should an instrument rating be required for night flying?

[clear4approach]

You can't legislate judgement. If the FAA were to make a reg that required an instrument rating for night cross country flights pilots would then probably think that right after getting their instrument ticket that getting some actual experience at night might not be a bad idea. For every reg made, people with poor decision making skills just have to become more creative with their dagerous behavior. A better investment for the industry would be to stress ADM a lot more during training for all ratings. This way someone might think their way out of going into conditions that might not have a horizon.

The pilots that makes their own judgement and learns from his or her own decisions will survive a heck of a lot longer than someone who just sticks to FAA mandates for there sake. Regulation is no substitute for good decision making.

 

[JEP]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't legislate judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said ! It doesn't get any clearer than that. There will always be those that will use poor decision making no matter what the regs are. With that being said, I personally will feel much better once my IFR training is complete. It is just another tool to throw in my pilot bag.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't legislate judgement. If the FAA were to make a reg that required an instrument rating for night cross country flights pilots would then probably think that right after getting their instrument ticket that getting some actual experience at night might not be a bad idea. For every reg made, people with poor decision making skills just have to become more creative with their dagerous behavior. A better investment for the industry would be to stress ADM a lot more during training for all ratings. This way someone might think their way out of going into conditions that might not have a horizon.


[/ QUOTE ]

If an instrument rating shouldn't be required for a PPL at night nor should it be legislated, then why does 14 CFR 61.133(b)(1) legislate that a Commercial certificate holder with no instrument rating is limited with "carriage of passengers for hire....on cross-country flights in excess of 50nm or at night is prohibited"?

It's the same concept, pax or not.

 

[Snow]

In Australia your required to get a Night VFR endorsement in order to fly at night without an IFR rating.

 

[clear4approach]

instrumnet ratings are required of commercial pilots to make passengers feel safer. ATP's must fly the slope and loc within a dot. Is being off 2 dots and correcting on a category I approach really a big deal, not really but they won't let an ATP do it because they are held to a hire standard. This standard has to do with the fact that they can fly lots of people for lots of money. Voters demand higher standards of regulation for higher pilot privelages. Hence the reactive nature of the FAA with the blood on the runway concept. You are right it does not matter whether or not you are carrying passengers. What does matter though, is whether or not you are being paid to carry those passengers. When someone pays for carriage they should expect a higher level of competency, just like when someone gets a free lift they should not expect much.

 

[MikeD]

$$$ talks.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
If an instrument rating shouldn't be required for a PPL at night nor should it be legislated, then why does 14 CFR 61.133(b)(1) legislate that a Commercial certificate holder with no instrument rating is limited with "carriage of passengers for hire....on cross-country flights in excess of 50nm or at night is prohibited"?

It's the same concept, pax or not.

[/ QUOTE ]The difference is that folks who transport people or property for money are subject to more stringent safety requirements. The concept goes back a couple of centuries.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So the answer to the question comes down to:

Do you feel it is necessary to regulate =other= people's conduct to this degree?

[/ QUOTE ]That's an unfair question,

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think so. Note that I said "regulated to this degree". All laws are designed to regulate what other people do. The decision =how much= to regulate what other people do is ultimately political.

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If an instrument rating shouldn't be required for a PPL at night nor should it be legislated, then why does 14 CFR 61.133(b)(1) legislate that a Commercial certificate holder with no instrument rating is limited with "carriage of passengers for hire....on cross-country flights in excess of 50nm or at night is prohibited"?

It's the same concept, pax or not.

[/ QUOTE ]The difference is that folks who transport people or property for money are subject to more stringent safety requirements. The concept goes back a couple of centuries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point was, on the pilot perspective of this issue, I think the same safety standard should apply. That's the "same concept" I was referring to.

Heck, why regulate WX mins? Or cloud clearances? for that matter. Being facetious, but you all know what I mean.