City controlled airspace?

[Dallas]

I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.

Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
every time I need to start the engine:

SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot or
a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
8213; 14384)

The middle rings of the DFW class B airspace begin at 2500 and 3000 feet.
This one makes it pretty tough to squeeze in there:

SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
2500 feet from the surface of the earth

Here's a useless one:

SEC. 5-18. TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DIRECTION.
All aircraft take-offs and landings by pilots shall be in the direction
indicated by the airport wind direction indicator unless otherwise
authorized by the airport control tower. (Ord. Nos. 8213; 14384)

I guess you have to trust the force between the hours of 12:00 midnight and
6:00 a.m:

SEC. 5-25. MAINTENANCE RUN-UPS.
No person shall start and run up an aircraft except in a place designated
for such purposes by the director of aviation or one of the director's
assistants, and such activity shall not be conducted at Dallas Love Field
or Dallas Executive Airport between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00
a.m.

--
Dallas

[Peter R.]

On 4/18/2007 11:34:22 AM, Dallas wrote:

> All aircraft take-offs and landings by pilots shall be in the direction
> indicated by the airport wind direction indicator unless otherwise
> authorized by the airport control tower

What if there is no runway in the direction of the windsock/direction
indicator?

--
Peter

[Steve Foley]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>
> Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
> every time I need to start the engine:
>
> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot
> or
> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
> 8213; 14384)

Hmmmm. I only know one 'licensed pilot'. Everyone else I know is
certificated.

You could be a real pain and call the police every time a certificated pilot
operates an aircraft engine.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 08:34:23 -0700, Dallas > said:

>
>
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>
> Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
> every time I need to start the engine:
>
> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot or
> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
> 8213; 14384)

Many cities have ordinances like that. This is 'gotcha' for people who
hand-prop their planes. You can get a ticket for hand-propping your
plane if no one is in the cockpit attending the controls.

This is not control of airspace. Cities, counties and states all
regulate what you can do on the ground with an airplane. There was a
guy down in Borrego Springs, CA, that got a ticket for landing his
Lancair on a road. The road was deserted and was by his house and he
used to do it all the time, but the sheriff one day decided that hew
was going to something about the unlicensed vehicles on public roads.

>
> The middle rings of the DFW class B airspace begin at 2500 and 3000 feet.
> This one makes it pretty tough to squeeze in there:
>
> SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
> No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
> 2500 feet from the surface of the earth

Questionable whether a city can do that, to say the least. But a lot of
them try.

>
> Here's a useless one:
>
> SEC. 5-18. TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DIRECTION.
> All aircraft take-offs and landings by pilots shall be in the direction
> indicated by the airport wind direction indicator unless otherwise
> authorized by the airport control tower. (Ord. Nos. 8213; 14384)

Same here. Arguably federal laws take precedence over city ordinances.

>
> I guess you have to trust the force between the hours of 12:00 midnight and
> 6:00 a.m:
>
> SEC. 5-25. MAINTENANCE RUN-UPS.
> No person shall start and run up an aircraft except in a place designated
> for such purposes by the director of aviation or one of the director's
> assistants, and such activity shall not be conducted at Dallas Love Field
> or Dallas Executive Airport between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00
> a.m.

Lots of cities have noise abatement ordinances like this. Seems like
people who are trying to get some sleep don't appreciate it when you
are going WOWwowWOWwowWOWwow with the King Air at 2am.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[ZikZak]

On Apr 18, 8:34 am, Dallas > wrote:
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>
> Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
> every time I need to start the engine:
>
> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot or
> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
> 8213; 14384)

You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
certificated to fly an airplane.

> SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
> No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
> 2500 feet from the surface of the earth

Unenforcible. Only the FAA has authority over aircraft in flight.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

ZikZak wrote:
> You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
> as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
> certificated to fly an airplane.

I know it's cool and all to say we have a certificate and not a license but
even the FAA says "license" may places on their website. Here's an example.

Replace an Airman Certificate (License)

[Jim Stewart]

C J Campbell wrote:

>> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
>> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed
>> pilot or
>> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
>> 8213; 14384)
>
> Many cities have ordinances like that. This is 'gotcha' for people who
> hand-prop their planes. You can get a ticket for hand-propping your
> plane if no one is in the cockpit attending the controls.
>
> This is not control of airspace. Cities, counties and states all
> regulate what you can do on the ground with an airplane.

I don't think it's at all clear.

Federally licensed ham radio operators have been allowed
to erect towers in conflict with local zoning laws for
years. I don't see much of a difference.

