CARs that you think should be changed

[chesty]

A pilot should have no problems landing or taking off in a small vfr airplane without an air speed indicator. If you can not do this, you are in need of more training....

[trampbike]

I was about to write what chesty wrote, but he beat me to it, so... +1

[flyinthebug]

A pilot should have no problems landing or taking off in a small vfr airplane without an air speed indicator. If you can not do this, you are in need of more training....

So by your way of thinking...

If its 0/0 I CAN take off. Does that make it legal or safe though?

Any CPL (even PPL) can fly without an ASI in VFR wx, but you are supporting people who admit openly that they bend the regs in regards to their ASI? Yes it can easily be flown without an ASI, but should it be? Bending rules and regs is a slippery slope. An ASI in VFR weather in a C150 is certainly not a required instrument. I think we all agree. It is what that corner cutting will lead to next.

As the poster himself stated, he would rather throw his 400$ in his fuel tank, then to have a proper (legal) certification of his aircraft. As I believe CID pointed out, that makes his CofA invalid and thus his insurance as well.

Its a legality question rather than a "can it be done" question. Lots of illegal things can be done...and in some cases, a rather safe manner. That doesnt make it legal though.

Fly safe all.

[trampbike]

Bending rules and regs is a slippery slope.

I think you also were also caught on a slippery slope there. Nowhere did chesty suggest to bend the rules.
He simply pointed out that CID concerns about ASI for VFR were maybe a bit exagerated.

So what might happen in a small airplane flying VFR with a slightly out of calibration ASI? I don't have an factual anecdote to share but some of those little things that take off, cruise and land at almost the same speed, may not be very safe while landing in a gusting wind. Have you added enough margin for the gusts?

We can both agree that a new pilot that reads this might be led to think that the ASI is his number one tool to help him avoid stalling or land in a proper and safe manner. We both know it isn't.

[jump154]

......, then to have a proper (legal) certification of his aircraft. As I believe CID pointed out, that makes his CofA invalid and thus his insurance as well............

Its a legality question rather than a "can it be done" question. Lots of illegal things can be done...and in some cases, a rather safe manner. That doesnt make it legal though.........

Fly safe all.

Seeing as the title of this thread is "CARs that you think should be changed" then the argument that something is illegal is somewhat redundant as by definition anything prohibited by the CARs is illegal, therefore the liklihood is that anything suggested in this thread would be illegal today.

[CID]

We can both agree that a new pilot that reads this might be led to think that the ASI is his number one tool to help him avoid stalling or land in a proper and safe manner. We both know it isn't.

My fear is that a new pilot might think that all he needs is a little of that uncommon "common sense" applied to the situation to avoid spending money on getting approved repairs. That's no way to start your flying career.

[chesty]

So by your way of thinking...

If its 0/0 I CAN take off.

What are you talking about?

Curious how you fellas would feel that I didn't actually swing my compass I just made a new card up?

[Colonel Sanders]

I didn't actually swing my compass I just made a new card up?

I suspect various avionics techs here would drive by your house and pepper it with lead, to keep dangerous and foolish people like you out of the sky, because you might hurt someone else!



PS 0/0 takeoffs are legal in other countries. I've done them (shrug).

avoid spending money on getting approved repairs

Like your $3000 price on a pitot/static check?

[shitdisturber]

Curious how you fellas would feel that I didn't actually swing my compass I just made a new card up?

Go nuts! You're the one who's going to get lost, not us.

[AirFrame]

As the poster himself stated, he would rather throw his 400$ in his fuel tank, then to have a proper (legal) certification of his aircraft.

I'll thank you in advance for not putting words in my mouth. I did say I'd rather put $400 into my gas tank. As this is a "things you'd like to see changed" thread, I suggested that the CARs should be changed to allow a cheaper and equally valid method of calibration. Different levels of certification for different markets, if you like.

I still maintain that my indicated airspeed matters to no one but me. I asked for examples why someone outside my aircraft would care what my airspeed indicator says... Nobody has posted any yet.

