"Guilty" of Flying the Wrong Pattern?

[Marco Leon]

>From AvWeb:

"Larry S... was originally found guilty by an FAA administrative judge
of flying a right-hand pattern, in his personal aircraft, a Christavia,
at Chetek instead of the standard left-hand pattern. He appealed to the
National Transportation Safety Board and the charge was dismissed."

This struck me as a bit odd. He was "ratted-out" by another (I think)
non-FAA person who had a grudge against him. So can anyone report
things like wrong traffic patterns and/or pattern altitudes to the FAA
and get them to summon the pilot to a hearing of some sort?

Marco

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Yep. Did you read that the Rat had also complained about this pilot's
actions previously, lost that case then settled out of court with the pilot
for an undisclosed amount of money when the pilot sued him in an
anti-defamation suit?

I would think that the normal course of action would be a request by the
local FSDO that the pilot pay them a visit for a 709 ride after a local
inquiry and investigation had been performed by the FSDO Safety Inspector.

I often tell students that if you hang around the airport long enough,
you'll see somebody do something stupid. The first point should be don't do
something stupid, the second is that somebody's watching. I guess this guy
makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

Jim

[Marco Leon]

Jim Burns wrote:
> Yep. Did you read that the Rat had also complained about this pilot's
> actions previously, lost that case then settled out of court with the pilot
> for an undisclosed amount of money when the pilot sued him in an
> anti-defamation suit?

Yeah, I read that but I would imagine tensions would need to be at that
level to follow-through with the FAA.

>
> I would think that the normal course of action would be a request by the
> local FSDO that the pilot pay them a visit for a 709 ride after a local
> inquiry and investigation had been performed by the FSDO Safety Inspector.

That's why I found it odd. Why didn't the FAA just say or do that
instead of going for the hearing right away--especially if they knew
there was a previous history of bad blood between them.

> I often tell students that if you hang around the airport long enough,
> you'll see somebody do something stupid. The first point should be don't do
> something stupid, the second is that somebody's watching. I guess this guy
> makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
> especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

I would say most--if not all--pilots have done something that could be
regarded as "stupid." The key is to keep it to a low-risk flub (like
leaving a chock in a wheel). But your point is a good one--try to keep
it low-profile!

Marco

[Peter R.]

Jim Burns > wrote:

> I guess this guy
> makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
> especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

Or competitors. I recall reading of a part 135 charter operator reporting
a competing operator to the FAA after the second operator flew an approach
through icing conditions in an aircraft not certified for known icing.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Or competitors. I recall reading of a part 135 charter operator reporting
> a competing operator to the FAA after the second operator flew an approach
> through icing conditions in an aircraft not certified for known icing.

Sorry, that should have read, "a part 135 FREIGHT operator," not charter.
--
Peter

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

I wonder if the pilot objected to a requested 709 ride and instead appealed
the complaint somehow?
Jim

[Jay Beckman]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>I wonder if the pilot objected to a requested 709 ride and instead appealed
> the complaint somehow?
> Jim
>
>

IIRC, the rest of the story is that the pilot is a cop and was flying in the
performance of his duties. If he actually flew a wrong pattern, it was to
investigate something on the ground.

Jay B

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Yep, that was in the article, also something about the state owned aircraft
being out of service and he was using his personal aircraft at the time.

Does anybody know the procedure of what he may have faced? Such as if
you're asked to take a 709 ride and refuse are you automatically found
guilty of the charged offense but you have the right to appeal?

Rick D. you out there? Any ideas?
Jim

[Ron Lee]

"Peter R." > wrote:

>"Peter R." > wrote:
>
>> Or competitors. I recall reading of a part 135 charter operator reporting
>> a competing operator to the FAA after the second operator flew an approach
>> through icing conditions in an aircraft not certified for known icing.
>
>Sorry, that should have read, "a part 135 FREIGHT operator," not charter.
>--
Still, that sounds like a good way to get people killed. The second
operator should have been busted.

Ron Lee

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

> Still, that sounds like a good way to get people killed. The second
> operator should have been busted.

That's a pretty bold statement considering you weren't there to know all
the circumstances of the second pilot's decision making.

