Hi all. First post here.

Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on tarmac/taxi
way never losing contact with ground ?
Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on pontoons
never losing contact with water ?

Thanks,
Miguel

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:54:59 -0800, Externet wrote:
> Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on tarmac/taxi
> way never losing contact with ground ?

No...

> Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on pontoons
> never losing contact with water ?

No...

Depending upon the type of aircraft, you might even be able to fly it
without a license...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

Depending on your location.. in the US
No
No

BT
"Externet" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi all. First post here.
>
> Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on tarmac/taxi
> way never losing contact with ground ?
> Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on pontoons
> never losing contact with water ?
>
> Thanks,
> Miguel
>

Thanks, gentlemen.

The ability to taxi an aircraft is controlled by insurance. There are
usually minimum requirements for taxiing. Airlines have specialized
training for taxiing (tuging).

-Robert


Externet wrote:
> Hi all. First post here.
>
> Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on tarmac/taxi
> way never losing contact with ground ?
> Is a valid pilot license needed to operate an aircraft on pontoons
> never losing contact with water ?
>
> Thanks,
> Miguel

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Depending upon the type of aircraft, you might even be able to fly it
> without a license...

Who says you have to have a license to fly ANY aircraft? I know a few people
that fly, and never have had a certificate or a medical.

At a CFI FIRC in Wichita about 10-12 years ago, the AOPA
instructor told our class about the FIRC he had just done in
Alaska. He reported the FAA goal for Alaska was to have
half of all the pilots in Alaska certificated by 2025.

But with post-9/11 security, having a legal certificate may
be more important.



"Greg B" > wrote in message
...
| "Grumman-581" >
wrote in message
| ...
| > Depending upon the type of aircraft, you might even be
able to fly it
| > without a license...
|
| Who says you have to have a license to fly ANY aircraft? I
know a few people
| that fly, and never have had a certificate or a medical.
|
|

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:29:05 -0600, "Greg B" >
wrote:
> Who says you have to have a license to fly ANY aircraft? I know a few people
> that fly, and never have had a certificate or a medical.

I have a license because I didn't want to chance teaching myself how
to fly... By the time I was trained well enough to consider myself
competent to fly without an instructor aboard, I figured that I might
as well get a license... If at some future date I lose my medical, I
suspect that I will still fly... I'm not sure what I will do about
insurance though at that point... Lying to the insurance company might
result in a claim being declined if the claim was attributable to a
medical condition... My aircraft is expensive enough that I don't
exactly want to handle the risk myself... Maybe I'll move to a cheaper
aircraft that I wouldn't mind risking myself... I don't know... I
guess I'll make the decision if I'm ever faced with that situation...

Greg B writes:

> Who says you have to have a license to fly ANY aircraft? I know a few people
> that fly, and never have had a certificate or a medical.

What do they risk if they are discovered by the FAA?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I have always thought that have of the old pilots flying don't have a
current medical. I could be wrong.
If they know they are not going to pass they just never make it current say
nothing and just keep on flying.

half
"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have always thought that have of the old pilots flying don't have a
> current medical. I could be wrong.
> If they know they are not going to pass they just never make it current
> say nothing and just keep on flying.
>

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> half
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I have always thought that have of the old pilots flying don't have a
>> current medical. I could be wrong.
>> If they know they are not going to pass they just never make it current
>> say nothing and just keep on flying.

That makes more sense! ;-)

Some of the older pilots I know are now flying under the Sport rules. They
let their medical expire and just fly LSA planes. Others are flying whatever
they wish. It's better than just sitting around flying on a simulator...

I have no idea if the number of unlicensed (old?) pilots is anywhere near
half. It'd be difficult to determine...

Greg B wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Depending upon the type of aircraft, you might even be able to fly it
> > without a license...
>
> Who says you have to have a license to fly ANY aircraft? I know a few people
> that fly, and never have had a certificate or a medical.

I know one. He plunked down cash for a nice 182 and flies it to his
heart's content sans license or medical, and without me as a passenger.

I burned up my nine lives long before I needed to shave.
-----

- gpsman

They would need to own the airplane, FBOs and clubs check
paperwork.



