Who Are The Big Three Decision Makers in Aviation?

There is a hierarchy to decision making. What that pecking order is exactly depends on the parameters of the activity. It might be a fairly lax system that allows for considerable flexibility. Or it might be strictly regimented with the threat of significant legal ramifications for those who stray from the straight and narrow.

Do I want to drive the Bentley today or am I going to bust out the Stutz Bearcat? That’s an example of a flexible system. The only guidance comes from the owner’s mood. They’re your collector cars. Drive what you want.

However, should we see flashing lights behind us while out on that drive and we were to refuse the instructions of the officer who pulls us over, that is tip-toeing into a more rigid system. Taking the wrong attitude and refusing to comply with instructions might just lead to a ride in the back of an entirely different car while your prized possession gets hoisted onto a trailer.

Rules are rules. Privileges have limits.

For those of us who fly, there is a well-established chain of command when it comes to decision making. Will I fly today or will I not? Can I fly to my intended destination or is there a compelling reason not to?

These are real questions that deserve serious consideration. With that process in mind, let’s contemplate the various entities involved in our decision-making mechanism.

Our first stop is the Federal Aviation Regulations, more officially known as Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. For maintenance we’ll be considering the dictates of Part 43. For currency we’ll look to Part 61. And for general guidance on the flight itself we’ll be perusing the regulations in Part 91.

Correlation of this rule and that one will be necessary. If we’re going to fly we’re going to be expected to comply with all the rules that pertain to any given flight.

Can I fly an airplane that hasn’t had an annual inspection completed in a decade? Sure. The rules are just words on paper. They can’t snatch the keys out of your hand and lash the airplane to the ground. I can fly it. But my flight might not be very long. And it might end in a very different way than I’d hoped.

The FAA says get that thing inspected every 12 months. So I do. It’s the smart move. It’s also a legal requirement.

If my medical has lapsed, can I still legally fly? Maybe. Some folks carry a medical and participate in BasicMed for that very reason. If one lapses, the other is still in force. Good news. You can fly.

Others may rely on the new MOSAIC rules and realize they can fly the airplane of their heart’s desire as a sport pilot. Even if they hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, they have the option of flying as a sport pilot in an airplane that meets the newly loosened restrictions on that level of pilot certificate. No medical required.

Then again, if my medical was denied, or taken from me, I’m out of luck. I can still fly, but it will have to be with someone else acting as Pilot in Command. My days of sitting in the left seat and flying solo are over until or unless I get that medical issue resolved and a new medical certificate issued.

Regulations aren’t optional.

Of course, the FAA for all its influence and might, isn’t necessarily the final arbiter of whether you’re good to go or not. There is almost certainly an insurance company ready to weigh in on the question.

Insurance is often misunderstood as a concept. It is essentially a contract for payment should something unfortunate occur. As long as the customer pays their bill on time and comports themselves in accordance with the terms of the contract, the insurance company will cover financial losses up to the limit of the policy.

And that’s where things can get a bit tricky. The FAA may say you’re legal to fly but the insurance company may have a very different perspective.

The FAA says a sport pilot can fly without a medical — a great boon to pilots. An insurance company is in no way required to honor that, however. It may require the pilot to obtain a medical to meet the requirements of the policy they’re offering.

Yes, it can do that.

Or perhaps the pilot has a valid FAA medical certificate but has passed a seemingly arbitrary age limit that triggers the insurance company to withdraw its coverage.

Yes, it can do that too.

It becomes quickly apparent that in addition to the FAA, our insurance company carries a considerable amount of weight in the go/no-go decision-making process. Yet it does not have the final word.

Because we have the option to self-insure. That’s legal, too. Unusual, perhaps. Unconventional, surely. But it is an option open to us.

Finally, we come to the big dog in the decision-making process. That’s us — the pilots.

Whether we go or not depends on a thousand little things and a handful of really big things. For instance, Part 91 allows us to takeoff on an IFR flight in zero/zero conditions. There is no rule to prevent us doing so. Other than common sense, of course. It’s as dumb as flying VFR in Class G airspace with just one mile visibility. That’s legal too. But neither of those choices is very safe or very smart.

The last time aviation was as open and available as it is today was prior to 1938. That’s when the Civil Aeronautics Authority, the precursor to the FAA, was established.

In 88 years we’ve learned a lot. Aircraft are safer. Pilots are better trained. Technology has advanced unimaginably. But the decision to fly still involves a series of decisions based on available information. Whether regulatory, contractual, or based on personal limitations, the legality and safety of flight comes down to us in the long run.

So choose wisely. And maybe attend a safety seminar once in a while. It couldn’t hurt.