[Newps]

C J Campbell wrote:

>>
>> SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
>> No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
>> 2500 feet from the surface of the earth
>
>
> Questionable whether a city can do that, to say the least. But a lot of
> them try.

They absolutely can not.




>
>>
>> Here's a useless one:
>>
>> SEC. 5-18. TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DIRECTION.
>> All aircraft take-offs and landings by pilots shall be in the direction
>> indicated by the airport wind direction indicator unless otherwise
>> authorized by the airport control tower. (Ord. Nos. 8213; 14384)
>
>
> Same here. Arguably federal laws take precedence over city ordinances.

Federal law prevails here.

[Dallas]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:49:32 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

> people who are trying to get some sleep don't appreciate it when you
> are going WOWwowWOWwowWOWwow with the King Air at 2am.

Somehow it's not ok to run your engine up, but acceptable to taxi forward
another 50 feet onto the runway and firewall it?

:-)

--
Dallas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>
> Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
> every time I need to start the engine:
>
> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot
> or
> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
> 8213; 14384)
>
> The middle rings of the DFW class B airspace begin at 2500 and 3000 feet.
> This one makes it pretty tough to squeeze in there:
>
> SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
> No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
> 2500 feet from the surface of the earth
>
> Here's a useless one:
>
> SEC. 5-18. TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DIRECTION.
> All aircraft take-offs and landings by pilots shall be in the direction
> indicated by the airport wind direction indicator unless otherwise
> authorized by the airport control tower. (Ord. Nos. 8213; 14384)
>
> I guess you have to trust the force between the hours of 12:00 midnight
> and
> 6:00 a.m:
>
> SEC. 5-25. MAINTENANCE RUN-UPS.
> No person shall start and run up an aircraft except in a place designated
> for such purposes by the director of aviation or one of the director's
> assistants, and such activity shall not be conducted at Dallas Love Field
> or Dallas Executive Airport between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00
> a.m.
>

Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ZikZak" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
> as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
> certificated to fly an airplane.
>

Is an airman certificate not formal permission from a governmental
authority to do something?

[John Galban]

On Apr 18, 8:34 am, Dallas > wrote:
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>

Not unusual. Some cities have even tried to enforce their own
aviation related ordinances. Several years ago, the city of Mesa, AZ
enacted an ordinace prohibiting flight over the city below 1,000 ft.
(except for takeoff and landing). They went so far as to have their
police helicopters chase down suspects and issue tickets on the ramp.
Many complained, but the FAA didn't show any interest in getting
involved. Eventually, local pressure ended the enforcement (i.e.
don't airborne cops have anything better to do than waste fuel chasing
errant Cessnas?), but the ordinance is still on the books.

Also, several years ago, the city of Las Cruces, NM enacted an
ordinance that required pilots to make radio calls in the pattern at
the (untowered) municipal airport. Again, the FAA showed no interest
in getting involved. The ordinance was the brainchild of the local
(former pilot) airport manager who thought the local pilots needed
some incentive to do things "the right way" (i.e. his way). This
one was eventually repealed when a high profile local citizen and
pilot appeared before the city council and convinced them that the
ordinance made them look like idiots to the aviation community.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 12:13:51 -0700, Dallas > said:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:49:32 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> people who are trying to get some sleep don't appreciate it when you
>> are going WOWwowWOWwowWOWwow with the King Air at 2am.
>
> Somehow it's not ok to run your engine up, but acceptable to taxi forward
> another 50 feet onto the runway and firewall it?
>
> :-)

Few people will notice a quick run-up on a piston single. The jets and
turboprops don't do a run-up for every flight anyway. If you think you
need to do it then, consider the airport closed during those hours.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 09:58:31 -0700, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:

> ZikZak wrote:
>> You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
>> as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
>> certificated to fly an airplane.
>
> I know it's cool and all to say we have a certificate and not a license but
> even the FAA says "license" may places on their website. Here's an example.
>
> Replace an Airman Certificate (License)

The people who insist on "certificate" are harking back to the days
before the FAA issued them. Originally, airman certificates were issued
by flying clubs. There was no FAA in those days.

Now that the government issues the certificate and reserves the right
to take it away, it represents a license. It is the same thing, no
matter how much the pack howls. Most of these guys could stand to look
in a dictionary and see what the difference between a license and a
certicate is. If you want to get picky about it, a certificate
represents a license to fly. That license can be revoked, whether you
retain physical possession of the certificate or not.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-04-18 13:07:36 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> said:

>
> "ZikZak" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
>> as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
>> certificated to fly an airplane.
>>
>
> Is an airman certificate not formal permission from a governmental
> authority to do something?