--
Peter

[Jay Honeck]

> I often tell students that if you hang around the airport long enough,
> you'll see somebody do something stupid. The first point should be don't do
> something stupid, the second is that somebody's watching. I guess this guy
> makes a third point that if you've got enemies, they'll be watching
> especially close. (whether they know what they are seeing is another matter)

I didn't realize you could actually report someone to the FAA for
enforcement action for flying the wrong pattern. We could almost
literally turn someone in every DAY here in Iowa City, simply by
recording Unicom and handing it to the FSDO.

On any given day we usually have at least one doofus (usually a biz jet
jockey, but not always) blast into the pattern "against the grain" (so
to speak) that could easily be busted, under this scenario.

Maybe if more pilots knew about this action, these minor (but
potentially dangerous) infractions would stop?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Maybe if more pilots knew about this action, these minor (but
> potentially dangerous) infractions would stop?

Do =you= do any "minor" infractions that other pilots may consider
potentially dangerous (but you don't consider dangerous, else you
wouldn't do them)? How much "governmnet down our necks" do you want?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

I would guess that it was a matter of the other guy knowing the regs and
using them to advance his grudge against this pilot. Most of us wouldn't
bat an eye unless it caused an obvious safety issue. 91.126(b), 91.127(a)
would be the reading material I would point out to a student that had any
question about this.
Jim

[Jay Honeck]

> > Maybe if more pilots knew about this action, these minor (but
> > potentially dangerous) infractions would stop?
>
> Do =you= do any "minor" infractions that other pilots may consider
> potentially dangerous (but you don't consider dangerous, else you
> wouldn't do them)? How much "governmnet down our necks" do you want?

I don't want ANY government down our necks. But neither have I found a
good way to stop pilots from performing stupid pilot tricks like
landing at our airport on an opposing (unpublished) traffic pattern,
simply because it saves them some fuel. It happens so often that I
have to believe that it's become standard policy for some charter
operators to land in whatever way saves the most fuel, damn the rules.

Quite frankly, I don't think we need *any* more enforcement action.
(And I'm not commenting on the merits of the case in question, BTW.)
What we need is to PUBLICIZE that enforcement action has already taken
place. I'll bet that would give some of these prima donna pilots
second thoughts before they ignored everyone else in the pattern...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

This is where a good airport manager or grandfatherly figure can politely
inform the offending pilot what they happened to notice. It's surprising
what a subtle hint between pilots can accomplish.
Jim

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > > Maybe if more pilots knew about this action, these minor (but
> > > potentially dangerous) infractions would stop?
> >
> > Do =you= do any "minor" infractions that other pilots may consider
> > potentially dangerous (but you don't consider dangerous, else you
> > wouldn't do them)? How much "governmnet down our necks" do you want?
>
> I don't want ANY government down our necks. But neither have I found a
> good way to stop pilots from performing stupid pilot tricks like
> landing at our airport on an opposing (unpublished) traffic pattern,
> simply because it saves them some fuel. It happens so often that I
> have to believe that it's become standard policy for some charter
> operators to land in whatever way saves the most fuel, damn the rules.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't think we need *any* more enforcement action.
> (And I'm not commenting on the merits of the case in question, BTW.)
> What we need is to PUBLICIZE that enforcement action has already taken
> place. I'll bet that would give some of these prima donna pilots
> second thoughts before they ignored everyone else in the pattern...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> This is where a good airport manager or grandfatherly figure can politely
> inform the offending pilot what they happened to notice. It's surprising
> what a subtle hint between pilots can accomplish.

Agreed -- except in our case it's the FBO's charter pilots who are
quite often the offenders.

Our airport manager was fired by the airport commission two years ago,
and replaced with a part-time guy who does only what he's told -- so
I'm not looking to rock the boat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> This is where a good airport manager or grandfatherly figure can politely
>> inform the offending pilot what they happened to notice. It's surprising
>> what a subtle hint between pilots can accomplish.
>
> Agreed -- except in our case it's the FBO's charter pilots who are
> quite often the offenders.
>
> Our airport manager was fired by the airport commission two years ago,
> and replaced with a part-time guy who does only what he's told -- so
> I'm not looking to rock the boat.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Is the airport commision apointed or elected?

