Talk:Sterile flight deck rule

message: The article states: "this rule is also potentially applicable to other segments of aviation. Specifically, general aviation[6] and military aviation[7] could presumably also benefit from a Sterile Cockpit rule, since many of the same or similar environmental factors that allow distraction from non flying matters during critical flight phases exist in these segments also."
This is entirely untrue.
1) Most general avaition flights take place entirely below 10,000ft.  Applying a rule that prohibits idle chit-chat and sightseeing would be ridiculous.
2) Enforcing such a rule in aircraft without cockpit voice recorders would be nearly impossible.  Typically only the aircraft already covered by the rule have such devices.
3) The jurisdiction of the FAA normally doesn't include military aircraft.
4) The rule is included only in Parts 121 and 135.  Most general aircraft operate under part 91, which does not include the sterile cockpit rule.  Most pilots operating under Part 91 have never even SEEN parts 121 or 135, which would make the enforcement of this rule against part 91 operators most unfair.
5) Part 91.13 already prohibits "careless and wreckless" operation of aircraft, which could presumably include accidents attributed to inattention.
6) There is a big difference between making an IFR approach in a commercial jet liner at 180 mph and making a IFR approach in a general avaition aircraft at 80 mph.  Also, commercial aircraft always operate under IFR rules, while most general avaition aircraft always operate under VFR rules.  Many general avaition pilots are not even certified to operate IFR and will never attempt an IFR approach, particularly a 0 celieng, 0 visiblity approach.
7) The procedures relating to taxi, takeoff, climb, descent, approach, landing, etc. are infinately more complex in a commercial aicraft than they are in general avaition aircraft and they require substantially more attention in the commercial aircraft environment.
8) The AOPA article cited does not advocate the enactment of a sterile cockpit rule for general avaition aircraft nor does it suggest that such a rule would be beneficial for general avaition pilots.  It merely attempts to raise the pilot's awareness that distractions can be deadly, which is undeniably true.  However, AOPA would surely argue against the enforcement of a Part 121 or 135 rule against a part 91 operator.  In addition, the last part of the AOPA article points out the potential benefits of conversation in the general avaition cockpit.
The enforcement of this rule with respect to general avaition or military avaition would be entirely unnecessary, extremely difficult and unnecessarily burdomsome to the general avaition community as well as the FAA and NTSB.  The fact that there are several different sets of rules for aircraft reflects the fact that there are several different types of aircraft, weather conditions and modes of operation.  It is easy to look at a rule enacted for one situation and say that it could be beneficial in all situations, but people who are familiar with the realities of the operation of aircraft know that this is not the case.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.99.144.109 (talk • contribs) 19:47.
:Please read the AOPA article linked reference addressing this issue. It is obvious, for the reasons you state, that the rule as is is inapplicable and impractical for general aviation. But  the point made is that a similar rule focusing on the spirit and intent of the Sterile Cockpit Rule for airlines can and should be informally made for general aviation. In other words, in general aviation there are normally well defined segments of taxi, takeoff/landing, approach, initial climb, and cruise. To the exclusion of cruise, and with emphasis on IFR approach in IMC, but including all other non-cruise segments, a general aviation Sterile Cockpit rule (not verbatim the airlines' one and not directly enforced by FAA) has been suggested as being very important for flight safety, and this is what is meant in the article. Again, all of this is thoroughly discussed in the AOPA reference. Read the military reference for a similar discussion there. Thanks, Crum375 20:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: please sign your messages with four tildes - it will make them easier to read. Thanks, Crum375 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the sake of not being misleading, I'm gonna edit that part to make clear that Part 91 general aviation has no such rule, but that an accident caused by a pilot who was distracted with idle chit-chat could be hit with a careless and reckless charge. -Maverick 22:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be FAR 91.13 which applies, as you say, to part 91 general aviation. Crum375 22:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have modified your version to include the AOPA reference etc., but I think the current version is actually on very thin ice, as we really don't have a solid WP-acceptable reference for the fact that FAA could prosecute based on 91.13 a case of part 91 'chit-chat'. In fact, as it stands, this is pure WP:OR. It is logical but not proven per WP requirements. I will mull this over and search for references, but unless we can up with support the 91.13 piece will have to go. Of course any comments are more than welcome. Crum375 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Cheers! -Maverick 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sterile cockpit in general aviation and military operations

message: The example in the "Controversy" section is crying out for a counter-opinion.  It sounds very much to me like a crew member was shockingly inept, and decided to place blame on this rule rather than their own ineptness.  The section begins with "some observers believe", which is a weasel wording that we're supposed to avoid, and be very specific about who exactly is making this allegation.  Tempshill 15:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 'counter opinion' is virtually the entire article, that explains how refraining from non-essential activities during critical phases is important. The controversy part simply shows, based on the cited study, that the silence rule can also be misapplied in some cases as in the given example. The 'some observers believe' is directly supported by the quote. I don't think that anyone today advocates eliminating the Sterile Cockpit rule. The issue here is its proper implementation and specifically explaining to cabin crews that safety issues they observe trump the Sterile Cockpit rule and should be reported immediately even during critical flight phases. I don't  consider 'some observers' as weasel wording, but a factual summary of the fact we have authors at least in one study who feel that way, based on an actual example. Crum375 16:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section example 

message: There's a silly altered photograph of a cockpit control panel circulating out on the webs, where someone has taken a switch normally labeled "STERILE LIGHT" and changed the label to read "CHEMTRAILS" (with two settings, both "ON").
This made me wonder what a "sterile" light actually is, which ultimately led me to this article.
In case anyone else was similarly curious, I thought it would be useful to have "Sterile light" be a redirect to this article, and include a little verbiage explaining what it actually was.
Based on what I've read, it's a set of indicator lights in the cockpit and passenger cabins installed on some aircraft, which the pilots can turn on to indicate that they're currently operating under the Sterile Cockpit Rule.
Does this seem like a reasonable and accurate addition?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "sterile" light