Calling out another pilot.

Ian J said:
Hi Guy. I think you must've missed my question in the WO thread about what your past experiences are. Just wanted to remind you it was there.

(I've also asked you to introduce yourself and share a little about you a few times before and you've always ignored me. Why is that?)
Click to expand...

Guy said:
...
Click to expand...

Is that a "no" to joining the community and a "yes" to continued anonymous drive-bys?
 
Tram said:
91.119(c) pretty much lays it out in black and white...
Click to expand...

Your right, it does. You were incorrect earlier when you wrote:
"I guess your daughter was riding a horse in the city or a "populated area?"
91.119
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

It is not unusual for a violoation of this regulation to result in a revocation.

Adminstration v. BOURGEOIS
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5427.PDF

"Based on the eyewitness testimony concerning the flight at issue, potential endangerment resulted from respondent’s flight; the testimony established that respondent could not have landed the aircraft along the reservoir if necessary and that respondent operated the aircraft 50 feet or less from the fishermen standing on the shore of the reservoir (respondent’s admission that he flew the aircraft approximately 50 feet above the water)). Such evidence indicates the existence of potential endangerment."

Administration v. Folk
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5404.PDF

"...the crux of this case is not whether respondents actually flew, for example, directly over homes, but whether the homes are in a congested area."
"We conclude, based on FAA guidance, hearing statements made by agency counsel, and the testimony of the FAA inspector, that the regulations in this arena are administered to protect persons in small, sparsely settled communities, as well as persons and property in large metropolitan areas, from the hazards and noise of low-flying aircraft. The size of the area is not controlling, and allegations regarding the violation of minimum safe altitudes have been affirmed for operation over a small congested area of about 10 houses and a school,19 over a university campus,20 and over a beach along a highway.21 Obviously, the presence of people is important, but consideration is also given to operations that come within certain distances of residential areas.22"
"A review of the history of the term "congested area," and case law interpreting it, makes clear that small, sparsely settled residential areas are "settlements"23 for purposes of determining whether an area is congested within the context of Part 91 or, for that matter, Part 137.24"

Administrator v. Oliveira and Morais
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4995.PDF
"On July 4, 2002, respondents flew in formation at low
altitude in the vicinity of Jones Beach and Rockaway Beach, New York.​
3 Respondents flew well within 500 feet of swimmers in the water and objects near the shoreline."

Adminstrator v. Kolodiajnyi​

"The law judge found, after noting that several of the farms where percipient witnesses were located were "at least one-quarter mile
from the nearest tract of land over which the respondent conducted aerial spraying applications," that the low flights​
were not necessary for his spraying activities."

Administrator v. Kachalsky
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4847.PDF
It is undisputed that on July 26, 1998, respondent piloted a Cessna 150M aircraft over a sparsely populated area in Gardiner, New York..."
"Mrs. Cottingham’s daughter and two other children, all under the age of 10, were on horseback awaiting riding lessons when the
low-flying aircraft passed over the property. Mrs. Cottingham testified that her daughter called her out of the barn to ask
whether she and the other children should dismount from their ponies because of the low-flying aircraft. Mrs. Cottingham further testified that she has taught the children to dismount in unsafe situations."​
"The witnesses’ testimony and documentary
evidence adequately support the Administrator’s allegation that respondent violated sections 91.119(c) and 91.13(a)."

Adminstrator v. Horton
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4832.PDF​
"...finding that respondent operated an aircraft below 500 feet over a sparsely populated
area and that his actions were careless, in violation of sections 91.119(c) and 91.13(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), 49 C.F.R. Part 91."

Administrator v. Leaver
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4639.PDF
Pilot in question operated a helicopter low level over a ranch with horses.

Administrator v. Kelsey
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4514.PDF​
"The Administrator's complaint charges that, on October 3,
1995, respondent was pilot-in-command (PIC) of a Cessna aircraft that flew too low in the area of Arches National Park, Utah...
But, at a minimum, there was one person, the Ranger, and his vehicle. That is all that is required."

Administrator v. Todd
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4320.PDF​
"As alleged by the Administrator in his suspension order
(complaint), respondent deliberately operated N3DT (an aircraft registered to Blackacre Land Company, of which respondent is president) on October 25, 26, and November 13, 1992, near Winifred, Montana, at a distance of less than 500 feet from hunters and at least one vehicle. The Administrator's case was supported by the testimony of five eyewitnesses. The law judge affirmed the Administrator's order, making a credibility finding in favor of the Administrator's witnesses."