Jay Honeck for Airport Commission in '07 !!

Vote Early, Vote Often!

Jay B

[Jay Honeck]

> Is the airport commision apointed or elected?
>
> Jay Honeck for Airport Commission in '07 !!
>
> Vote Early, Vote Often!

It's appointed by the city council.

As founder of "Friends of Iowa City Airport" (FOICA) -- the group that
stopped the city council from seizing direct control of the airport
(from the commission) two years ago -- I think it's safe to say that I
will NEVER be appointed to that august body.

So, instead, I attend every commission meeting, and sit in the peanut
gallery taking unofficial meeting minutes, which are sent to all 200+
people on our FOICA mailing list.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Is the airport commision apointed or elected?
>>
>> Jay Honeck for Airport Commission in '07 !!
>>
>> Vote Early, Vote Often!
>
> It's appointed by the city council.
>
>As founder of "Friends of Iowa City Airport" (FOICA) -- the group that
>stopped the city council from seizing direct control of the airport (from
>the commission) >two years ago -- I think it's safe to say that I will
>NEVER be appointed to that august body.

Never say never...LOL...

>So, instead, I attend every commission meeting, and sit in the peanut
>gallery taking unofficial meeting minutes, which are sent to all 200+
>people on our FOICA >mailing list.

Good job by you. We just had a meeting here in Chandler, AZ regarding a
plan to extend one runway by 900' but judging by some people's reaction,
you'd think they wanted to extend both runways to over 10,000'.
Unfortunately, I was out of town and unable to attend but I did find the
public comments section of the website they'd set up and sent in my $0.02
worth (in the affirmative!)

If they choose to not follow through with the expansion, I hope someone
shows the NIMBY crowd the balance sheet from the Glendale Airport on the
Monday after the SuperBowl slated for the new Cardinals stadium in Feb of
'08. Glendale (and Goodyear) are gonna make a killing off the high dollar
bizjet crowd. It would be nice if our airport was able to maybe siphon off
some of that action.

There is also a semi-closed, private field named "Memorial" that is just
southwest of Chandler and the local Indian tribe just sold it and a bunch of
land to a developer. The developer wants to bring Memorial up to a usable
standard and give Chandler Muni a run for their money as well.

Grow or die...grow or die.

Jay B

[James]

Jim Burns wrote:
> This is where a good airport manager or grandfatherly figure can politely
> inform the offending pilot what they happened to notice. It's surprising
> what a subtle hint between pilots can accomplish.
> Jim
>
At the end of one lesson a few years ago my flight instructor had me
stop outside the FBO instead of going back to the flying club, so he
could have a chat with the charter/biz pilots who had just done a right
had pattern landing. I stayed in the plane (C150) while he chatted to
them for about 10 minutes, explaining the error of their ways. I think
it worked, I have not seen it happen again.

James.







> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>>>Maybe if more pilots knew about this action, these minor (but
>>>>potentially dangerous) infractions would stop?
>>>
>>>Do =you= do any "minor" infractions that other pilots may consider
>>>potentially dangerous (but you don't consider dangerous, else you
>>>wouldn't do them)? How much "governmnet down our necks" do you want?
>>
>>I don't want ANY government down our necks. But neither have I found a
>>good way to stop pilots from performing stupid pilot tricks like
>>landing at our airport on an opposing (unpublished) traffic pattern,
>>simply because it saves them some fuel. It happens so often that I
>>have to believe that it's become standard policy for some charter
>>operators to land in whatever way saves the most fuel, damn the rules.
>>
>>Quite frankly, I don't think we need *any* more enforcement action.
>>(And I'm not commenting on the merits of the case in question, BTW.)
>>What we need is to PUBLICIZE that enforcement action has already taken
>>place. I'll bet that would give some of these prima donna pilots
>>second thoughts before they ignored everyone else in the pattern...
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> This is where a good airport manager or grandfatherly figure can politely
> inform the offending pilot what they happened to notice. It's surprising
> what a subtle hint between pilots can accomplish.