[flyinthebug]

I can calibrate my airspeed indicator with my GPS more accurately than necessary for VFR flight.

As to why not just get it calibrated at a shop? Because I'd rather put my $400 into my gas tank and go fly, even when it's to fly a triangular course, than to put it in someone else's pocket. For VFR flight, it's more than accurate enough.

Well, thank you for thanking me in advance...but I just bolded your own words. Those are your words are they not? I just quoted you.

Look, I agree with you in principle BUT a reg is a reg. If we bend the "light" ones, as I said, it becomes a slippery slope fast. A functioning and certified ASI is required for VFR flight. Thats the reg, thats what you should do. This is why many PPL owners, share ownership to allow them more $$ for fuel AFTER they have ensured their aircraft is safe...by following the regs.

This thread is indeed about changes to the current CARs system and you suggested an ASI is not a necessary piece of equipment for you or anyone in VFR flight. Maybe we could discuss and debate whether that should be changed...and thats the direction this went. You have every right to table your idea, but that doesnt mean everyone will agree with you.

One senario... You are on a XC and the wx is forecast to be great along the route. 1 1/2 hours into your flight and 45 mins from the nearest aerodrome, you find out the forecast was wrong? Now you are in cloud and no where to fly but in cloud until you figure your way out or turn around. Wouldnt it be nice to have a functioning ASI in that senario? If you agree it would be, then you will understand why it is a required item for VFR flight. Some smart people before us saw that this type of VFR flight occurs more often than not (because of lack of accurate wx in so many places etc etc) and put these minimum requirements in place for a reason. So, do we need an ASI on a SKC day? Of course not. But on a 300 NM XC you may find your SKC day turns ugly in a hurry, then you will want all the tools you can have to get you back safe.

Oh and to the good Colonel`s and chesty`s smart a$$ comments about the certification of a compass correction card...Back before GPS, those simple cards did save lives! Navigation was once an art form in itself. Now you push a button and the GPS takes you there.

Fly safe all.

[chesty]

You are really grasping there flying the bug! If you are on a "big cross country flight" and find yourself in a "cloud" you my friend have done something wrong!

Tell me flyingthebug about your beaver crash a few years ago. What insturment or gauge do you wish was working that day! You were very lucky my friend. My piont is that there are some "important" gauges and insturments but for me a "calibrated" airspeed indicator is not one of them for small airplane that onlyy flys vfr.....

Like somone mentioned in another post. what does it matter to anyone eles if my airspeed on my j3 reads 78 and I'm actually going 80..... I just hope that one day I don't end up in a cloud. I just might not make it out of there alive!!

sorry for the rant... I'm done. Good night.

P.s Like the compass remark.....

[AirFrame]

Well, thank you for thanking me in advance...but I just bolded your own words. Those are your words are they not? I just quoted you.

They are, but aparently I included too much. I referred specifically to the second half of your statement:

As the poster himself stated, he would rather throw his 400$ in his fuel tank, then to have a proper (legal) certification of his aircraft.

I certainly did not suggest not having legal certification of your aircraft. I suggested that the requirements for ASI calibration were unnecessarily strict for VFR flight, and that the CARs should be changed to allow less stringent calibration for Private VFR flight.

This thread is indeed about changes to the current CARs system and you suggested an ASI is not a necessary piece of equipment for you or anyone in VFR flight.

Wrong again. I suggested that an ASI calibrated to read *perfectly* accurately is not necessary for VFR flight. I further suggested that *my* indicated airspeed when flying VFR is nobody's concern but my own. Anyone else who needs to know my speed (ie. a Control tower) has me on radar anyway and has their own independent evaluation of my speed.

Now you are in cloud and no where to fly but in cloud until you figure your way out or turn around. Wouldnt it be nice to have a functioning ASI in that senario?

I assure you, that if I find myself in cloud while travelling cross-country, I will have a greater likelihood of needing a good undertaker than a functioning ASI. As i've repeatedly stated, i'm referring to VFR flight.