"Greg B" > wrote in message
...
| "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
| ...
| > half
| > "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >>
| >> I have always thought that have of the old pilots
flying don't have a
| >> current medical. I could be wrong.
| >> If they know they are not going to pass they just never
make it current
| >> say nothing and just keep on flying.
|
| That makes more sense! ;-)
|
| Some of the older pilots I know are now flying under the
Sport rules. They
| let their medical expire and just fly LSA planes. Others
are flying whatever
| they wish. It's better than just sitting around flying on
a simulator...
|
| I have no idea if the number of unlicensed (old?) pilots
is anywhere near
| half. It'd be difficult to determine...
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Greg B writes:
>
> > Who says you have to have a license to fly ANY aircraft? I know a few people
> > that fly, and never have had a certificate or a medical.
>
> What do they risk if they are discovered by the FAA?
>

Good question. If you never had a pilot's license the federales can't
take it away, can they?? I know of a local guy that got busted by the
FAA a year or two ago for flying a King Air 200 on charter without a
license. He never held so much as a PPL, but through his association
with the FBO that he runs he weaseled into the left seat. I'm told he
also flew right seat in a Lear for a while. Not sure how something like
this slips through the cracks, but you can bet the FSDO keeps a close
eye on that operation now.

Unbelievable.

Kingfish writes:

> Good question. If you never had a pilot's license the federales can't
> take it away, can they??

Exactly. And unless you start checking credentials before each and
every flight, enforcement is difficult.

> I know of a local guy that got busted by the
> FAA a year or two ago for flying a King Air 200 on charter without a
> license. He never held so much as a PPL, but through his association
> with the FBO that he runs he weaseled into the left seat.

Did anything happen to the FBO?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> If you have no license, the FAA can issue fines. That's how
> they handle ultralight pilot violations.

If the unlicensed pilot is wealthy enough to pay the fines, what
prevents him from flying indefinitely without a license and just
paying the fines whenever he is caught? In the corporate world,
sometimes fines are simply treated as a cost of doing business;
individuals with the means might do the same.

I can also easily imagine someone who has had a pilot license for 40
years and loses it due to an inability to pass a medical exam, and
then continues to fly illegally. For someone who has dedicated his
life to flying, telling him he can never fly again would be rather
like holding a gun to his head.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If the unlicensed pilot is wealthy enough to pay the fines, what
> prevents him from flying indefinitely without a license and just
> paying the fines whenever he is caught?

Flying without a certificate/license can and has resulted in jail time.
Here are a couple cases where the defendant got a fine and six months jail
time:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1004
http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1633

> Flying without a certificate/license can and has resulted in jail time.
> Here are a couple cases where the defendant got a fine and six months jail
> time:
>
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1004
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1633

Interesting. In the first case, the pilot had once held a certificate
(presumably giving the FAA jurisdiction), and in the second case, "The
case was investigated with assistance from the Joint Terrorism Task
Force..."

Mention terrorism and the game changes.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose > wrote:
>> Flying without a certificate/license can and has resulted in jail
>> time. Here are a couple cases where the defendant got a fine and six
>> months jail time:
>>
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1004
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1633
>
> Interesting. In the first case, the pilot had once held a certificate
> (presumably giving the FAA jurisdiction), and in the second case, "The
> case was investigated with assistance from the Joint Terrorism Task
> Force..."
>
> Mention terrorism and the game changes.

Here are some more cases:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1298
http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1858
http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1387

This case I thought was interesting, considering the falsification could
have had negative consequences on innocent students:
http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1563

Here's the site where the above stories came from:

http://www.oig.dot.gov/Room?subject=45

> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1298
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1858
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1387
>
> This case I thought was interesting, considering the falsification could
> have had negative consequences on innocent students:
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1563

The first one:
"Wilson used various fraudulent identities in order to obtain FAA
licenses..."
.... gives the FAA jurisdiction.

The second one:
"Our investigation found that Sanders falsified his application to the
FAA in 2004 by failing to disclose..."
.... again the FAA was originally involved.

The third one:
"he piloted an aircraft without a license and made false statements on
an FAA application." and "The investigation was conducted jointly with
the Department of Homeland Security".
.... again puts it in the FAA's lap. Invoking Homeland Security trumps
all anyway.

The last one:
"...falsifying an FAA ‘Instructor’s Recommendation’ which indicated that
his Flight Instructor Certificate was valid..."
.... once again, the perp had prior dealings with the FAA.