It's all in the way that you approach the person... If you approach them
in a confrontational manner, confrontation is what you'll probably
get... Which do you think is going to work better:

1. "Hey ****head, are you so stupid that you didn't know that this is a
lefthand pattern airport?"

2. "Excuse me... But, just in case you weren't aware of it, this is a
lefthand pattern airport. If it's not too much of an inconvenience for
you, would it be possible for you to fly a lefthand pattern from now on?
Thanks..."

Not that I have a problem with being confrontational though... It might
not be the best way to get things done all the time, but sometimes it's
necessary for certain situations...

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> If they choose to not follow through with the expansion, I hope someone
> shows the NIMBY crowd the balance sheet from the Glendale Airport on the
> Monday after the SuperBowl slated for the new Cardinals stadium in Feb of
> '08. Glendale (and Goodyear) are gonna make a killing off the high dollar
> bizjet crowd. It would be nice if our airport was able to maybe siphon off
> some of that action.

Aren't you right next to Williams Gateway Airport, the old Williams
AFB? I thought that was already receiving a great deal of traffic,
including overflow from Sky Harbor (which is apparently too big for
its britches today). What's the advantage of using Chandler's
airport?

FWIW, KCHD is currently my home airport in simulation, since I'm from
the area and Sky Harbor is a bit too big for small plane traffic (and
a bit slow in the sim).

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

[Ron Lee]

"Peter R." > wrote:

>Ron Lee > wrote:
>
>> Still, that sounds like a good way to get people killed. The second
>> operator should have been busted.
>
>That's a pretty bold statement considering you weren't there to know all
>the circumstances of the second pilot's decision making.
>
>--
>Peter

So provide the textual investigation results that show that it was the
proper thing to do and that gross pilot error did not precede the
landing.

Ron Lee

[Newps]

Jay Beckman wrote:

>
> IIRC, the rest of the story is that the pilot is a cop and was flying in the
> performance of his duties. If he actually flew a wrong pattern, it was to
> investigate something on the ground.

If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.

Why not?

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.
>
>
> Why not?

Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

[Jim Logajan]

Newps > wrote:
> Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
> make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I can find
is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3 of the AIM.

Do you have a cite?

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
> make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

Which would be a case of them thinking that is what is good enough for us is
not good enough for them... That might be how it works, but it doesn't make
it *right*...

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's.

Do municipal police forces count? Any cowtown can incorporate (or
not) and hire itself a police force.

> Many do to make it easier on themselves but they are not
> required to.

Where are government agencies exempted?

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

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> Which would be a case of them thinking that is what is good enough for us is
> not good enough for them... That might be how it works, but it doesn't make
> it *right*...

I don't think that's how it works. I can recall special exceptions
for the military in certain circumstances (such as MOAs or military
aircraft on interception missions--which doesn't include training),
but that's all.

Nothing makes government aircraft immune to midair collisions, so
there's no particular reason why they should have any blanket
exemption from Federal air regulations.

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Newps > wrote:
>> Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do
>> to make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.
>
> That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I can
> find is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3 of the
> AIM.
>
> Do you have a cite?

From the FAR 1.1 definitions:

Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.

Public Aircraft:

(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft
owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to
crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned
and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a
territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of
one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90
continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or
a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision
of one of these governments.

Look carefully at the start of FAR 61.3. Note that it only requires a
pilot certificate for a civil aircraft. It does NOT require a certificate
for a public aircraft.

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any
other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of
U.S. registry, unless that person—

(1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization
issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily
accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot
certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within
a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which
the aircraft is operated may be used; and ...

As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
have a pilot's certificate. As a mater of policy, most governmental
agencies do require their pilots to have one or their own equivalent (eg.
the military).

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:51:37 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>>
>> IIRC, the rest of the story is that the pilot is a cop and was flying in the
>> performance of his duties. If he actually flew a wrong pattern, it was to
>> investigate something on the ground.
>
>If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.

So LEOs truly are above the law (FAAOs in this case)! Is that in FAAO
7110.65 or where?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:49:20 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote in
>:

>an aircraft owned
>and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a
>territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of
>one of these governments;


What would constitute a 'political subdivision' of a state? Would a
county, city, or town qualify, or does this official definition refer
to a state militia (eg California Highway Patrol)?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.
>
> So LEOs truly are above the law (FAAOs in this case)!

