quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: BobbyMcGee

Oh, come on people! The FAA needs to start doing something different. Those poor people are totally bored out of their minds with real aircraft. They want something new to do. Besides, this hobby will satisify their morbid desire to see planes crash. If you let the FAA get into the hobby they can call the NTSB every time one of your planes crash. Think of it! No more guessing why your plane crashed! A team of trained government investigators from the NTSB will analize your plane to find the real reason it crashed. No more guessing!  I think that's great!

Uhhhh... Thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

Harvey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

I think this guy is brilliant. He has a valid point. How many of us want the crash king at our field taken away? You know, the guy who flys over the pits, ground loops, crashes his plane in the pits, builds planes like crap, crashes immediately after takeoff. With the FAA involved in our hobby, they can ground that type of guy, and maybe take his AMA membership away until he goes to ground school. The rest of us can fly safely for the rest of the day rather than pack up and go home when MasterCrasher shows up at the field.

And the big plus is having an authority that can call in the NTSB to find the real reason why your plane crashed. They could verify that the Chinese manufacturer built your jet like garbage. Then you can go back to the manufacturer you bought your $4000 jet from and blame them for your loss. You have the experience of the NTSB in writing that your jet was not built to be airworthy! That is gold!

The benefits of having the FAA invloved in this hobby are being overlooked by everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.

H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.

H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey

Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.

quote:

"...private airports not open to the public." That would be Restricted airports (useable only by prior permission or for a bonafide emergency) but they would still have to abide by the FARs.

quote:

Sport, we are likely talking about two different things here. When you said that "Private airports are not required to follow the rules", that left too much open for debate. The FAA has jurisdiction over privately-owned airports served by Part 121 air carrier ops. However, it can only advise other airports. (Please note that many airports served by Part 121 ops are actually "privately" owned. By definition, "privately owned" includes those airports owned by corporations, as opposed to being owned by the governing body in which they're located.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradpaul

BTW....... you all realise that the AMA Headquarters and International Flying Center borders on Reese Airport in Muncie,IN........

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=200717360595310567090.000463afe4cb50b745530&hl=en&ie=UTF8&vpsrc=0&ll=40.167723,-85.322742&spn=0.022038,0.023517&source=embed

Brad

Now wouldn't that be a twist!! Hopefully any restrictions will only be around busy airports with at least an active control tower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

quote:

''...private airports not open to the public.'' That would be Restricted airports (useable only by prior permission or for a bonafide emergency) but they would still have to abide by the FARs.

No they don't read the applicability section of the airport FAR's.  If its your property and you are not doing any comercial activity or inviting general flying public you don't have to comply with those FARS.  You can take off from your front lawn for example.

quote:

Sport, we are likely talking about two different things here. When you said that ''Private airports are not required to follow the rules'', that left too much open for debate. The FAA has jurisdiction over privately-owned airports served by Part 121 air carrier ops. However, it can only advise other airports. (Please note that many airports served by Part 121 ops are actually ''privately'' owned. By definition, ''privately owned'' includes those airports owned by corporations, as opposed to being owned by the governing body in which they're located.)

Yes that is why I corrected my statement, any private airport doing commercial business is and should be regulated.  A private airport for just the owners use, and invited guests is not regulated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.

H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey

Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.

A-400,

Please note that I didn't say that the pilot must surrender his certificate to an inspector or law enforcement officer. I agree that neither has the authority to confiscate or keep the pilot's certificate.

However, I disagree that a pilot can refuse a legal request to present it because FAR 61.3(i)(3) includes the wording of ''...must present it for inspection upon request...''. The word ''must'' is used by the FAA to indicate a required action. (Using the word ''may'' would have specified it as optional.) Of course, the pilot can still exercise his desire to refuse such a request; however, he will then find himself in a legal predicament similar to a driver who refuses a blood-alcohol test; sudden and total revocation of his priviledges pending further investigation.

Harvey

quote:

ORIGINAL: on_your_six

In all of this, you have to ask what current enforcement tools are available?

The only real tool that I know of is revocation of the right to fly at a particular field. The RC pilot could then join a neighboring club and fly there.

Am I wrong? While a member, I have never seen any enforcement actions on a member. Stern talking is about it.

If I am right, then it would be nice to have some stronger rules with teeth...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: Airplanes400

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487

quote:

ORIGINAL: HoundDog
As a liscenced pilot one must show their ID to any leagle law inforcment officer, including city, state, or federal law inforcment. Just fly too low over a housing aera and see who shows up to talk to you after you land at your local airport.

H-Dog,

While the ''cops'' can enforce a civil ordinance such as ''Creating a public nuisance'' or ''Creating an undue hazard'' (either of which low flying could certainly fall under), only the FAA can bring charges against a pilot for violating FAR 91.13 (Careless or reckless operation) FAR 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

And yes, FAR 61.3(i)(3) states that a pilot must present his/her airman's certificate (''pilot's license'') at the request of a law enforcement officer. However, that officer has no authority to cite a pilot for an FAR violation. Enforcement of the FARs is solely the jurisdiction of the FAA. A law enforcement officer can only serve as a complaintant or witness for an FAA enforcement action. (Which they are most-assuredly willing to do most of the time.)

