AOPA Pilot Magazine - December 2015 - 105

P&E

DOGFIGHT: THE WORST REG

Many rules in the federal aviation regulations make pilots scratch their heads, but which FAR is the worst? In this month's "Dogfight,"
AOPA Pilot Editor Ian J. Twombly and contributor Chip Wright debate the good, the bad, and the ugly.

An immoral regulation

Measuring magic

'Good moral character'

VFR cloud clearances

B Y I A N J. T W O M B LY

BY CHIP WRIGHT

LET'S BEGIN WITH ONE GROUND RULE. Esoteric or non-generalaviation regulations are out of the discussion. I'm focusing here
mainly on parts 61 and 91. With that in mind, FAR 61.153(2)(c) is
the most useless FAR. It says simply that to be eligible for an ATP
certificate, the applicant must "be of good moral character."
There are myriad problems with this rule, starting with the certificate to which it applies. Any certificated pilot is allowed to carry
passengers, so one could argue that we should all be of good moral
character. With the ability to charge for their services, commercial
pilots absolutely should be held to that standard.
It also comes across as vaguely biblical (eleventh commandment,
anyone?), and it is terribly worded.
What is a good moral character? Does
that mean someone who's never been
convicted of a crime? Never had a traffic ticket? Says his prayers and calls
his mom every week? It's ambiguous,
which is no doubt exactly how the FAA
likes it. It's not unlike my runner-up
choice of "careless or reckless."
Then there's the issue of applying
IAN TWOMBLY
the nonexistent standard. There's no
mention of the rule in the examiner's
handbook, nor in the practical test standards. I suppose some of
the medical application questions could speak to it, but that isn't
the same as a prerequisite for the pilot certificate.
This could mean only one thing: The FAA uses the regulation
post-incident. It's entirely punitive. Unlike regulations that exist to
keep us safe, keep our airplanes in a reasonable condition, or protect
the public, this regulation seems to exist only to punish the pilot
after he or she screws up something unrelated.
Indeed, the case law-which is rife with juicy gossip-bears that
out. There are a handful of pilots out there who falsify documents
(who knew?), and even one who tried to extort money as a result.
Then there are two cases that almost made me press Delete on this
entire argument: An ATP lost his certificate after he was caught
trying to solicit a 14-year-old girl in the world's oldest profession,
and another filmed a woman in a bathroom. Let's hope losing their
ATP certificates wasn't the worst that happened to those unsavory
pilots. And both are arguments for the moral character regulation.
Yet even in one of those cases, the FAA found it based on the
falsification of a medical certificate question-a violation in its own
right. Which raises the question: Don't most regulations hold us to
a type of moral standard?
AOPA

WE LEARN A LOT OF RULES IN AVIATION. Many are good, such as the
requirement that a student pilot be able to navigate from A to B.
Many are borne of good intentions, such as the requirement that
we perform three landings every 90 days. And many-too many-
are written in blood.
But a few FARs are just bad. The worst one, for my money, fits
the good intention category but is clearly a reach in application:
FAR 91.155, which discusses the VFR cloud clearance requirements.
The intent is to keep VFR aircraft far enough from the clouds that
an airplane operating IFR coming out of said clouds doesn't collide
with a VFR aircraft. The problem is this: The FAR requires that the
pilot determine if the cloud is 1,000
feet/500 feet/2,000 feet away. This
rule was probably promoted by
Cessna as another marketing gimmick for the 152.
Last I looked, clouds don't
often have very defined edges. If
they do, you probably want to be
either on the ground or much farther from them than the distances
CHIP WRIGHT
listed in the FAR. Furthermore,
clouds almost never stay still. They
break apart and re-form. No pilot is good enough to look at a cloud
and determine his or her distance from it. If we were to put this
to the test (with a grant of immunity for the violations certain to
occur), I'd be willing to bet that no pilot would even come close.
The numbers also make no sense. You can be within 500 feet of
the cloud on the bottom side of it. Have you seen how fast a jet or
a turboprop can descend? Even at 3,000 fpm, 500 feet will be covered in 10 seconds. Chances are that if an airplane comes out of a
cloud and sees a VFR target in the way, the options will be limited.
The rate of descent probably can't be increased or decreased fast
enough, which leaves a left or right turn with little time to think.
A golfer can buy a tool that accurately measures the distance to
the flag. We don't have such a gizmo readily available in aviation.
We're left with the eyeball test, one bound to fail because of speed,
limits of depth perception, and a need to spend time actually navigating. In Class B airspace, the requirement is to remain clear of
clouds. Hopefully, as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
comes into play, consideration will be given to changing this rule to
clear of clouds in all airspace above Class G. It would be much more
logical, easier to understand, and more practical.
AOPA
CHIP WRIGHT is an airline pilot and frequent contributor to AOPA

EMAIL ian.twombly@aopa.org

publications.

www.aopa.org/pilot AOPA PILOT | 105

http://www.aopa.org/pilot

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - December 2015