[skytramp2800]

Air Regulation Act
1.000a- No pilot, or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make, or make an attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Air Regulations, except as authorized by the Minister or an agent appointed by, or inspected by the minister.
1.000b- If the pilot, or group of associate pilots becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Aeronautical Regulations, must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Minister.
1.000c- Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Minister will immediately rewrite the Aeronautical Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
1.000d- The Minister may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, or group of pilots, to attend remedial instruction in the Air Regulations until such time that the pilot, or pilots, or group of pilots is too confused as to be capable of understanding anything.


(this is culled from my file of silly stuff obtained over the past thirty years)

[Big Pistons Forever]

My vote for changing a CAR would be the minimums for the CPL, Specifically to teach the CPL your instructor have to have a minimum of 1000 hrs PIC, or 500 hrs of 702/703/704/705 time.

I also think the CPL flight test should include a lazy eight and a chandelle and the cross country requirement should be increased from 300 to 1000 miles.

[Shiny Side Up]

My vote for changing a CAR would be the minimums for the CPL, Specifically to teach the CPL your instructor have to have a minimum of 1000 hrs PIC, or 500 hrs of 702/703/704/705 time.

I think the qualification of the instructors would matter less that mandating a change to the content of what is taught. Currently the requirements are pretty general and there are a lot of important bits missing - say like the specifics of 702/703/704/705 operations. If anything since hours in the log book don't directly mean one has very good knowledge nor specifically mean they can teach said subject. More pertinent, It doesn't necessarily translate (though one would hope it would) into that knowledge getting through whatever large training aparatus is in place. Changes to 421.30 (specifically (3)) are probably really what you're after.

[Colonel Sanders]

Personally I think 500TT in the logbook would be a good
idea for ANY instructor ...

[Shiny Side Up]

True, and not saying it isn't a good idea, I just don't think mandating it would remedy the issue that he seeks to. BPF is after having that knowledge specific to the operations he speaks of passed on. Theoretically one should have in this case for any CPL student instructors with each specific experience in each of the 702/703/704/705 areas (ideally one instructor who has done all of them) to get said knowledge through.

[Genetk44]

What he said

[flyinthebug]

Tell me flyingthebug about your beaver crash a few years ago. What insturment or gauge do you wish was working that day! You were very lucky my friend. My piont is that there are some "important" gauges and insturments but for me a "calibrated" airspeed indicator is not one of them for small airplane that onlyy flys vfr.....

No need to apologize for the rant. I dont disagree with you about the VFR aspect...but in regards to my crash...

I wish alot of things were working that day! I wished for 15 secs more fuel, I wished for a restart, I wished for fuel pressure, and I wished I wasnt about to die. Im not using this as a means to further my point, but a functioning ASI was a good friend of mine during the entire engine failure and crash. It was the 1st instrument I looked at when my engine failed (It was shortly after take off and I needed to find my glide speed asap). I knew I needed 102 to get optimum glide. Then I used it as an assist to my guess when I would stall, how I would stall, and what the potential outcomes would be. Nothing looked very appealing. I stalled it into the trees and then hung on for the ride down. Mercifully, I was knocked out after the 1st contact with the trees.

My ASI was my friend during my crash. One of my last memories of the last secs before impact, I remember looking at the ASI as she started to buffet...and I stalled it at around 55-58 MPH to try to slow my momentum before impact. Im not saying I needed it, or that if it was out by 3 mph, that it would have made any difference. It was just an instrument I did use several times during my engine failure.

The point im trying to make is that this particular CAR was put in place because not all people stay within 25 NM of an aerodrome and many PPLs fly cross country etc. The lack of proper weather stations, can cause you to rely on and judge weather souly (solely?) by a GFA. If you make a mistake in your assessment of the wx and find yourself where you dont want to be, thats when (and why) you would require a functioning & calibrated ASI.