Of course it is. Some of these guys try to define 'license' so narrowly
that it loses all meaning. They are wrong, the certificate represents a
license to fly, and all the howling in the world will not change the
fact.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[andrew m. boardman]

Dallas > wrote:
>Somehow it's not ok to run your engine up, but acceptable to taxi forward
>another 50 feet onto the runway and firewall it?

The real issue here is extended ground runups for maintenance. Extended
full-power turbojet runups at 2am make the neighbors much, much sadder
than anything a piston engine is going to produce. (Barring, maybe, a
C185 with a long two-bladed prop on a full-power takeoff. Yeeeeouch!)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>
> Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
> every time I need to start the engine:

Unless you are like me.
I'm a "competent mechanic" - I've been fixing cars since I was 15...

>
> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot
> or
> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
> 8213; 14384)
<...>
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Erik]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
>>and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>>
>>Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
>>every time I need to start the engine:
>
>
> Unless you are like me.
> I'm a "competent mechanic" - I've been fixing cars since I was 15...

When I first started all of this I was completely amazed at the
similarities between a C150 engine and my VW Bug's engine.

Outside of a funnily-placed carb and another couple cylindars, you
could probably bold a C150 engine into a bug and run it just fine.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 18, 2:10 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-04-18 13:07:36 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > said:
>
>
>
> > "ZikZak" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
> >> as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
> >> certificated to fly an airplane.
>
> > Is an airman certificate not formal permission from a governmental
> > authority to do something?
>
> Of course it is. Some of these guys try to define 'license' so narrowly
> that it loses all meaning. They are wrong, the certificate represents a
> license to fly, and all the howling in the world will not change the
> fact.

Um, dude. I call it a certificate because that's what it's called on
the ticket and in the regs. Are the regs wrong then?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ZikZak" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Um, dude. I call it a certificate because that's what it's called on
> the ticket and in the regs. Are the regs wrong then?
>

A certificate cannot be a license?

[Maxwell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> A certificate cannot be a license?

What difference does it make. As long it's accepted for pilot privledges, I
don't care what they call it.

Kind of like the difference between the Sheriff's Office, and the Sheriff's
Department.

[Bob Martin]

> Hmmmm. I only know one 'licensed pilot'. Everyone else I know is
> certificated.
>
> You could be a real pain and call the police every time a certificated pilot
> operates an aircraft engine.

Only the FAA would come up with a term like "certificated"... and no offense intended,
but I don't see why people get so bent out of shape about "certificated" vs. "certified"
vs. "licencsed." Doesn't seem to make much of a difference to me.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 18, 3:32 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "ZikZak" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > Um, dude. I call it a certificate because that's what it's called on
> > the ticket and in the regs. Are the regs wrong then?
>
> A certificate cannot be a license?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

But I guess I am an LFI.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> What difference does it make.

You'd have to ask ZikZak.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ZikZak" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
>

Then what's your point?

[ZikZak]

On Apr 18, 3:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "ZikZak" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
>
> Then what's your point?

That under Dallas ordiance 5-24, the OP student pilot is okay to start
his engine.

[Bob Moore]

C J Campbell wrote
> The people who insist on "certificate" are harking back to the days
> before the FAA issued them. Originally, airman certificates were
> issued by flying clubs. There was no FAA in those days.

CJ, I have copied the following from a series of emails between myself
and one of the editors of the AVWEB newsletter......

I can understand the idiots at the local TV station constantly referring
to
"pilot's licenses", but how did supposedly "aviation savvy" writers for
AVWEB mistake a certificate for a license in the lead article pertaining
to medical certificate fraud?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little journalistic license, Bob, as approved by the FAA.
Check it out under the Airman Registry subhed in the link provided
below.
It now appears that license is the preferred term and (certificate) is
bracketed : ie less used... http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick call to the FAA confirms that there has been no change and that,
just like the newscasters, the webmaster has inserted his own slant on
the subject.
Since the page seems to be intended for the general public, the
webmaster probably felt that they would understand license better than
certificate.

However............from Wikipedia

A license (American English) or licence (Commonwealth English) is a
document or agreement giving permission to do something.

A certificate is an official document affirming some fact.
A certificate may also certify that a person has received specific
education or has passed a test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is this little bit of freedom granted to citizens of the United
States of America that makes the difference between license and
certificate.

United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace.

