Mile High Club: FAA Rules & Regulations

[Chez_Guevara]

I should get out more.

Or I should get up more, I’m not sure which. Unbeknownst to me, in 1999 there were several crucial rule changes to the Mile High Club membership criteria. The full details of these changes can be found here and it gives me great pleasure to quote the bullet points from this aeronautical bombshell.

Under the provisions of the East Chitlin Switch, Kansas, Wheat Silo Subsidy Act (P.L. 100-872398-A), Congress has mandated the FAA to regulate the activities of the formerly unregulated “Mile High Club” (MHC). Under present rules, anything accomplished at an altitude of one statute mile (5,280 feet) above ground level (AGL), regardless of the degree of difficulty or the level of expertise demanded, earns a certificate good for membership in the “Mile High Club.”

I agree that the rules had hitherto been lax. The East Chitlin Switch, Kansas, Wheat Silo Subsidy Act (P.L. 100-872398-A) clearly indicated that revisions were necessary. This is the reason why:

Through a procedure of self-regulation, the organization has set forth requirements that activities take place at an altitude of at least 5,280 feet above ground level to prevent Denver pilots from messing around on the ramp. Although the organization has adopted rigid admission requirements for its pilot members, a recent National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report disclosed an accident in a light training aircraft (LTA) caused by pilot error in the form of disorientation of a student pilot [sex unknown) after the Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) (sex unknown) attempted to introduce the student to a maneuver not included in the MHC syllabus.

If a manoeuvre isn’t in the syllabus it should not be attempted under any circumstances.

The rule affected by this change is Part 61. The authority citation for Part 61 is:

Authority: Secs. 313(a), 314, 601, 602, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355, 1421, 1422; sec. 6(c), Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.S. 1655(2), unless otherwise noted.

I’m pretty sure 1655(2) should read 1655(4). I’ll have to check up on that.

Rule 61.301 now reads:

An applicant for an MHCO rating must pass a written examination on the following applicable aviation subjects:

(a) Care, operation, a periodic maintenance of articulating seats in certificated U.S. civil aircraft.

(b) Basic anatomy and other considerations in selecting a co-pilot.

(c) Dangers associated with the destruction of aircraft panel instruments by bare feet.

An excellent rule. It’s essential to know the biological theory behind Mile High Sex as it relates to aeronautical safety procedures.

The most crucial amendments to the regulations under the East Chitlin Switch, Kansas, Wheat Silo Subsidy Act (P.L. 100-872398-A) are however, encompassed by Rule 61.302. Among these new regulations I believe the following are worthy of note:

(b) Stalls. Applicant will demonstrate any acceptable and workable method of delay maneuvering to avoid premature results.

This amendment is premature. It should have been delayed until such time as people were ready for it.

(c) Approaches. Applicant will demonstrate at least six (6) precision or three (3) non-precision approaches to a co-pilot who does not suspect the purpose of the flight.

I’m not at all sure about this. Coming on to a co-pilot at altitude, even using a precision approach, could result in a messy accident.

(f) Forced Landings. Applicant will will accomplish the minimum MHCO activities despite co-pilot’s objections.

Non-consensual MCHO. I’m not sure about that one either.

(g) On-pylon Eights. Applicant will select two prominent landmarks and maneuver between them. If the co-pilot is not endowed with sufficiently prominent landmarks, the activity may be performed in a light simulator approved by the Administrator.

It’s unclear to me how far apart these landmarks should be. If they are too close together then passing between them could be an impenetrable problem. If they are too far apart then safety could be compromised as in Rule 61.301 (c) above.

(h) In-flight Emergencies. Applicant will conduct a suitable approach with the zipper jammed in the “up” position and will demonstrate the smooth emergency extension of gear before contact.

Incomplete. The rule fails to take into account people with buttons on their trousers. I’m sure that Congress will need to take another look at this.

(j) Radio Navigation. Applicant will insert the radial into the omnibearing selector and achieve station passage before the “off” flag appears.

Self explanatory.

(k) Back Course Approach. Not an approved procedure.

Ditto.

(l) Diverting to an Alternate. Applicant will make an approach to a passenger when it becomes obvious that the original destination has gone below minimums because of a cold front.

Commonly known as a Frigid Fallback position.

This OP does not encourage responses which include tales of congress either at altitude or at ground level. This forum is not the place for accounts of inordinate pleasure, and anyway such stories would just make me jealous. Sensible replies in line with the spirit of the FAA regulations are, however, encouraged.

[Napier]

Wow. These regs are a bunch of weenie PC claptrap. I think it should only count if you can do it when a flashing red sign says “COMMENCE COPULATORY SEQUENCE” during turbulence. And this is “Military Style”, where you can’t choose your partner.

[pullin]

(k) Missed Approaches. When the entry path is tighter than accepted minimums, the Applicant will demonstrate skill in missed approaches by performing one the three standard entries (as practicable): (1) Parallel, (2) Teardrop, (3) Direct. Applicant shall be judged on awareness of need to break off an unsuccessful approach and return to the original fix(ation).
That what you had in mind?

[Chez_Guevara]

Yes.

I’m glad someone else around here is concerned about air safety…
.
.
.
§ Passenger safety - tailspin:

Tailspin occurs when the co-pilot repositions his joystick to the vertical pointing skywards. Leaflets describing entry and exit points to be used during tailspin must show clearly the procedures to be followed (including detailed diagrams) on detachment from coupling. (If tailspin occurs when the plane is overland the possibility of earth movment cannot be discounted.)