LEOs aren't "above" laws that don't apply to them. Laws that are
only applicable to civilian, non-public aircraft are only applicable
to civilian, non-public aircraft.


> Is that in FAAO 7110.65 or where?

It's in the applicability portion of the FAR

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Marty Shapiro]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:49:20 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>an aircraft owned
>>and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia,
>>or a territory or possession of the United States or a political
>>subdivision of one of these governments;
>
>
> What would constitute a 'political subdivision' of a state? Would a
> county, city, or town qualify, or does this official definition refer
> to a state militia (eg California Highway Patrol)?
>
>

Federal agency, state, state department, county (parish in LA), city,
township, town, village. All are political subdivision's.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Public Aircraft:
>
> (1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft
> owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to
> crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned
> and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a
> territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of
> one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90
> continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or
> a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision
> of one of these governments.

This definition excludes cities, and therefore excludes most police
departments.

> As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
> have a pilot's certificate.

But cops are not pilots of public aircraft, generally speaking, based
on the definition given above. They are civilian employees of cities,
not employees of the U.S. government or its States, territories, or
possessions, and their aircraft are presumably in the same category.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Federal agency, state, state department, county (parish in LA), city,
> township, town, village. All are political subdivision's.

Cities and the like are corporations.

If any political subdivision on a map counts, then school teachers,
firefighters, garbage collectors, and a vast number of other people
can fly without certificates and ignore the FARs.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:49:20 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>an aircraft owned
>>and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a
>>territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of
>>one of these governments;
>
>
> What would constitute a 'political subdivision' of a state? Would a
> county, city, or town qualify, or does this official definition refer
> to a state militia (eg California Highway Patrol)?
>

Nope city and county counts as a political subdivision. This is how many
police departments are flying used OH-58s that don't have N numbers.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Cities and the like are corporations.

Do you have the slightest clue what a municipal corporation is
and why state law provides for it? Incessant, arrogant, ignorant
jibberish.

F--

[Jim Logajan]

Marty Shapiro > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Newps > wrote:
>>> Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do
>>> to make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.
>>
>> That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I can
>> find is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3 of
>> the AIM.
>>
>> Do you have a cite?
>
> From the FAR 1.1 definitions:
>
> Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.
....
> Look carefully at the start of FAR 61.3. Note that it only requires a
> pilot certificate for a civil aircraft. It does NOT require a
> certificate for a public aircraft.
>
> § 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
....
> As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
> have a pilot's certificate. As a mater of policy, most governmental
> agencies do require their pilots to have one or their own equivalent
> (eg. the military).

Thanks for the cite. HOWEVER....

The some of the Flight Rules in part 91 appears to make _no_ distinction
between civil and public aircraft. Once airborne, the pilot of a public
aircraft still appears to be required to abide by some of the Flight Rules
under part 91. This seems to be the case because 91.1(a) specifically says
the part 91 Flight Rules apply to "aircraft" - note it has _no_ qualifiers.

So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to abide
by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military, are
presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology. (It's a mixed-bag under
part 91; some FARs definitely refer to civil aircraft, others to all
aircraft.)

[TxSrv]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
> abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military,
> are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
> unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology.

The problem here is in the U.S. Constitution, I believe. A/C
owned by say Interior cannot be forced to be maintained by rules
of the DOT. DOT can't ask Justice, the law firm to both
agencies, to litigate against Interior. If Interior said its
employee/pilots need not be certificated, then I think FAA can't
enforce against the pilot individually. No certificate; no
certificate action. If they proposed a civil fine for operating
w/o a certificate plus other violations, Interior would step in
and defend the employee and their own rule that their pilots need
not have certificates. Then no way to force it to court. It
ultimately would be the United States of America v. the United
States of America.

Fred F.