No further granting of permission (license) is required, however, a
demonstration
of training or ability (certification) may be required. Note the
ultralight Part 103 exception to the certificate requirement.

There is no such federal code granting a citizen the right to operate a
vehicle on public roads, or to practice medicine, therefore allowing the
government to require a license.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response from the FAA webmaster

Subject
Has the FAA really switched "pilot certificate" to "pilot license" as is
indi...

Discussion Thread
Response (FAA Expert) 07/22/2005 03:51 PM
It's a web error. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are
in the process
of restructuring our entire web site. I have initiated action to correct
this page to reflect "pilot certificate" and "mechanic certificates."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Would you mind if I wrote about this for Monday, Bob?

Write away Russ....just bear in mind that I'll be checking each and
every word. :-) :-)

What started out as just a gentle chide to the AVWEB editor turned out
to taking-on the FAA, something that I've done many times in the past.
I've been in this flyingbusiness for 47 years and have learned that the
FAA probably makes more mistakes than I do. Getting them to admit it as
easily as happened Friday came as quite a shock to me. My first call
was to the local (Tampa) FSDO and what a waste that was.
A simple yes or no question and after a five minute dissertation, I
still did not have a firm answer.

My name since leaving Naval Aviation and joining PanAm in 1967 has been
"Bob (It's a certificate not a license) Moore". The basic indoctrination
course at PanAm taught us a lot about aviation law and history. At 72
years of age, I am still an active Flight Instructor. I instructed for
three years in the Navy, probably ten years in the airline industry and
six years in the GA business and one thing that I learned early-on from
my students was to very carefully weigh each and every word that I
uttered for accuracy. This is much more important for those who would
commit words to paper, or nowadays,to the internet. :-)

BTW, that little bit of Federal Code had its origins in the Air Commerce
Act of 1926. Just try discussing that with your friendly local FDSO
inspector! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob (IACNAL) Moore

[Morgans]

"Steve Foley" <> wrote

> Hmmmm. I only know one 'licensed pilot'. Everyone else I know is
> certificated.
>
Even the FAA is using the terms certificated and licensed interchangeably,
in recent publications, so it is not a cut and dried "no-no" like it used to
be.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

When I taught at Expressway Airpark in Oklahoma City in the early '70s, I received a stern lecture from the local police regarding touch-and-goes at OKC Downtown Airport. I realized the runway was a challenge for students, but I didn't realize there was a city ordinance requiring full stop landings. Of course the jerk on Unicom never said a word - he was on the phone to the cops. Ya' live and ya' learn.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
>> Hmmmm. I only know one 'licensed pilot'. Everyone else I know is
>> certificated.
>>
>> You could be a real pain and call the police every time a certificated
>> pilot operates an aircraft engine.
>
> Only the FAA would come up with a term like "certificated"... and no
> offense intended, but I don't see why people get so bent out of shape
> about "certificated" vs. "certified" vs. "licencsed." Doesn't seem to
> make much of a difference to me.

It doesn't make any difference to me, under most circumstances. But when a
municipality oversteps it's bounds, as I feel they have done in this case, I
start looking at other ways they may abuse their power. All it would take is
one cop with an attitude to shut down the airport, because no 'licensed
pilots' were available to operate the engines. What happens when Skylune and
his Stop-The-Noise buddys decide to file a suit to prevent 'illegal'
operations at the airport?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 18, 6:00 pm, ZikZak > wrote:
>
> That under Dallas ordiance 5-24, the OP student pilot is okay to start
> his engine.
>

Because a student pilot is a licensed pilot?

[Steve Foley]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:200704181408187826-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...


> It is the same thing, no matter how much the pack howls.

In much the same way that flying VFR over a layer of clouds is VFR on top,
no matter how much the pack howls.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:08:18 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<200704181408187826-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>Now that the government issues the certificate and reserves the right
>to take it away, it represents a license. It is the same thing, no
>matter how much the pack howls.

The government doesn't licence Constitutional rights.

The FAA certifies that the airmans certificate holder has met
proficiency and knowledge standards.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:05:53 -0700, Erik >
wrote in >:

>When I first started all of this I was completely amazed at the
>similarities between a C150 engine and my VW Bug's engine.

You will probably find the greatest difference between the two engines
lies in their prices.

