Which FARs do you want deleted?

Der_Meister said:
Funny thing is 117 actually increased productivity for the most part increasing block time to 9hrs unaugmented vs the 8 it was before (for the times referred in table A).
Click to expand...

Yes but for long haul international flying it's a killer and does not allow US based airlines to compete on large block time routes. These rules will need to be changed or exemptions written for extra long routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BobDispatch said:
Yes but for long haul international flying it's a killer and does not allow US based airlines to compete on large block time routes. These rules will need to be changed or exemptions written for extra long routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It does allow for US airlines to do just that. Its called FRMS. SJI and others have successfully implemented it on certain routes.
 
JordanD said:
"REGULATIONS ARE THE DEVIL!" folks should be made to look at crash scene photos when it comes to this kind of stuff. Then again, they only care about themselves anyway so I doubt it would matter.
Click to expand...
They'd only care immediately prior to impact...if at all, that is.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
"Of good moral character" for the ATP.

Has anyone actually been denied an ATP for not meeting that?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, yes. While the cases involved are usually revocations and not denials, it's certainly within the FAA's purview, and revocations (at least) do happen.

See Administrator v. Roe, 45 C.A.B. 969 (1966) concerning the emergency revocation of respondent's ATR (now, ATP) for a lack of good moral character due to an extramarital affair and subsequent conduct. Plus, it makes a good read, if you can find it. The good bit, though:
We find that the Administrator had ample grounds for revoking respondent’s air transport rating. The record establishes a pattern of conduct which departs from ordinary patterns of morality and shows that respondent is capable of acting without inhibition in an unstable manner and without regard to the rights of others. . . . [H]is conduct was vindictive and entirely self-motivated. The publication of the photographs destroyed a marriage, subjected [two other persons] to extreme humiliation, and resulted in an attempted suicide by [one of them]. Such action indicates a significant character deficiency and a complete disregard for the rights of other human beings. . . .[T]he moral character traits disclosed in this record provide us with no reasonable assurance that these character deficiencies will not result in future behavior inimical to safety in air transportation.
Click to expand...

But see Administrator v. Saunders, NTSB Order EA-3672 (1992), in which the Administrator sought a revocation under the good moral character rule when it was determined the airman in question had not disclosed an indecent exposure conviction, among other things. The Board determined this conduct did not arise to the standard set in Roe. The Board ruled:
While it may well be that, should the circumstances be known, they would support the finding sought by the Administrator, we cannot find on the evidence before us, as Roe dictates, that respondent has complete disregard for the rights of other human beings. Nor can we find on this record (as we did in Roe) that respondent has such character deficiencies that he represents a threat to safety in air transportation. Accordingly, we find that the Administrator has not met his burden of proving that respondent does not meet the good moral character requirement of § 61.151.
Click to expand...
 
BobDispatch said:
Yes but for long haul international flying it's a killer and does not allow US based airlines to compete on large block time routes. These rules will need to be changed or exemptions written for extra long routes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Erm, don't some outfits have that relief based on FRMS anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top