Which FARs do you want deleted?

jtrain609 said:
As much of a pain as it is to slow to 200 knots in an airliner below the bravo, I've seen guys in Citations moving at a Southwest 250 knots at 2,500 while VFR and talking to nobody. When you're in a Cessna, that closure rate increases the chances of you getting hit without seeing it coming.
Click to expand...
Took a 4-ship into Alliance Ft Worth. 200 knots ain't happenin'. 300 is barely happening. I really hate having to fiddle with the radar to find the slow targets.

That said, if I had to get rid of a useless FAR it would probably be the definition of powered lift and everything in Part 61 pertaining to it. Like tits on a nun. Part 23 codifies everything that is strangling GA, but it would be a re-write, not a deletion. I would leave the ADS-B stuff exactly as-is; join the 21st century, people.
 
Flyinthrew said:
Took a 4-ship into Alliance Ft Worth. 200 knots ain't happenin'. 300 is barely happening. I really hate having to fiddle with the radar to find the slow targets.

That said, if I had to get rid of a useless FAR it would probably be the definition of powered lift and everything in Part 61 pertaining to it. Like tits on a nun. Part 23 codifies everything that is strangling GA, but it would be a re-write, not a deletion. I would leave the ADS-B stuff exactly as-is; join the 21st century, people.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that, because that's exactly where I saw that Citation doing 320 knots for no reason. Regional approach asked me if I could identify the type so they could track him down later.
 
While it doesn't directly relate to the speed limitations, it points out the volume of traffic under a bravo and the efforts people will go to avoid talking to ATC.
 
CFI A&P said:
While it doesn't directly relate to the speed limitations, it points out the volume of traffic under a bravo and the efforts people will go to avoid talking to ATC.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with making everyone do 200 knots down there. Myself included.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I'm fine with making everyone do 200 knots down there. Myself included.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be against tossing anything under the veil of Bravo into a ring of C airspace, then get rid of 200 below.

Typically I wouldn't care - but- getting an LOI is BS. ATC is supposed to notify pilots when leaving Bravo- but by (unless it's changed) FAA guidance says when operating large turbine equipment to/from a primary airport for which the Bravo was designed so- say you're transitioning TPA Bravo on your way to SRQ, no call even though they vector you under. With older equipment identifying which shelf you're under in IMC is more work than you should be doing while getting vectored to an approach.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I wouldn't be against tossing anything under the veil of Bravo into a ring of C airspace, then get rid of 200 below.

Typically I wouldn't care - but- getting an LOI is BS. ATC is supposed to notify pilots when leaving Bravo- but by (unless it's changed) FAA guidance says when operating large turbine equipment to/from a primary airport for which the Bravo was designed so- say you're transitioning TPA Bravo on your way to SRQ, no call even though they vector you under. With older equipment identifying which shelf you're under in IMC is more work than you should be doing while getting vectored to an approach.
Click to expand...
I once had someone tell me that the clearance for a visual approach superceded 14 CFR 91.131(a)(2).

"1,900 for B confinement over the bridge."
"Bruh, we're cleared for a visual approach."
"Yes, sir. 1900 for B confinement over the bridge."
"But we're cleared for a visual approach."

:confused:
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I once had someone tell me that the clearance for a visual approach superceded 14 CFR 91.131(a)(2).

"1,900 for B confinement over the bridge."
"Bruh, we're cleared for a visual approach."
"Yes, sir. 1900 for B confinement over the bridge."
"But we're cleared for a visual approach."

:confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, where we get it is the trappr2 into SRQ. They vector us off the arrival and into the B, then descend us under the B like 20 miles before we're back Into C. Sometimes at night when get the vector sooner, and end up in a shelf that's lower so we're good.

I wouldn't mind 200 below if we weren't on our own to figure out exactly where in the shelf we were. ForeFlight makes it simple, but not everybody has or uses FF, or planeview on their IFIS etc.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Yeah, where we get it is the trappr2 into SRQ. They vector us off the arrival and into the B, then descend us under the B like 20 miles before we're back Into C. Sometimes at night when get the vector sooner, and end up in a shelf that's lower so we're good.