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Apr 2007 23:01:49 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote in 8>:

>C J Campbell wrote
>> The people who insist on "certificate" are harking back to the days
>> before the FAA issued them. Originally, airman certificates were
>> issued by flying clubs. There was no FAA in those days.
>
>CJ, I have copied the following from a series of emails between myself
>and one of the editors of the AVWEB newsletter......
>
>I can understand the idiots at the local TV station constantly referring
>to
>"pilot's licenses", but how did supposedly "aviation savvy" writers for
>AVWEB mistake a certificate for a license in the lead article pertaining
>to medical certificate fraud?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A little journalistic license, Bob, as approved by the FAA.
>Check it out under the Airman Registry subhed in the link provided
>below.
>It now appears that license is the preferred term and (certificate) is
>bracketed : ie less used... http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A quick call to the FAA confirms that there has been no change and that,
>just like the newscasters, the webmaster has inserted his own slant on
>the subject.
>Since the page seems to be intended for the general public, the
>webmaster probably felt that they would understand license better than
>certificate.
>
>However............from Wikipedia
>
>A license (American English) or licence (Commonwealth English) is a
>document or agreement giving permission to do something.
>
>A certificate is an official document affirming some fact.
>A certificate may also certify that a person has received specific
>education or has passed a test.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It is this little bit of freedom granted to citizens of the United
>States of America that makes the difference between license and
>certificate.
>
>United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
>Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
>(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
>through the navigable airspace.
>
>No further granting of permission (license) is required, however, a
>demonstration
>of training or ability (certification) may be required. Note the
>ultralight Part 103 exception to the certificate requirement.
>
>There is no such federal code granting a citizen the right to operate a
>vehicle on public roads, or to practice medicine, therefore allowing the
>government to require a license.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>My response from the FAA webmaster
>
>Subject
>Has the FAA really switched "pilot certificate" to "pilot license" as is
>indi...
>
> Discussion Thread
> Response (FAA Expert) 07/22/2005 03:51 PM
>It's a web error. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are
>in the process
>of restructuring our entire web site. I have initiated action to correct
>this page to reflect "pilot certificate" and "mechanic certificates."
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Would you mind if I wrote about this for Monday, Bob?
>
>Write away Russ....just bear in mind that I'll be checking each and
>every word. :-) :-)
>
>What started out as just a gentle chide to the AVWEB editor turned out
>to taking-on the FAA, something that I've done many times in the past.
>I've been in this flyingbusiness for 47 years and have learned that the
>FAA probably makes more mistakes than I do. Getting them to admit it as
>easily as happened Friday came as quite a shock to me. My first call
>was to the local (Tampa) FSDO and what a waste that was.
>A simple yes or no question and after a five minute dissertation, I
>still did not have a firm answer.
>
>My name since leaving Naval Aviation and joining PanAm in 1967 has been
>"Bob (It's a certificate not a license) Moore". The basic indoctrination
>course at PanAm taught us a lot about aviation law and history. At 72
>years of age, I am still an active Flight Instructor. I instructed for
>three years in the Navy, probably ten years in the airline industry and
>six years in the GA business and one thing that I learned early-on from
>my students was to very carefully weigh each and every word that I
>uttered for accuracy. This is much more important for those who would
>commit words to paper, or nowadays,to the internet. :-)
>
>BTW, that little bit of Federal Code had its origins in the Air Commerce
>Act of 1926. Just try discussing that with your friendly local FDSO
>inspector! :-)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Bob (IACNAL) Moore

Many thanks for the research, and your setting the uninformed
straight.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03:00 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
wrote in >:

>Ya' live and ya' learn.

But, can you learn to turn off html encoding for Usenet articles? :)

[Jose]

> In much the same way that flying VFR over a layer of clouds is VFR on top,
> no matter how much the pack howls.

"Over the top", your (IFR) clearance is over.
"On top", your clearance is on.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steve Foley]

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> In much the same way that flying VFR over a layer of clouds is VFR on
>> top, no matter how much the pack howls.
>
> "Over the top", your (IFR) clearance is over.
> "On top", your clearance is on.
>
> Jose

Thank you. That is exactly my point.

[Jose]

> Thank you. That is exactly my point.

Well, it's not quite the same. In one case people believe there's a
difference, but just don't remember which is which. In the other case,
people don't realize there's a difference in the first place.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 19, 4:35 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:00 pm, ZikZak > wrote:
>
>
>
> > That under Dallas ordiance 5-24, the OP student pilot is okay to start
> > his engine.
>
> Because a student pilot is a licensed pilot?


Because a student pilot is properly certificated, and that would
certainly be found to be the intent of the ordinance, yes.