The key here is that the FARs are federal laws and can only be enforced by federal courts.

Harvey

Actually, despite the rule cited, the pilot is not under any obligation to surrender his license upon the request of an FAA Inspector. The pilot can show it to the Inspector if he wishes, but he can refuse that too.

Regardless, the Inspector will suspend or revoke the license internally. They do not need to physically take the license away. Having a cop present does not change any of this. The cop will just attest to the fact (put it in his report, if he even files a report) that the pilot denied the Inspectors' request.

I happen to know all this because a good friend of mine is an FAA Inspector. Years ago we discussed this very topic.

A-400,

Please note that I didn't say that the pilot must surrender his certificate to an inspector or law enforcement officer. I agree that neither has the authority to confiscate or keep the pilot's certificate.

However, I disagree that a pilot can refuse a legal request to present it because FAR 61.3(i)(3) includes the wording of ''...must present it for inspection upon request...''. The word ''must'' is used by the FAA to indicate a required action. (Using the word ''may'' would have specified it as optional.) Of course, the pilot can still exercise his desire to refuse such a request; however, he will then find himself in a legal predicament similar to a driver who refuses a blood-alcohol test; sudden and total revocation of his priviledges pending further investigation.

Harvey

While you are correct in the wording as the rule is written, it is the little nuances that an FAA Inspector will know that the typical pilot does not. All those little ''legalities'' or differences that the general public /pilot doesn't know. It is also intended that way (to keep the pilot form knowing everything). And also, the pilot will not be in any legal predicament for refusing to surrender his license. He is actually within his right. Internally, the FAA can make it more difficult for the pilot by dragging their feet or suspending a license for a longer period of time for the 'just because' option, but that is kept ''out of the picture'' ... so to speak.


A driver can refuse to take a blood-alcohol test. And if he knows he is drunk, it is better for him not to take the test. I don't agree with this, but it is a fact/option for a drunk driver. Yes, it will be an immediate revocation of a license for six months. But for the driver, it is better than a DUI arrest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: H5487
(To paraphrase Spock, ''The protection of the many outweighs the rights of the few.'')

Harvey

quote:

ORIGINAL: on_your_six

In all of this, you have to ask what current enforcement tools are available?

The only real tool that I know of is revocation of the right to fly at a particular field. The RC pilot could then join a neighboring club and fly there.

Am I wrong? While a member, I have never seen any enforcement actions on a member. Stern talking is about it.

If I am right, then it would be nice to have some stronger rules with teeth...

After XX crashes per year, pilot required to retrain on buddy box until instructor gives them a go ahead to fly solo again. (I don't know what the XX number should be)

quote:

While you or other readers of this forum may think I'm ridiculously nit-picking over verbage, please note that the FARs are very carefully written by legions of FAA attorneys and the exact wording is critical in the interpretation and enforcement of an FAR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

Many of the regulations are actually AC's which do not have to be complied with. 

quote:

While it is true that ACs are not "binding", they can be used in court to the FAA's advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ira d


Any officer can enforce any laws be it local state federal dont believe it just rob a bank the local cops will pick you up but the feds will prosecute
same goes if you interfere with a flight crew on a airplane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot

quote:

While you or other readers of this forum may think I'm ridiculously nit-picking over verbage, please note that the FARs are very carefully written by legions of FAA attorneys and the exact wording is critical in the interpretation and enforcement of an FAR.

Yes, you are nitpicking, and your definitions come from a sectional, not the FARS.  You get that posted on the sectionals by request to the FAA and there is little question about that.  Private normally means privately owned and privately used.  Public means open to the people.  That is neither from sectionals or the FAR but common usage.  Neither hold any sway with the FARs.

As you said only airports with air carrier operations come under the FAR.  Many of the regulations are actually AC's which do not have to be complied with.  However if the airport takes any federal funds it will have to agree to comply with FARs and AC's. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: on_your_six

I agree, my point was that there is really only one penalty... kicking the flier out of the club. There are a lot of reasons for a crash, loosing an engine or an obvious mechanical failure might not be a reason to count the crash. At the same time, if a flier is consistently flying rags and they are crashing regularly... that might be a preventable crash and countable. The requirement for re-certification might end some willful reckless actions. The potential of monetary penalties might further reduce willful disregard of rules.

Nobody wants to be the "Fed" and enforce club rules is my experience. Some times it needs to be done and it is usually an ugly affair. Usually it pits guys that don't generally like each other to begin with. If one of the regular crashers puts a plane down on top of my vehicle, it is not going to be a pretty sight. Hopefully, rules will prevent a careless flier from continuing without additional training. If the additional training does not correct the problem... then the choice is obvious... kicking the flier out.

The thing that I like about the FAA rules is that when something serious does happen, there are rules and established penalties to resolve a problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HoundDog
Just bust VFR minumems at a private restricted airport and if some one turns you in, then see if the FAA can't pull your ticket to Ride ......