I wonder (but I'm not going to go sniffing it out) whether there are any
cases involving, or any case law supporting, jail time for flying an
aircraft without =ever= having any dealings with the FAA, and without
invoking any terrorism clauses.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jim Logajan writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > If the unlicensed pilot is wealthy enough to pay the fines, what
> > prevents him from flying indefinitely without a license and just
> > paying the fines whenever he is caught?
>
> Flying without a certificate/license can and has resulted in jail time.
> Here are a couple cases where the defendant got a fine and six months jail
> time:
>
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1004
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=1633

I note that both involved other offenses as well, however.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Flying without a license will often result in death. The regulations
stipulating requirements to operate an aircraft under it's own power
are for your own good. An aircraft is not a tractor, car, truck, four
wheeler, motorcycle, or wagon.

Learn to fly, and learn to fly right from a qualified and dedicated
instructor. That will protect aviation's reputation, both private and
commercial.

If you want, visit our website for an excellent article on the basics
of VFR flight which have to be mastered (and often aren't)

www.pilotweb.org

PilotWeb.org writes:

> Flying without a license will often result in death.

This type of exaggeration only encourages people to be reckless. When
they discover that the dire warnings they've heard are all out of
proportion to reality, they start to take a lot more risks, including
risks that they really shouldn't take. The net result is more danger,
not less.

I expect that most people flying without a license are people who have
lost their licenses for some reason, or people who have trained but
been unable to get a license. While neither category is likely to be
filled with stellar pilots, the notion that complete novices are going
to try to fly planes is a bit unrealistic. Most people aren't even
interested in flying a plane, and many are afraid of doing so, so even
if you plopped them in the cockpit and told them to have at it, they'd
refuse.

> The regulations stipulating requirements to operate an aircraft under
> it's own power are for your own good.

In theory, but they aren't necessarily congruent with reality. Some
of the regulations are good ideas, others aren't.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Did anyone research these closely enough to determine what
> criminal statute the pilot violated so as to result in jail
> time? Was the actual flying what resulted in jail, was it
> lying on an FAA form, or was it the other offenses - signing
> student logbooks, etc.

There's a generic criminal statute for a materially false, oral
or written statement submitted to any fed agency in any official
matter. Martha Stewart now understands how it works.

Fred F.

Jose wrote:
> I wonder (but I'm not going to go sniffing it out) whether there are any
> cases involving, or any case law supporting, jail time for flying an
> aircraft without =ever= having any dealings with the FAA, and without
> invoking any terrorism clauses.
>

Jose, the guy I referred to in my previous post is based across the
field from you at DXR. AFAIK he never got any jail time for flying the
KingAir unlicensed. I'm told he had some pilot training but never got
the ticket. He's damn lucky he never had an engine-out as who knows if
he'd have known how to handle it? (not sure if he went to KA school)
I'm amazed the FAA didn't go after him, but maybe the (implied)
terrorist threat took priority? I doubt I'd have been so lucky if I'd
tried something like that...

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Flying without a license will often result in death.
>
> This type of exaggeration only encourages people to be reckless. When
> they discover that the dire warnings they've heard are all out of
> proportion to reality, they start to take a lot more risks, including
> risks that they really shouldn't take. The net result is more danger,
> not less.
>
> I expect that most people flying without a license are people who have
> lost their licenses for some reason, or people who have trained but
> been unable to get a license. While neither category is likely to be
> filled with stellar pilots, the notion that complete novices are going
> to try to fly planes is a bit unrealistic. Most people aren't even
> interested in flying a plane, and many are afraid of doing so, so even
> if you plopped them in the cockpit and told them to have at it, they'd
> refuse.
>

I can think of three different instances within the last 2 years that
were well-publicized where individuals (dumb-ass kids and one drunk
dirtbag doing community service) with no flight training stole aircraft
and took them for a joyride. Amazingly nobody was killed, and that
includes the idiot that stole the 172 from Danbury CT and took his
drunk buddies for a ride at 2am only to land on a dark taxiway at White
Plains. I'm not sure which deity was looking out for all these idiots -
all the more incredible when you consider how many trained & licensed
pilots have died while flying due to things that may have been out of
their control. Regardless... I don't think the idea that flying w/o a
license will often result in death is exaggerating.

> PilotWeb.org writes:
>
>
>>Flying without a license will often result in death.

It almost never does.

> There's a generic criminal statute for a materially false, oral or written statement submitted to any fed agency in any official matter.

Yes, but this covers making false statements (as in to the FAA).

