Had to report two to the FSDO

This industry is way too small....Get a reputation for playing "Air Cop", even just once, and I promise you that your going to be closing A LOT of doors, as people are not going to be willing to recommend you.

But hey, it's your world, we're just living in it.

Agreed. Talk to the guys, teach them a lesson (if possible)..move on.
 
My guess is:

"Were they closer than 500 feet from any person, vessel, or structure?"

If the answer is yes, then it'll be 91.13, and possibly 91.119 (but probably not)

If the answer is no then it'll probably be "Call the police then."
 
I'm with the "this wasn't necesary to report" crowd on this. I once flew out of Chicago and some of the stuff you see ATC do over there is wild. A Captain once told me, "FAA rules don't apply here" as a response. So what should I have done? Called the FAA on ATC and my Captain? I don't think so...

Telling the individuals they screwed up, that was good. Telling your boss/employer what happened and giving them the info, that's ok too. But telling someone else(especially a fellow employee) to go report it to the FSDO... lame. Let your boss/employer/adminstrator report it to the FSDO. Or at least have the y'know what to put your name on the report.
 
My guess is:

"Were they closer than 500 feet from any person, vessel, or structure?"

If the answer is yes, then it'll be 91.13, and possibly 91.119 (but probably not)

If the answer is no then it'll probably be "Call the police then."

Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing...
means you can't get them on this one.
 
I've read this first post several times and still arrive at the same conclusions:
1. You guided a fellow employee to looking up tail numbers.
2. You gave him the number to the FSDO.
3. Then you posted what you did here on JC.

The point about "out of my control" and "had to do it" seems a bit washed after recounting steps 1-3. Just my opinion.

:mad:



I didn't make the call myself, but I guided a fellow employee through looking up tail numbers and gave him the FSDO number to call. The reason was that a few days ago a couple of aircraft traveling together landed on a closed strip on a private island owned by the organization I work for. The runway ends are clearly marked with large white X's. Apparently the pilots were pretty surprised when two of our staff showed up and informed them of the trespass, and that they actually landed on what is now part of a hiking trail. The pilots then told an unlikely story about being on official business for the forest service (in a tri-pacer mind and super cub mind you), and claimed that they were scouting emergency landing areas. We work pretty closely with state and federal agencies, so I am doubtful that this claim has any truth to it, but if is true the pilots should have no worries.

Someone from the FSDO plans to go out to the island with us to document the site. Assuming that this was not some kind of official business, are these pilots looking at anything worse than a warning from the FAA? Other than perhaps 91.13, did they violate any FAR?
 
It still doesn't sound like to me you "had to" do anything. And MikeOH58 nailed it. Except he said "your" when he should have said "you're". I'm reporting him to the Grammar Police. ;)
 
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?

I don't have an absolute and strong opinion about dropping a dime to the FSDO, but I think part of the reason for that is because guess I don't know how the FSDO works.

Are the guys from the FSDO a goon squad where its guarantees they will hand out beatdowns and punative action if they're called? Or are they more of a group that investigates and counsels to make it right as a steward of aviation?

The implications of dropping a dime seem to color what is the most-right thing to do (if anything).
 
I don't have an absolute and strong opinion about dropping a dime to the FSDO, but I think part of the reason for that is because guess I don't know how the FSDO works.

Are the guys from the FSDO a goon squad where its guarantees they will hand out beatdowns and punative action if they're called? Or are they more of a group that investigates and counsels to make it right as a steward of aviation?

The implications of dropping a dime seem to color what is the most-right thing to do (if anything).


Depends on which FSDO.... ;)
 
Plant some trees or move some rocks around to make the runway unusable. Take some of the responsibilty on yourself.

It has 25 years of vegetation on it, and that includes some trees! I think it will be many decades before it fully grows over as forest because of the nature of the fill that was used to create the strip.
 
It has 25 years of vegetation on it, and that includes some trees! I think it will be many decades before it fully grows over as forest because of the nature of the fill that was used to create the strip.

Good luck with the FSDO, if whoever they send out is like 75% of the people on here he/she isn't going to be chomping at the bit to throw the pilots under the bus.
 
Good luck with the FSDO, if whoever they send out is like 75% of the people on here he/she isn't going to be chomping at the bit to throw the pilots under the bus.

Well that would be fine. The goal here really isn't to screw anyone. If we can do our jobs and these pilots (assuming there isn't more to the story) get nothing more than a conversation with the FSDO out of it, that would be the best possible outcome from my perspective.
 
I ain't going to play judge or jury on this but all I have to say is, they better have picture because if they don't and it's me I am pulling a "Whatcha-talkin-about-Willis?"
 
Back
Top