Thu May 14, 2020 3:34 pm
#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...
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...