If you never make a false statement to the government, and merely fly an
airplane without a license, and without ever having attempted to get
one, is this a criminal act according to statute?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> There's a generic criminal statute for a materially false, oral or
>> written statement submitted to any fed agency in any official matter.
>
> Yes, but this covers making false statements (as in to the FAA).
>
> If you never make a false statement to the government, and merely fly an
> airplane without a license, and without ever having attempted to get one,
> is this a criminal act according to statute?
>
> Jose


After a quick and possibly incorrect search this may be you legal catch all.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00046316----000-.html

(a) Criminal Penalty.- Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section,
when another criminal penalty is not provided under this chapter, a person
that knowingly and willfully violates this part, a regulation prescribed or
order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers
designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties
and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) under this
part, or any term of a certificate or permit issued under section 41102,
41103, or 41302 of this title shall be fined under title 18. A separate
violation occurs for each day the violation continues.

> After a quick and possibly incorrect search this may be you legal catch all.
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00046316----000-.html
>
> (a) Criminal Penalty.- Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section,
> when another criminal penalty is not provided under this chapter, a person
> that knowingly and willfully violates this part, a regulation prescribed or
> order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of
> Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers
> designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of
> the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties
> and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) under this
> part, or any term of a certificate or permit issued under section 41102,
> 41103, or 41302 of this title shall be fined under title 18. A separate
> violation occurs for each day the violation continues.

That'll do it. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> After a quick and possibly incorrect search this may be you legal catch all.
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00046316----000-.html
>

W/o reading other parts of that statute (believe it's the
Aviation Safety Act, empowering DOT and the FAA as to all their
stuff), it refers to "criminal fine" only. No jail?

Fred F.

Jose wrote:
> If you never make a false statement to the government, and merely fly an
> airplane without a license, and without ever having attempted to get
> one, is this a criminal act according to statute?

I imagine one way is for a repeated violation (after the civil
fine version and FAA letter to don't do that again), the FAA
obtains an injunction. Then you best not violate the court's order.

There may some generic statute which fits, but a specific law
should be carefully worded so as to be for actual crimes like all
the others. A certificated pilot is "flying w/o a license"
merely by flying after a BFR has expired. Incarcerate for that?

However, many states provide that flying w/o an FAA "license" is
a misdemeanor. FAA can ask local law enforcement/state to
enforce. Even if no jail time, explaining this one in a job
interview may be difficult.

Fred F.

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> >
>> After a quick and possibly incorrect search this may be you legal catch
>> all.
>>
>> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00046316----000-.html
>>
>
> W/o reading other parts of that statute (believe it's the Aviation Safety
> Act, empowering DOT and the FAA as to all their stuff), it refers to
> "criminal fine" only. No jail?
>
> Fred F.


I found it, I found it. At least I think I did.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00046317----000-.html

Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an
airman's certificate

(a) General Criminal Penalty.- An individual shall be fined under title 18
or imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or both, if that individual-
(1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as
an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman's
certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity; or
(2) knowingly and willfully employs for service or uses in any capacity as
an airman to operate an aircraft in air transportation an individual who
does not have an airman's certificate authorizing the individual to serve in
that capacity.

(b) Controlled Substance Criminal Penalty.-
(1) Controlled substances defined.- In this subsection, the term "controlled
substance" has the meaning given that term in section 102 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802).
(2) Criminal penalty.- An individual violating subsection (a) shall be fined
under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the
violation is related to transporting a controlled substance by aircraft or
aiding or facilitating a controlled substance violation and that
transporting, aiding, or facilitating-
(A) is punishable by death or imprisonment of more than 1 year under a
Federal or State law; or
(B) is related to an act punishable by death or imprisonment for more than 1
year under a Federal or State law related to a controlled substance (except
a law related to simple possession (as that term is used in section
46306(c)) of a controlled substance).
(3) Terms of imprisonment.- A term of imprisonment imposed under paragraph
(2) shall be served in addition to, and not concurrently with, any other
term of imprisonment imposed on the individual subject to the imprisonment.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an
> airman's certificate
>
> ...if that individual-
> (1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity as
> an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an airman's
> certificate....

Perhaps why att'ys can charge good fees. "in air transportation"
is superfluous if the offense is merely "opearating." So, if
solo and no transport of cargo?

Who knows, but it seems Congress would [should] not intend to
criminalize something which may not be unsafe. And allow fed
prosecutors to screw people at their whim to no public purpose.
For example, a real good student stops the process short of the
check ride and continues to fly. With a fews yrs of meaningful
exp, a good pilot, except for the idiot part. Contrast to a very
avg student who may even be an idiot in general, and who passes
the ride from an easier examiner, and subsequent exp is neither
frequent nor meaningful.

Fred F.