Someone in this thread or another one??...stated that he had flown 5000 commercial float hours and never once did he end up in wx so ugly that he was scared or whatever he said. To that id say wow, what an amazing pilot he must be! 5000 hours and never once found himself in the soup? Hats off to you sir. But to the average pilot like myself, sometimes you end up in a bad situation before you even know you have one developing. I think most of us can agree we have all been "there" a time or two in our careers?

Anyways, all im saying is I AGREE with you that in strictly VFR flight, an ASI is just an "also ran" as far as important instruments go. Its when you find yourself in the unexpected (as many before us have, thats why we have this reg) senario that an ASI can become an important instrument. That is the only reason I initially debated the CAR with you.

Have a good day.
Fly safe. FTB

[chesty]

Glad we are in agreement....I am the one that posted about "5000 hours on floatplanes". I was trying to point out that I have never been in wheather that was so bad I needed a "calibrated" airspeed or a functioning airspeed for that matter. You think that I am a "super" pilot with some extraordinary skills, I consider myself a "safe" pilot that follows the rules! Sure I have been in lots of the"soup" but still leagel VFR.

I am not trying to suggest that the airspeed indicator is not an important insturment, as you know from your experiance but you can honestly tell me that you were set up for the best glide at 102mph you sure it wasn't 101 or 103..... All the airspeed indicators that I have seen, I have not been able to judge my speed that acuratly and that is the whole point of me debating this topic. I just think that for the average joe in his puddle jumper going for a spin, he is better spending the money on other things.

That is what I was getting at with the compass swing aswell. I own and have flown lots of different airplanes where the compass sits ther spinning especially in a cub type. I have been lectured by t.c for not having the proper compass card displayed. I ask the inspector srtraight out if he actually thinks that will make flying that aircraft any safer. He told me no, it is on me checklist so i have to inforce it.

So there is 2 things I beleive that could be changed for privated guys, to save a couple bucks for more important things.

[cpt.sam]

Add 500hrs multi-crew time to the requirements for an ATPL (like the JAA).

You may start a war here with the old farts and the instructors!

[cpt.sam]

Only one duty day within a 24 hour period starting at 0000 and ending at 2359 local time in the time zone you started your duty day from. None of this 8 hours and you're G2G bullshit.

Mandatory rules on how long "and time for personal duties" is.

ie no "our ops manual says 1 hour is enough time for you to drive home, make dinner, have a shower, and get to sleep, plus drive back to the airport tomorrow even though it takes you half an hour each way to drive home."... 9 hour turnaround bullshit.

The entire duty time section needs to be revamped. I know that there are discussions currently under way exploring new ideas to coincide with the FAA. However, there needs to be changes to the way night time flight duty is weighted, among other things. There needs to be wholesale change, and the enforcement to ensure it is being done. you can change the CARS all you want, but without enforcement, it will always be "loosely" followed.

Theres the word!
Enforcement!
Of the laws that are there to protect us, the pilot!
But, wait.... Many pilots are ok with bending ( blowing duty times ) the rules to help out the Chief's and the Boss's.
which is simply a pipe in the bum for the next guy!

[cpt.sam]

ie no "our ops manual says 1 hour is enough time for you to drive home, make dinner, have a shower, and get to sleep, plus drive back to the airport tomorrow even though it takes you half an hour each way to drive home."... 9 hour turnaround bullshit.

If they are only giving you an hour for personal duties and it takes you an hour of driving time, then you are not being given the legally required time.

I can't see that passing any kind of scrutiny by Transport.

But who's gonna blow the whistle?
And risk punishment from above?
Serious question, not an aggravation technique!

[cpt.sam]

French on radio: OK only when there's no breakdown in comms with English only crews!
Duty Day: something more reasonable than 14 hours. Then extended by "unforeseen" circumstances!
Rest: should be minimum of 10 hours PLUS travel.
- How can you;
- get home
- make supper
- eat
- clean up
- put trash out
- get 8 hours sleep
- get up, shit, shower, shave
- get back to work
IN ANY LESS THAN 10 HOURS PLUS TRAVEL???????
Transport is suppose to enforce the CARs.......?