Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1769496
Here's a wild thought prompted by the recent discussions about Rule 11, the 'Land at your Discretion' discussion and so on. To me these seem to be just two of so many areas of aviation where the logic allegedly underpinning a particular rule or practice is questionable to say the least. Perhaps there never was any logic underpinning it; more likely the logic disappeared over time. Either way, maybe it's time to expose the lack of it on a more systematic basis.

IMHO the word Why is the most powerful word in the English Language, perhaps in any langauge, when it's used constructively. Used properly, it obliges people (often those in authority) to justify; which obliges them to think and sometimes to review; which sometimes stimulates change for the better. It's not a comfortable word and its use can sometimes cause a backlash. I've found myself in hot water on more than one occasion by asking Why? too persistently. But sometimes in life the hotter the water becomes the more you know that you're onto something.

So, in the same way that we had the Red Tape Challenge a few years ago, might it be worth starting a Why So? Challenge now. Not as a means of unleashing digital anarchy or as an opportunity to beat private hobby-horses to death all over the country, but as a means of genuinely teasing-out the reasons behind some of the more perplexing aspects of aviation regulation with a view to encouraging a review of such issues. Exposing red tape some years ago gave rise to some trimming of needless red tape; so exposing incidents of missing logic might perhaps give rise to some re-thinking of regulations that have lost their footing in logic.

My starters would include well-know Why?s such as:

* Why is it a requirement to book out of an airfield? It might have made sense in the days of yore but is surely a complete waste of time these days and just another reason for someone to get hot under the collar if you fail to do so.

* Why do small airfields with only an A/G radio need an ATZ? What does it actually achieve (aside from stimulating pages of comment about Rule 11) that could not be achieved by the same sort of hazard zone warning that accompanies a parachuting or gliding site?

* Why do so many airfields insist on dayglo vests? What is the evidence that wearing a dayglo vest offers any greater protection from being run over by an aeroplane?

* Why wouldn't hearing airfield information being passed by RT to another aircraft count as 'obtaining airfield information' prior to entry to an ATZ?

* Why does a FISO say 'Land at your discretion' or 'Take off at your discretion' to a pilot? Such actions could only be at his discretion on such an airfield, so why say so?

* Why do we require pilots flying IFR outside of controlled airspace to use a limited number of fixed levels, the only logical outcome of which is to increase their risk of colliding with someone else using the same level?

* Why do we not test the use of moving map technology as part of the LAPL/PPL Skill Tests? They will certainly use it after their test, yet the test assumes that such things do not exist.

* Why isn't an ATC controller allowed to 'deem' that a fleeting infringement is non-threatening (assuming that it is) and therefore not worthy of reaction? As I understand it they simply can't. Yet they can 'deem' that a non-transponding aircraft (that might or might not be below controlled airspace) must be below it (uh?) and therefore is not a threat.

Those are just a few starters for ten. I'm guessing that there are many more, perhaps too many, similar issues. Maybe this is just a daft idea, but it seems to me that if one could assemble by consensus a hit-list of, say, the 10 most illogical aspects of regulation and then perhaps sensibly and soberly put a well-argued case for change to the Authorities we'd stand a greater chance of putting these things right than just by bleating about them...
skydriller, Dave W, ChampChump and 9 others liked this
#1769500
I like your style, David.

I can answer the Dayglo Vest one. At very busy AIRPORTs, with a multitude of ground vehicles buzzing about on the ramp, they make you less likely to be run over by a vehicle that hasnt seen you.

So I would qualify that "Why" with "at GA aerodromes".

Regards, SD..
By johnm
#1769503
I use a variant on "Why" My question is always "What's it for" that helps avoid the answer being "because it's the rules" :D
#1769510
I have oft asked "why" it is, that in any debate that involves a particular contentious subject, that many will go to great lenght's to "Cut-n-Paste" repeat, re-iterate, the rule in question, but, never offer an explanation as to "Why"

In my working environment as was, we dealt with mechanical/electrical failures constantly, when a consultancy firm came in to assist they introduced the Toyota Management Company regime which invovled using the 5 Whys method of fault finding, having started with maybe a first "Why" & answer was "fuse has blown" , second "why", was it overload or running at max before failure, you see where it's going, most times we didn't get to the fifth Why because the root cause was found, it would interesting to see that process applied to a lot of ambiguous aviation rulery. :D
lobstaboy liked this
#1769513
David Wood wrote:
* Why do small airfields with only an A/G radio need an ATZ? What does it actually achieve (aside from stimulating pages of comment about Rule 11) that could not be achieved by the same sort of hazard zone warning that accompanies a parachuting or gliding site?

.


If you think of somewhere like Headcorn with Aerobatics, busy Parachute ops lots and lots of different types visiting, somtimes balloon launches and model flying it might be a good idea to mark a safe area on the chart for that.
Perhaps in a sort of all encompassing way. so people know to keep clear. Maybe a circle on the chart of a couple mile diameter? :D

David Wood wrote:* Why wouldn't hearing airfield information being passed by RT to another aircraft count as 'obtaining airfield information' prior to entry to an ATZ?


If everyone did that no-one on the ground would be able to build up a mental picture to aid in their 'uncontrolled' departure.
It's a commomly mentioned thing here but I really think you should announce, so everyone is aware.

If pilots on the ground don't pay attention or are not interested well that's up to each pilot, but I always try to pay attention, and if your 1st call is going to be 'downwind' after silently joining X-wind, well I just might have needed to know that as I climb out and turn toward you.
#1769543
Rob P wrote:So it can devise a circuit that pops in and out of it?

Oh dear! :shock: I had always assumed your complaints about Old Buckenham were tongue in cheek, I've just had a look and see the circuit does go out, in, out in. :lol: It does at first glance appear ridiculous and makes a mockery of the ATZ. That's a lot of extra calls you will have to make to comply with Rule 11. :wink:
Rob P liked this
#1769546
skydriller wrote: At very busy AIRPORTs, with a multitude of ground vehicles buzzing about on the ramp, they make you less likely to be run over by a vehicle that hasn't seen you.


Bonkers I know, but ISTR the only person in the UK to be killed by an airport vehicle, at night, was wearing a hi-viz jacket.

I think pilots and airfield staff are fairly intelligent folk, and there's plenty of smaller airfields that don't require the use of hi-viz, some even actively banning them. It's all rather a British power trip for those pompous idiots who insist of shouting at you for not wearing them. It certainly ain't a CAA requirement.

I suspect there is a whole new industry been built up on the use of hi-viz in the UK, so much so that complete nobodies wear them now to look important, from delivery drivers to photographers at airshows. Most big airport staff wear a mix of orange and other colours to distinguish the important people from the chaff.
flybymike liked this
#1769550
JodelDavo wrote:Most big airport staff wear a mix of orange and other colours to distinguish the important people from the chaff.


There is that too. Anyone not in HiViz is a pax and shouldnt be wandering about...