[Newps]

TxSrv wrote:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
>> abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military,
>> are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
>> unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology.
>
>
> The problem here is in the U.S. Constitution, I believe. A/C owned by
> say Interior cannot be forced to be maintained by rules of the DOT. DOT
> can't ask Justice, the law firm to both agencies, to litigate against
> Interior. If Interior said its employee/pilots need not be
> certificated, then I think FAA can't enforce against the pilot
> individually. No certificate; no certificate action. If they proposed
> a civil fine for operating w/o a certificate plus other violations,
> Interior would step in and defend the employee and their own rule that
> their pilots need not have certificates. Then no way to force it to
> court. It ultimately would be the United States of America v. the
> United States of America.
>

I don't think that's the case. We just opened a brand new tower/tracon
building here at BIL. An unbelievable amount of time and more
importantly money was spent making the building ADA compatible. That's
a Federal Government law that applies to all buildings and it certainly
isn't the FAA that came up with it. The FAA spent a lot of time and
dollars complying with other agencies laws. OSHA, TSA, FBI, etc. The
list is endless.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Public Aircraft:
>>
>> (1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft
>> owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related
>> to
>> crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned
>> and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a
>> territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision
>> of
>> one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least
>> 90
>> continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia,
>> or
>> a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision
>> of one of these governments.
>
> This definition excludes cities, and therefore excludes most police
> departments.
>
>> As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
>> have a pilot's certificate.
>
> But cops are not pilots of public aircraft, generally speaking, based
> on the definition given above. They are civilian employees of cities,
> not employees of the U.S. government or its States, territories, or
> possessions, and their aircraft are presumably in the same category.
>

You are really talking about something you know NOTHING about now. Not like
that is a new practice for you but a city is a political subdivision of a
State.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Federal agency, state, state department, county (parish in LA), city,
>> township, town, village. All are political subdivision's.
>
> Cities and the like are corporations.
>
> If any political subdivision on a map counts, then school teachers,
> firefighters, garbage collectors, and a vast number of other people
> can fly without certificates and ignore the FARs.
>

If they are flying public aircraft they can. As I mentioned in a earlier
post many cities and counties have gotten surplus UH-58s (the military
version of the Bell 206 helicopter) these aircraft are not certified and
they don't have N numbers.

[Marty Shapiro]

Newps > wrote in
:

>
>
> TxSrv wrote:
>
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>>> So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
>>> abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the
>>> military, are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs
>>> that use the unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology.
>>
>>
>> The problem here is in the U.S. Constitution, I believe. A/C owned
>> by say Interior cannot be forced to be maintained by rules of the
>> DOT. DOT can't ask Justice, the law firm to both agencies, to
>> litigate against Interior. If Interior said its employee/pilots need
>> not be certificated, then I think FAA can't enforce against the pilot
>> individually. No certificate; no certificate action. If they
>> proposed a civil fine for operating w/o a certificate plus other
>> violations, Interior would step in and defend the employee and their
>> own rule that their pilots need not have certificates. Then no way
>> to force it to court. It ultimately would be the United States of
>> America v. the United States of America.
>>
>
> I don't think that's the case. We just opened a brand new
> tower/tracon building here at BIL. An unbelievable amount of time and
> more importantly money was spent making the building ADA compatible.
> That's a Federal Government law that applies to all buildings and it
> certainly isn't the FAA that came up with it. The FAA spent a lot of
> time and dollars complying with other agencies laws. OSHA, TSA, FBI,
> etc. The list is endless.

In this case it's the United States Congress that is odering all
federal agencies to comply with the ADA. It is NOT one federal agency
ordering another federal agency. Congress has the ultimate weapon to use
if you don't comply - your budget is 100% at their mercy. The other "club"
Congress has is to allow, in the law, for citizens to sue if you don't
comply. Now it is no longer USA vs. USA in court. It is USA vs. citizen.