I wouldn't mind 200 below if we weren't on our own to figure out exactly where in the shelf we were. ForeFlight makes it simple, but not everybody has or uses FF, or planeview on their IFIS etc.
Click to expand...
This is a problem (or was?) on the SERFR RNAV arrival into SFO with a descent angle shallower than, say, I dunno...the three degrees that everyone designs around selected.

"Descend via the SERFR RNAV arrival except after EPICK maintain 10-ten-thousand [because people are idiots]."
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I once had someone tell me that the clearance for a visual approach superceded 14 CFR 91.131(a)(2).

"1,900 for B confinement over the bridge."
"Bruh, we're cleared for a visual approach."
"Yes, sir. 1900 for B confinement over the bridge."
"But we're cleared for a visual approach."

:confused:
Click to expand...

This is actually a big problem in the NAS, half of the people using it don't understand it. It's not just phraseology there are other aspects that are wild as well - ambiguous charts, areas "underneath" other areas. None of it is all that difficult in principle - but when you're trying to set up for an approach it should be simpler.

I feel the same way about flight visibility requirements as well - making student pilots memorize a table that they can regurgitate on command is great and all but most new private pilots have no idea what "1 mile clear of clouds" actually looks like. Why don't we simplify things?
 
ppragman said:
This is actually a big problem in the NAS, half of the people using it don't understand it. It's not just phraseology there are other aspects that are wild as well - ambiguous charts, areas "underneath" other areas. None of it is all that difficult in principle - but when you're trying to set up for an approach it should be simpler.

I feel the same way about flight visibility requirements as well - making student pilots memorize a table that they can regurgitate on command is great and all but most new private pilots have no idea what "1 mile clear of clouds" actually looks like. Why don't we simplify things?
Click to expand...
The information isn't even easily presented on most transport-category airplanes. We have the same pages, but in our modern era of advanced RNAV and EFBs you have to look at quite a few charts to get everything you want, along with a raw data display or something.

Someone else brought the SERFR arrival to my attention when I was SFO based. I always descended reasonably steeply so it was never an issue, but the 2.5-degree-down-bubble crowd had issues. The effect of the change in descent angle was not immediately obvious in the "bigger picture" until one day it became "HEY! Where are you going and why?"
 
Autothrust Blue said:
The information isn't even easily presented on most transport-category airplanes.

Someone else brought the SERFR arrival to my attention when I was SFO based. I always descended reasonably steeply so it was never an issue, but the 2.5-degree-down-bubble crowd had issues.
Click to expand...

Other nonsense includes the 200KIAS within 4 nm of class D airports.

And in some places the rules just suck.

IMG_0605.PNG


Speed regulatory compliance could be a huge pain in the ass here for no reason at all.
 
ppragman said:
Other nonsense includes the 200KIAS within 4 nm of class D airports.

And in some places the rules just suck.

View attachment 38654

Speed regulatory compliance could be a huge pain in the ass here for no reason at all.
Click to expand...
That's one of the many things that makes it fun, having flown all shapes and sizes into and out of the Bay.

But yeah.

Local familiarity is awesome to have.
 
Flyinthrew said:
Took a 4-ship into Alliance Ft Worth. 200 knots ain't happenin'. 300 is barely happening. I really hate having to fiddle with the radar to find the slow targets.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why you have an LOA with the FAA to waive the speed limits to tech order airspeed.
 
ppragman said:
This is actually a big problem in the NAS, half of the people using it don't understand it. It's not just phraseology there are other aspects that are wild as well - ambiguous charts, areas "underneath" other areas. None of it is all that difficult in principle - but when you're trying to set up for an approach it should be simpler.

I feel the same way about flight visibility requirements as well - making student pilots memorize a table that they can regurgitate on command is great and all but most new private pilots have no idea what "1 mile clear of clouds" actually looks like. Why don't we simplify things?
Click to expand...
200kts through a VFR corridor while in class B requires charts that we are not given. I mean, you'd need a TAC chart for every class B in the nation and then to sit there and make yourself "locally" familiar for when approach gives you a vector through it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top