acquisition.gov/far/
"Link to Reissued FAR in PDF printing purposes only ... Includes amendments thru FAC 2005-56, effective April 2, 2012 (Note: FAR amendments are updated on ..."

I’m not sure why so much “heat” is being generated over this, but … not ever having been one to cower in some empty corner when someone begins to wag his or her finger in my face, and to maintain the reputation I’ve gained on this forum over the last 7 years for desiring to be sure that the person (or persons) really do understand what it is I am saying, I’ll give this another try.

I am fully aware that there won’t be many airplanes that crash due the pilots referring to the FARs … but, the fact remains, despite all the nay-sayers and all the quotes provided from various publication sources other than the “horse's mouth,” the correct reference to the regulations we deal with on a daily basis is Title 14 of the US Code of Federal Regulations, followed by the specific “part” of that title, e.g., part 121, part 61, part 135, etc. It’s not critical nor is it even necessary to get that right … but consistent use of either an incorrect term or an outdated or archaic term, at least in most circles, does little to support the position of the person speaking.

As I indicated in my response to Mr. Island-Flyer, I am fully aware that a lot of folks used “FAR” as a reference to the combination of regulations dealing with US aviation issues – it would appear that some (many?) still do. OK. Fine. I also said that it was probably a carry-over from when the Civil Air Regulations – for which the shortened acronym, “CAR,” was used – and when these regulations were re-codified into the Code of Federal Regulations, it was an easy exchange to substitute “Federal” for “Civil” (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulations vs. Civil Air Regulations) and the acronym FAR followed quite nicely behind CAR. Completely understandable – and quite logical. However, the fact that there were already a set of regulations in use at that time, regulations that addressed the requirements that had to be met when the US government purchased items, the Federal Acquisition Regulations, commonly referred to as “FAR,” was completely overlooked. It has only been in the last couple of decades that the Federal Aviation Administration has made a concerted effort to correct this oversight … and the correction was to refer to any of the regulations published under the various “titles” of the US Code with the number of the title followed by the initials “CFR,” standing for Code of Federal Regulations, and then referencing the specifically applicable part of that title. Today, the emphasis is on publishing information with the corrected references. There are fewer and fewer publications from the Federal Aviation Administration that incorrectly use “FAR.” Of course, there hasn’t been a sweeping effort to make changes to ALL such documents, because it isn’t terribly important. But, it would appear that the requirement is when a particular document is published by the US government for update or modification, that publication will not include the acronym “FAR” for anything other than the Federal Acquisition Regulations … and when the term used to refer to rules or regulations applicable to aviation, the term “CFR” (or more correctly “14CFR” – or the appropriate title number preceding the “CFR”) will be used to properly refer to the regulation being cited.

Again Rev. Dog, thank you for your comments and I hope my response is taken in the spirit in which it is legitimately offered – as explanation – not argument.

Originally Posted by le Pingouin
...appears in AIM several times if you'd care to download the PDF and search...... FAR 91 is mentioned on the flight planning form examples, FAR Part 135 is also mentioned. Stop being a pillock.
The copy of the AIM I already have downloaded – and, by the way, here is a link for the Aeronautical Information Manual that I use - this one includes absolutely no references to the term “FAR” … but, then, this is the “official” downloadable version of the FAA published copy of that manual (you’ll note that the link takes you to the official FAA web site) and, indeed, I suspect there very well may be numerous other publishers offering their versions of the same document … and “good on them” for doing so. It’s just that the “source” I’d rather rely on is the FAA itself.

Additionally, I will offer a tip of my hat, in that I have to acknowledge that, while I usually try to keep abreast of most of the vernacular slights and verbal digs that float around, I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with the term “pillock,” even though I’m reasonably sure it isn’t intended to convey a staunch level of professional respect. But, rest assured, I will give your comments all the consideration, thought, and attention they are due.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2012, 03:35
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,839
Received 19 Likes on 9 Posts
And here is the official direct from the FAA link that I used: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...bs/AIM/aim.pdf

Search for FAR 91 & FAR Part 135. Then look again at the HTML version.