I recall there was a big stink many years ago (20 or 25?) about this.
Congress routinely exempted itself and federal agencies from laws such as
the ADA. This was a boiler plate exemption that they inserted into
everything. Large contributors protested and they dropped the blanket
exemptions.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Newps > wrote:
>>>> Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many
>>>> do to make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.
>>>
>>> That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I
>>> can find is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3
>>> of the AIM.
>>>
>>> Do you have a cite?
>>
>> From the FAR 1.1 definitions:
>>
>> Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.
> ...
>> Look carefully at the start of FAR 61.3. Note that it only requires
>> a pilot certificate for a civil aircraft. It does NOT require a
>> certificate for a public aircraft.
>>
>> § 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
> ...
>> As a mater of regulation, pilots of public aircraft do not have to
>> have a pilot's certificate. As a mater of policy, most governmental
>> agencies do require their pilots to have one or their own equivalent
>> (eg. the military).
>
> Thanks for the cite. HOWEVER....
>
> The some of the Flight Rules in part 91 appears to make _no_
> distinction between civil and public aircraft. Once airborne, the
> pilot of a public aircraft still appears to be required to abide by
> some of the Flight Rules under part 91. This seems to be the case
> because 91.1(a) specifically says the part 91 Flight Rules apply to
> "aircraft" - note it has _no_ qualifiers.
>
> So I still don't think that government agencies are not required to
> abide by _all_ the FARs. Government agencies, including the military,
> are presumably still rerquired to abide by all the FARs that use the
> unqualified "aircraft" or "person" terminology. (It's a mixed-bag
> under part 91; some FARs definitely refer to civil aircraft, others to
> all aircraft.)

My own opinion is that most agencies insist that pilots of public
aircraft be licensed and follow the FARs simply because they don't want the
adverse publicity and resulting Congressional investigations and/or law
suits should there be an incident, especially if fatalities are involved.

IIRC a few years ago, when there were several in-flight breakups of
forest fire fighting aircraft that it turned out the Department of the
Interior had its own airworthiness & maintenance rules for these aircraft.
These rules were changed to be more in line with the FAA rules after the
negative publicity.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[TxSrv]

Newps wrote:
>> It ultimately would be the United States of
>> America v. the United States of America.
>
> I don't think that's the case. We just opened a brand new
> tower/tracon. An unbelievable amount of time and more
> importantly money was spent making the building ADA compatible.
> That's a Federal Government law that applies to all buildings...

If Congress passes a law which says buildings must comply with
ADA, then any agency which ignores the law answers to Congress.
There's easier ways they can make them comply, but ultimately
they have the power to impeach the FAA Administrator or DOT
Secretary.

Now if Interior said its pilots need not be certificated, then
either the President or the Congress could step in if they
disagreed. Congress need only deny appropriated funds for the pay
of the pilots. However, if neither the President nor Congress
cared over the issue, then there's nothing the FAA alone can do
about it. In contrast, the law the FAA works under does not say
that all pilots must be certificated by FAA, but that the FAA
"may issue airman certificates." Marion Blakey can thus fly
anything she wants w/o any cert, even a drivers license!

Fred F.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> I don't think that's the case. We just opened a brand new tower/tracon
> building here at BIL. An unbelievable amount of time and more
> importantly money was spent making the building ADA compatible. That's
> a Federal Government law that applies to all buildings and it certainly
> isn't the FAA that came up with it.

I think you'll find that it's not unconditional. There has to be some
connection with the Federal government (including receipt of
government funds, transaction of government business, etc.). That's
how the Fed normally usurps the Constitutional authority of the States
to control this type of legislation.

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

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> There has to be some
> connection with the Federal government (including receipt of
> government funds, transaction of government business, etc.).
> That's how the Fed normally usurps the Constitutional authority
> of the States to control this type of legislation.

Jabberwocky. Completely inapplicable to the situation posed by
Newps. Since when is an ATC facility a frickin' State function?
Shameless ignorance knows no bounds.

F--

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:27:29 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>LEOs aren't "above" laws that don't apply to them.

So LEOs are just above the laws that govern ordinary citizens?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >LEOs aren't "above" laws that don't apply to them.
>
> So LEOs are just above the laws that govern ordinary citizens?

No.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Marty Shapiro > wrote:

> My own opinion is that most agencies insist that pilots of public
> aircraft be licensed and follow the FARs simply because they don't want the
> adverse publicity and resulting Congressional investigations and/or law
> suits should there be an incident, especially if fatalities are involved.

Sometimes they follow the FARs simply to avoid duplication of effort.
Why bother coming up with a regulation if you can just use the FAA's?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate