Had to report two to the FSDO
- Thread starter Acadia
- Start date
We don't even know that, as it hasn't been made clear IF they screwed up, or not.
Um, perception that an airplane is, in fact, sitting on your property, yes. Not WHY its there.
Really? And how did it meet all three criteria? And by what you wrote above, you're of the "we should report anyone and everyone for everything real or perceived" mentality too. That's unfortunate.
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
Twist words much?
All of those criteria refer to something that is clearly dangerous or in violation of the fars. This was neither.
Position of leadership? He was referring to someone in an aviation company, not a tribal "leader"
Will violation? no violation there.
All avenues taken? The only avenue they took was calling the FSDO.
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
You guys do know that if you did, in fact, vanquish your opponents in internet battle, well, there's no "end of quarter" buzzer like at an NBA game, right?
I will vanquish all enemies! There can be only one!
I will vanquish all enemies! There can be only one!
Psst! Fly's open!
mooneyguy
been around forever
You guys do know that if you did, in fact, vanquish your opponents in internet battle, well, there's no "end of quarter" buzzer like at an NBA game, right?
:guns::buck::chair::whip:ALL WHO DISAGREE (with me) MUST DIE...ok, so not really
:beer:ColoradoPilot
New Member
Private runway was trespassing. Trespassing is illegal. The owner kept it private for his own reasons. If he wants to report it, thats his prerogative, and no one should have a right to tell him otherwise.
As for MikeD's comment, I do hope that I didn't come across that I think everything should be reported. I was simply supporting this individual's decision to do what he wants with his property. Whether *I* would have handled the situation that way is another question. I would have asked them what was wrong, would have assumed it was them needing assistance (that's not typical behavior).
My beef with this thread is that it seems there's an attitude of let pilots do heat they please, and never never get anyone in trouble. People that will lie about their operations know they are doing something illegal and are choosing to do it. THAT is an unsafe attitude. Generally speaking, everything can be handled between two individuals and the police/FSDO need not get involved. That wastes time and energy and can cause unnecessary damage to people lives (if someones record has an investigation/report due to some idiot in the back of the plane thinking you were flying differently then he would have).
Minuteman
Moⅾerator
How about if this is a learning experience?
How should the staff act in response to aircraft landing where they are unwelcome? It sounds like the first action was to place white Xs. Then, it sounds like the staff are directly confronting the pilots operating those aircraft.
What is the next tier of protection that you think should be employed? Is it preferred that they call the local sheriff rather than the local FSDO? Do more to make the area less appealing to trespassers?
How should the staff act in response to aircraft landing where they are unwelcome? It sounds like the first action was to place white Xs. Then, it sounds like the staff are directly confronting the pilots operating those aircraft.
What is the next tier of protection that you think should be employed? Is it preferred that they call the local sheriff rather than the local FSDO? Do more to make the area less appealing to trespassers?
Well, it was later established that the OP had no choice in the matter anyway, and was doing what he was directed to do by policy. Appears in that way that his options were limited at best.
Thats the thing: blatent stuff? obvious safety violations or unsafe flying? Sure, report it. Someone buzzing cars on a highway at 10 AGL? Too drunk to fly and getting in the cockpit of a plane? Someone flying without a pilots license? All clean kills there and no one is disputing those, or things similar to them.
But my examples and my beef are on the "report everything real or perceived", where if you read the examples Doug wrote, or the diatribe that USMCmech gives, you'll see where that can be a VERY bad idea, and not one to advocate. Especially worse if YOU become the victim of someone doing something like that, and you're on the hot seat for something "perceived". I know I wouldn't like that.
But the people advocating that, aren't coming out to answer the obvious examples I posted and the same question I have about what if the tables were turned?
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
Landing on a closed runway, which is now part of a hiking trail isn't dangerous? It is a clear violation of 91.13
I realize this is a blanket reg, but it clearly states that you cannot endanger life or property of another. It is clear that they endangered the property here, and you would all be singing a different story had someone actually been on the hiking trail, but we can't argue hypotheticals.