FAR is common parlance in aviation circles, including the FAA - why would you latch onto the first acronym you found on Google that was clearly irrelevant and think/insist it was correct? God alone knows what you'd make of CRM.... Hint: it's not the first result Google throws up.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2012, 04:45
  #136 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with the term “pillock
British slang: Noun for Idiot, fool. Originally a slang term for the penis but fairly inoffensive now its this meaning has been forgotten.

Strange what a useless disagreement can produce?
HotDog is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2012, 07:38
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Have there been any high profile crashes due to low time pilots making mistakes? The Colgan crash was with pilots with thousands of hours of time making bad mistakes. Why is this legislation even on the table? Is it just politics as usual?
413X3 is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2012, 18:21
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HotDog – The Reverend
British slang: Noun for Idiot, fool. Originally a slang term for the penis but fairly inoffensive now its this meaning has been forgotten.
Strange what a useless disagreement can produce?
Hmm… much as I thought … thanks (again) for the information … and you are most assuredly correct … it IS strange what a useless disagreement can produce! It reminds me of some research of the phenomenon known as “cognitive bias” conducted by 2 chaps, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, at Cornell University some time ago, demonstrating that unskilled persons sometimes suffer from “illusory superiority," often mistaking their ability/knowledge to be much higher than it actually is, and, as a result, causing them to be unable to recognize their own mistakes. Sometimes I wonder if attempting to provide additional or newer information to those who believe they already know all there is to know on a given subject is worth the time and energy it takes to break through that "I-know-it-all-now" or the "you-can't-provide-me-any-additional-facts-that-will-be-useful" kinds of attitudes. In that same light, Dunning/Kruger quoted Charles Darwin as having said "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
Originally Posted by le Pingouin
And here is the official direct from the FAA link that I used: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...bs/AIM/aim.pdf
Search for FAR 91 & FAR Part 135. Then look again at the HTML version.
FAR is common parlance in aviation circles, including the FAA - why would you latch onto the first acronym you found on Google that was clearly irrelevant and think/insist it was correct? God alone knows what you'd make of CRM.... Hint: it's not the first result Google throws up.
Geeze … I'm sure you are aware that you are citing a 729 page document that uses a specific term a total of 3 times – twice using reproduced “flight plan forms,” both of which are clearly 1982 forms, and once using an advisory circular discussing icing issues for part 135 operators, an advisory circular that was published in 1981.

Please, sir, if you are comfortable in relying on this kind of verification for your position, be my guest to continue doing so, as I suspect that the FAA police will not show up on your doorstep with an arrest warrant for “improper use of terms.” While I know of only a few in the FAA who regularly continue to use the term “FAR,” and none who adamantly continue to do so, I am not able to concur with your statement that it’s use is “common parlance” within the FAA. However, I do think it best to no longer point out to you what I believe to be an outdated term. Additionally, if it matters, you have my apology for your having to read my efforts to bring this issue to the attention of the other readers on this forum.

Last edited by AirRabbit; 14th Apr 2012 at 18:33.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2012, 03:25
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,415
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
AirRabbit

I'll bet you are using that new fangled "first officer" term for "co-pilot", worst still "flight attendant" for "stews" or "hosties".

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2012, 05:43
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,839
Received 19 Likes on 9 Posts
You quite definitively claimed FAR wasn't mentioned in AIM, yet it was. Here's another reference to the FAA using it:

FAA Regulations

Regulations & Policies

And from the same page:

Do You Want To… ?





If you'd care to search the FAA website you'll found 100s of references to FAR & FARs, including many very recent documents.

AirRabbit, time for you to indicate a reference for your claim that FAR doesn't mean what everyone else here thinks. Thus far Google is as definitive as you've got. Give us an official document that specifically says Federal Aviation Regulations are not to be referred to as FARs.
le Pingouin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.