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an
>> airman's certificate
>>
>> ...if that individual-
>> (1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity
>> as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an
>> airman's certificate....
>
> Perhaps why att'ys can charge good fees. "in air transportation" is
> superfluous if the offense is merely "opearating." So, if solo and no
> transport of cargo?
>
> Who knows, but it seems Congress would [should] not intend to criminalize
> something which may not be unsafe. And allow fed prosecutors to screw
> people at their whim to no public purpose. For example, a real good
> student stops the process short of the check ride and continues to fly.
> With a fews yrs of meaningful exp, a good pilot, except for the idiot
> part. Contrast to a very avg student who may even be an idiot in general,
> and who passes the ride from an easier examiner, and subsequent exp is
> neither frequent nor meaningful.
>
> Fred F.

I looked around and found this definition for air transportation earlier in
the Subtitle. So it looks like the only time a jail sentence could be
imposed via the law I found is if you fly across state or international
lines or carry mail. Keep in mind though the Feds have often defined
"interstate" rather broadly. So broadly, in fact, that the Supreme Court has
slapped them down.

(5) "air transportation" means foreign air transportation, interstate air
transportation, or the transportation of mail by aircraft.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>I found it, I found it. At least I think I did.
>>
>>"Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an
>>airman's certificate"
>
> This is jail time for pilots operating in "air
> transportation." In typical FAA fashion, air transportation
> is somewhat circularly defined under FAR 1 as : "Air
> transportation" means interstate, overseas, or foreign air
> transportation or the transportation of mail by aircraft."
>
> However, FAR 1 goes on to define "foreign air
> transportation," "interstate air transportation," etc. and
> they all refer to "the carriage by aircraft of persons or
> property as a common carrier for compensation or hire, or
> the carriage of mail by aircraft"
>
> The bottom line is that this jail statute only covers flying
> as a "common carrier," not joyriding or typical private
> pilot flying.
>
> --

I found the definition of air transportation and posted in a message a
minute ago but you are narrowing the definition a little far. If the
joyriding crosses state lines it is clearly interstate and as I mentioned
the Feds have been known to take a pretty wide view of what interstate
means.

"not be unsafe"? What is not unsafe about piloting a plane without a
license? Would you say that an 18-wheeler truck driver is safe, even if he
has never held a CDL? The public purpose is to stop any old yahoo from
grabbing the keys to their friends plane and launching off. I cannot
understand your post, it's as if you don't think and unlicensed person
should face any penalty for knowingly endangering himself, others and
property, all with no insurance.
Your example is a diversion. If the student pilot were such a hotshot, he
would have completed the written and the checkride and become legal. He
would also understand the reasons why he needed to take the checkride, and
the penalties for not doing so. Sigh, I do hope you are not a pilot or
aspiring pilot IRL, such an anti-authoritarian attitude is one of the 5
traits (look it up).... If you are, I hope you don't fly your Zenith
anywhere in TX.

Do you really believe that a truck driver should be able to drive an
18-wheeler without a CDL, and if
"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an
>> airman's certificate
>>
>> ...if that individual-
>> (1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity
>> as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an
>> airman's certificate....
>
> Perhaps why att'ys can charge good fees. "in air transportation" is
> superfluous if the offense is merely "opearating." So, if solo and no
> transport of cargo?
>
> Who knows, but it seems Congress would [should] not intend to criminalize
> something which may not be unsafe. And allow fed prosecutors to screw
> people at their whim to no public purpose. For example, a real good
> student stops the process short of the check ride and continues to fly.
> With a fews yrs of meaningful exp, a good pilot, except for the idiot
> part. Contrast to a very avg student who may even be an idiot in general,
> and who passes the ride from an easier examiner, and subsequent exp is
> neither frequent nor meaningful.
>
> Fred F.

Barney, I'm going to say this very nicely because I assume you simply failed
to properly read the attributions. But as you can clearly see I never wrote
that flying without a license was not unsafe. I will expect your apology to
be promptly posted. But just in case you are still having problems I will
add some spaces so it will make it easier for you to understand.