I don't know about Acadia's position at his company, but obviously, his input is valued if he isn't someone of authority there.
He took the only avenue he had. He asked the two bozos what they were doing there and they made up a story. What is he supposed to do at this point?
Anyone who knows me in real life knows that I am not the type to go around pointing the finger or calling the FSDO on someone, in fact, I am quite the opposite. I do, however, think idiots like this make us all look bad as professional pilots. If they had fessed up and apologized and went on their way, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Responsibility is owning up to your mistakes.
I have said my peace in the thread.
Ninja Edit: Time to go back to the lav.
ColoradoPilot
New Member
I just wanted to clarify if I was seen as someone advocating that. That attitude is ridiculous. My previous post I hope does describe how I feel.
Plant some trees or move some rocks around to make the runway unusable. Take some of the responsibilty on yourself.
casey
Well-Known Member
Yes, trespassing. Like I said back on page 1, and guess what, trespass is a civil (possibly criminal) charge. When someone trespasses, even with an airplane, you call the police to file a report. Not the FSDO. Or in this specific case, I suppose you call the Chief, whoever has jurisdiction over that land.
cmill
Cold Ass Honky
I think the distinction is, some people will report no matter what, some will ignore, and some will go out of their way to not let the pilot get in trouble.
It takes zero work to ignore a situation, barely any to call the FSDO, but a lot of work to actually work with a fellow pilot and try to get his attention about something. It doesnt matter if its bad technique or a drinking problem. Neither is going to be resolved with a call to the FAA.
If you see or know of a pilot who habitually bust regs, takes chances, etc, all we're trying to say is take the time to confront/talk to them before running off and telling mom and dad.
I thought aviation was a brotherhood. The posts in this thread have made it out to be a horror movie with people just interested in being the last one standing, rather than sticking together. Everyone wants to make aviation safe, but some ways are better than others. Lets say you had a buddy that had too much to drink, would you take his keys, or let him drive home and call the cops on him?
Thats pretty much what you're doing reporting someone right off the bat.
inigo88
Composite-lover
Google-ing "Acadia + MDI + Maine" might provide some serious insight to this thread to all you guys that are freaking out.
Hypothetically speaking, what if the "private property" was owned by the federal government, patrolled by federal law enforcement officers and very prevalently marked on aeronautical charts?
Would you guys have the same sympathy for the pilots if that was the case, and then they lied to federal employees saying that they were federal employees from a different agency? (Although I still don't see why they couldn't have provided identification if they were legit.)
Hypothetically... that situation would be ludicrous. While I would do exactly what Orange Anchor said on my own property, if this hypothetical situation ever happened I would have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Edit: And while I wouldn't go out of my way to call the FSDO if I was afforded some discretion in the matter, I also would not sacrifice my job over an ethical disagreement if calling the FSDO was a matter of policy.
Of course, I am probably way off... and it was private property.
Hypothetically speaking, what if the "private property" was owned by the federal government, patrolled by federal law enforcement officers and very prevalently marked on aeronautical charts?
Would you guys have the same sympathy for the pilots if that was the case, and then they lied to federal employees saying that they were federal employees from a different agency? (Although I still don't see why they couldn't have provided identification if they were legit.)
Hypothetically... that situation would be ludicrous. While I would do exactly what Orange Anchor said on my own property, if this hypothetical situation ever happened I would have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Edit: And while I wouldn't go out of my way to call the FSDO if I was afforded some discretion in the matter, I also would not sacrifice my job over an ethical disagreement if calling the FSDO was a matter of policy.
Of course, I am probably way off... and it was private property.
Guy
Well-Known Member
Probably 91.103.
There are a lot of factors that go into deciding if there is to be an enforcement, and if so, at what level. That is documented in FAA Order 2050.3B.
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/Orders/2150_3B.htm
One of two situations is possible. Either the pilots knew what they were doing and they willfully did what they did, or they didn’t know what they were doing and need additional training. Either way, the FSDO is the place to correct the problem before a more serious problem occurs.
z987k
Well-Known Member
Another good point.