Administrator v. Nixon
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4249.PDF


I could go on and on with case law.​
 
Blackhawk said:
Your right, it does. You were incorrect earlier when you wrote:
"I guess your daughter was riding a horse in the city or a "populated area?"
Click to expand...

Quote all the case law you'd like.. Notice the ? at the end of my post.. That indicates I was asking a question...
 
ryan1234 said:
We have that A LOT in the vintage aircraft/warbird world as well.

Often times we'll be coming back to our home airport, which is a Class D aircraft - all of the controllers are extremely friendly, etc....

We're coming back in sections (two ships formations) - and we ask for the break (360 overhead pattern). The tower says report the initial, blah blah... we go into a break (somewhat...aggressively), then gear down, flaps down and land.

Well as we're on the ramp... a CFI starts yelling at me for being dangerous, etc in the pattern - he was on the ground during our pattern. He explains how illegal it is for us to do an overhead pattern... so he calls the FSDO from the FBO. We can't wait to hear what the FSDO says.. because some of the guys there fly with us from time to time with the FAST formation cards, etc. All of this is right in front of the CFI's student.

After the FSDO doesn't have a problem with it at all - as an overhead break is a FAST accepted procedure for a pattern entry . He looks like the tool bag he is. Come to find out...he's a CFI with 350 hrs.

He could have saved himself some dignity if he would have just STFU.
Click to expand...
I think that CFI should be praised for setting an good example for his student. Part of leadership is taking initiate to do the right thing. If you witnessed a crime any other time, you'd do the right thing by telling the police. I don't see how this is any different. To me this sounds like a clear cut violation of 91.13.
 
TwilightFan91 said:
I think that CFI should be praised for setting an good example for his student. Part of leadership is taking initiate to do the right thing. If you witnessed a crime any other time, you'd do the right thing by telling the police. I don't see how this is any different. To me this sounds like a clear cut violation of 91.13.
Click to expand...

Really? Common. A CFI going to the FSDO for that is crazy. Heck, as a new CFI, I'd be over there asking them how they do the overhead break, and why they do it. Just because your a CFI doesn't mean you can stop learning. And just because somebody does thing differently than you doesn't mean they are illegal or unsafe.

Blackhawk said:
Then you did not read what I wrote. He was below the trees. The trees in El Paso are not even close to 500'.
Click to expand...

Are trees anywhere 500 feet tall? :D
 
TwilightFan91 said:
I think that CFI should be praised for setting an good example for his student. Part of leadership is taking initiate to do the right thing. If you witnessed a crime any other time, you'd do the right thing by telling the police. I don't see how this is any different. To me this sounds like a clear cut violation of 91.13.
Click to expand...

don+t+feed+the+troll




Don't feed the troll....
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Really? Common. A CFI going to the FSDO for that is crazy. Heck, as a new CFI, I'd be over there asking them how they do the overhead break, and why they do it. Just because your a CFI doesn't mean you can stop learning. And just because somebody does thing differently than you doesn't mean they are illegal or unsafe.
Click to expand...

TwilightFan91 is a pretty obvious troll. I wouldn't even bother responding to him.
 
TwilightFan91 said:
I think that CFI should be praised for setting an good example for his student. Part of leadership is taking initiate to do the right thing. If you witnessed a crime any other time, you'd do the right thing by telling the police. I don't see how this is any different. To me this sounds like a clear cut violation of 91.13.
Click to expand...

I hope guys like you never attempt to actually enjoy flying an aircraft...
 
TwilightFan91 said:
I think that CFI should be praised for setting an good example for his student. Part of leadership is taking initiate to do the right thing. If you witnessed a crime any other time, you'd do the right thing by telling the police. I don't see how this is any different. To me this sounds like a clear cut violation of 91.13.
Click to expand...

Which ban returnee are you?
 
I've still got a sharp axe so lets see if he's telling the truth tonight.

TwilightFan, what major metropolitan area are you logging in from this evening?

There's only one right answer. Good luck! :)
 
(I know!) :)

Trying to be sneaky on a Unix server is kind of like walking over wet cement and claiming that you didn't! ;)
 
TwilightFan91 said:
I think that CFI should be praised for setting an good example for his student. Part of leadership is taking initiate to do the right thing. If you witnessed a crime any other time, you'd do the right thing by telling the police. I don't see how this is any different. To me this sounds like a clear cut violation of 91.13.
Click to expand...
part of leadership is knowing when it is appropriate to say something and when it is appropriate to keep your inexperienced mouth shut...:pirate:


now as far as you are concerned...which 777 do you fly?:rawk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top