"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> "not be unsafe"? What is not unsafe about piloting a plane without a
> license? Would you say that an 18-wheeler truck driver is safe, even if he
> has never held a CDL? The public purpose is to stop any old yahoo from
> grabbing the keys to their friends plane and launching off. I cannot
> understand your post, it's as if you don't think and unlicensed person
> should face any penalty for knowingly endangering himself, others and
> property, all with no insurance.
> Your example is a diversion. If the student pilot were such a hotshot, he
> would have completed the written and the checkride and become legal. He
> would also understand the reasons why he needed to take the checkride, and
> the penalties for not doing so. Sigh, I do hope you are not a pilot or
> aspiring pilot IRL, such an anti-authoritarian attitude is one of the 5
> traits (look it up).... If you are, I hope you don't fly your Zenith
> anywhere in TX.
>
> Do you really believe that a truck driver should be able to drive an
> 18-wheeler without a CDL, and if
> "TxSrv" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> Criminal penalty for pilots operating in air transportation without an
>>> airman's certificate
>>>
>>> ...if that individual-
>>> (1) knowingly and willfully serves or attempts to serve in any capacity
>>> as an airman operating an aircraft in air transportation without an
>>> airman's certificate....
>>
>> Perhaps why att'ys can charge good fees. "in air transportation" is
>> superfluous if the offense is merely "opearating." So, if solo and no
>> transport of cargo?
>>
>> Who knows, but it seems Congress would [should] not intend to criminalize
>> something which may not be unsafe. And allow fed prosecutors to screw
>> people at their whim to no public purpose. For example, a real good
>> student stops the process short of the check ride and continues to fly.
>> With a fews yrs of meaningful exp, a good pilot, except for the idiot
>> part. Contrast to a very avg student who may even be an idiot in general,
>> and who passes the ride from an easier examiner, and subsequent exp is
>> neither frequent nor meaningful.
>>
>> Fred F.
>
>

Barney Rubble writes:

> "not be unsafe"? What is not unsafe about piloting a plane without a
> license?

A license does not guarantee competence. Conversely, competence can
exist in the absence of a license.

While it is certainly generally true that unlicensed pilots are likely
to be less competent than licensed pilots, the presence or lack of a
license is no guarantee either way.

This is particularly true for someone who is a qualified pilot but has
no license due to a technicality. It's also true for someone who was
a licensed pilot but again lost his license due to a technicality (or
simply let something lapse).

It's very dangerous to equate licensing with competency.

> Would you say that an 18-wheeler truck driver is safe, even if he
> has never held a CDL?

There isn't any way of knowing, without testing his abilities.

> The public purpose is to stop any old yahoo from
> grabbing the keys to their friends plane and launching off. I cannot
> understand your post, it's as if you don't think and unlicensed person
> should face any penalty for knowingly endangering himself, others and
> property, all with no insurance.

See above. It's dangerous to equate competency with licensing. They
are not the same thing, although the general intention is to try to
get them as congruent as possible.

> If the student pilot were such a hotshot, he
> would have completed the written and the checkride and become legal.

Not if he were excluded on a medical technicality (for example).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I found the definition of air transportation and posted in a message a
>>minute ago
>
> You only posted the circular part - that "air
> transportation" is one of these: "foreign air
> transportation, interstate air transportation, or the
> transportation of mail by aircraft."
>
> However, each of those is further defined, and you missed
> the fact that each sub-definition is limited to "the
> carriage by aircraft of persons or property as a common
> carrier for compensation or hire, or the carriage of mail by
> aircraft"
>
>>but you are narrowing the definition a little far. If the
>>joyriding crosses state lines it is clearly interstate
>
> Yes, it's "interstate," but it's not "as a common carrier
> for compensation or hire" so it's not "air transportation."
> (unless you charged for the interstate joyriding).
>
> It looks like this statute is to protect the public from
> those pretending to be qualified pilots. It actually makes
> sense to me.
>
>
> --

I'm not saying you are wrong but could you point me to the reg that limits
the definitions?

"Barney Rubble" > wrote

> Would you say that an 18-wheeler truck driver is safe, even if he has never
> held a CDL? The public purpose is to stop any old yahoo from grabbing the keys
> to their friends plane and launching off.

I started driving a school bus, with a p endorsement on my regular driver's
license. I got that by taking a very simple test, and perhaps a few hours
training.

Enter the beginning of the CDL program. I got grandfathered into that, and now
hold a CDL, with a (m)ortorcycle, (p)assenger and (s)chool bus endorsements.

I am no better or worse driver when I got the CDL, than before.

It is possible that a person got a lot of training from flying with their
father, or as a passenger with a friend, or a military pilot that never got the
PPL instituted after he got out of the military. They all could have just as
much flight experience as a PPL holder, but not be legal.

I do not endorse such a way around the system, but it is possible to fly safely
without a formal certificate.
--
Jim in NC