E190 poor design

First, the AIM isn't regulatory. Second, it uses the word "should," in order to give you discretion. If no one else is around waiting for departure, then I would have no problem with turning them on. If people are waiting in line for departure, not a chance. Part of being a professional pilot is using judgment to determine what is appropriate for a given situation.

That's what we get paid "the big bucks" for. The company pays us to fly the airplane the way they want us to fly it. But they also pay us to use our judgment based on our experience. Sometimes the book is contradicted by smart judgment and experience. A good pilot trusts his experience. A mindless robot that might as well be replaced by an unmanned aerial vehicle just does what the book says, no matter what. I'd rather be a good pilot than a UAV substitute.
 
Considering the fact that I spend a good portion of my life around the best aviation attorneys in the business, and have asked this question of them previously, I think I know a bit about it already.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Considering the fact that I spend a good portion of my life around the best aviation attorneys in the business, and have asked this question of them previously, I think I know a bit about it already.
Click to expand...

Spending a considerable portion of time in a hospital doesn't make a person a doctor. But, don't ask if opening your mind to a view that might be different than the one you already hold would make you uncomfortable.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Considering the fact that I spend a good portion of my life around the best aviation attorneys in the business,
Click to expand...

Don't know if I'd put "Best aviation attornys in the business" and ALPA together. And before you go off on a ALPA koolaide scree, I have been an ALPA member for 20 years, and have served in a few positions within it. I've been around them too. But just like that is your opinion, this is my opinion.

Even better, let's just revive this ole tread to completey beat this horse dead:
http://forums.Jetcareers.com/threads/aim-regulatory.96342/


Personally, I don't believe it is, but let's get a gnash cluster going!
 
I've watched an NTSB law judge summarily dismiss a case due to the AIM not being regulatory (and the FAA had staked their entire case on something in the AIM).
 
Well, AIM aside, there'd be some 'splainin' to do on a line check if you don't abide by established procedures without a good reason not to. Being that almost every company has strobes on when crossing the hold line, at almost every airport, every single night, it's a weak argument to dismiss it for a perceived safety concern. It's just like driving your car at night with head-on traffic; don't stare at the oncoming headlights, and you'll be just fine. Basic common sense.
 
Look, this really isn't that complicated. The following is taken right out of the FAA's official Preface in the AIM (emphasis added):

D. This publication, while not regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their responsibilities required by other publications.​

In other words, the AIM is not regulatory, but parts of it contain information that is regulatory because it is contained in other documents, such as 14 CFR Part 61, 91, 121, etc. that are regulatory. If something is in the AIM, but it isn't in an actual regulatory publication, then it's not required, it's just suggested.
 
True, but my FOM, which is regulatory, states that while holding on an active runway at night I will have all lights, including strobes, but not landing lights, illuminated. Once cleared for takeoff, I can turn on the landing lights.

Sorry if this bothers you. Maybe you can petition Delta Flt Ops to change their policy to accomodate you. Or, don't fly out of airports used by Delta. The simple fact is that is the policy. It will continue to happen regardless of anyones bitching. If you believe that makes us tools or douches or whatever, oh well. I don't lose sleep over what a SWA or DCI pilot think of us.
 
I was about to leap into this discussion with topics like if strobes actually reduce night vision, what type of vision you use to see aircraft lighting from a distance at night, functions and anatomy of the eye, etc, but in looking for a reference I stumbled across this exact same argument on a variety of forums spanning several years and just couldn't do it.
 
Houston said:
Can you provide any documentation or record of the case?
Click to expand...

I don't know. All the documentation I have is confidential because it involved a termination case. Let me do some looking to see if there is a public case record for the hearing.
 
I quoted the AIM not to say it was regulatory and you must follow it. I was simply pointing out that a book full of what is generally considered aviations best practices bothered to include this subject. I was also trying to point out that you shouldn't use your landing/taxi lights while holding in position unless you've been cleared for take off. By having them off lets traffic crossing down field know you are holding and not possibly moving. Once you get clearence to take off you turn them on as a warning to planes possibly crossing. Again it's not regulatory, but seems to be a pretty good idea and I have seen it used all over the country. Also because some one follows AIM guidance doesn't make them a robot that can't think outside the box. I can make them same argument that some one who doesn't follow the AIM is a dangerous cowboy that makes up their own rules. See, it's that easy.
 
Ian J said:
I was about to leap into this discussion with topics like if strobes actually reduce night vision, what type of vision you use to see aircraft lighting from a distance at night, functions and anatomy of the eye, etc, but in looking for a reference I stumbled across this exact same argument on a variety of forums spanning several years and just couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Probably a good idea.

(Not leaping into the discussion)
 
What is interesting here is that when you are actually out at the runway at any given airport on any given night that vast majority of crews (even DAL crews) exercise courtesy over blind rule following when it come to this issue...That really says it all does it not? Those of you holding onto the regulatory/FOM argument here (as technically correct as you are) are in the very small minority out on the line. I really don't think statistically, and this is only a guess, there is any justification for either argument. To me this makes it an issue of courtesy. It's really easy to sit there and say "just look away" until you happen to be randomly looking in some direction at something and then suddenly your eyeballs are getting nuked by strobes when the aircraft in front of you turns them on..The "look away" method is only effective to a degree.

Myself and the best pilots I fly with tend to look at things like this as such: Take a particular rule, such as this, and hypothetically remove all regulatory aspect to it. Would you still follow it without a second thought? If so it's probably a damn good rule. If you would question it or disregard it if it wasn't regulatory then you've probably got a rule that needs to be updated or done away with entirely. 95% of our rules, procedures and FAR's are there for a very good reason. But there are a few of them here and there that need to be moved to file #13.
 
Then you haven't been paying attention. Have you really thought about it while holding short? Start observing then next time you fly at night into big airports. You will notice that most crews leave them off until cleared for takeoff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top