[ZikZak]

On Apr 19, 4:35 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:00 pm, ZikZak > wrote:
>
>
>
> > That under Dallas ordiance 5-24, the OP student pilot is okay to start
> > his engine.
>
> Because a student pilot is a licensed pilot?


Frankly, I don't give a rat's fat ass if it's called a licence or a
certificate, but mine says "Airman Certificate," the FARs call it a
certificate, all official FAA publications call it a certificate, and
therefore so will I when discussing the concept with students. Nowhere
do the FARs or FAA publications discuss "pilot licenses" and therefore
that phraseology is incorrect.

Not that I really care one way or the other, except insofar as there
is an appropriate FAA terminology for the concept, and "license" is
not it.

Shall we drop it and agree on "ticket?"

[Ross]

ZikZak wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:32 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>
>>"ZikZak" > wrote in message
>>
oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Um, dude. I call it a certificate because that's what it's called on
>>>the ticket and in the regs. Are the regs wrong then?
>>
>>A certificate cannot be a license?
>
>
> I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
>
> But I guess I am an LFI.
>
cer·tif·i·cate /n. sərˈtɪfɪkɪt; v. sərˈtɪfɪˌkeɪt/ Pronunciation Key
- Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. ser-tif-i-kit; v. ser-tif-i-keyt]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
–noun 1. a document serving as evidence or as written testimony, as of
status, qualifications, privileges, or the truth of something.
2. a document attesting to the fact that a person has completed an
educational course, issued either by an institution not authorized to
grant diplomas, or to a student not qualifying for a diploma.
3. Law. a statement, written and signed, which is by law made evidence
of the truth of the facts stated, for all or for certain purposes.
4. Finance. a. gold certificate.
b. silver certificate.

–verb (used with object) 5. to furnish with or authorize by a certificate.
6. to issue an official certificate attesting to the training, aptitude,
and qualification of: to certificate a teacher.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME certificat < ML certificātum, n. use of
neut. of certificātus certified (ptp. of certificāre), equiv. to
certific- (see certify) + -ātus -ate1]


li·cense /ˈlaɪsəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[lahy-suhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -censed, -cens·ing.
–noun 1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted
authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.
2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission;
official permit: a driver's license.
3. permission to do or not to do something.
4. intentional deviation from rule, convention, or fact, as for the sake
of literary or artistic effect: poetic license.
5. exceptional freedom allowed in a special situation.
6. excessive or undue freedom or liberty.
7. licentiousness.
8. the legal right to use a patent owned by another.
–verb (used with object) 9. to grant authoritative permission or license
to.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1325–75; ME licence < MF < ML licentia authorization, L:
freedom, equiv. to licent- (s. of licéns, prp. of licére to be allowed)
+ -ia -ia; see -ence]


--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Jim Logajan]

ZikZak > wrote:
> Nowhere
> do the FARs or FAA publications discuss "pilot licenses" and therefore
> that phraseology is incorrect.

Actually the FARs do use the term "pilot license" - but always when talking
about "foreign pilot license." Use the Google search text to see where:

"pilot license" site:ecfr.gpoaccess.gov

Now why the FAA uses one term for the paper it issues and another for the
paper issued by all other nations is beyond my meager ability. It may be
easier to understand quantum mechanics. ;-)

[Dallas]

On 18 Apr 2007 23:01:49 GMT, Bob Moore wrote:

> United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
> Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
> (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
> through the navigable airspace. No further granting of
> permission (license) is required, however, a
> demonstration of training or ability (certification) may be required.

So every citizen of the United States has a license to fly, you're just not
allowed to do it without a certificate?


--
Dallas

[Bob Moore]

Jim Logajan wrote
> Now why the FAA uses one term for the paper it issues and another for
> the paper issued by all other nations is beyond my meager ability. It
> may be easier to understand quantum mechanics. ;-)

Because the rest of the world dosen't have our Constitution and the
Air Commerce Act of 1926

> United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
> Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
> (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
> through the navigable airspace.

Bob Moore

[ZikZak]

On Apr 19, 11:47 am, Dallas > wrote:

> So every citizen of the United States has a license to fly, you're just not
> allowed to do it without a certificate?

You can fly to your heart's desire without a certificate if you do it
in an ultralight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
>
> In much the same way that flying VFR over a layer of clouds is VFR on top,
> no matter how much the pack howls.
>

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

VFR-ON-TOP - ATC authorization for an IFR aircraft to operate in VFR
conditions at any appropriate VFR altitude (as specified in 14 CFR and as
restricted by ATC). A pilot receiving this authorization must comply with
the VFR visibility, distance from cloud criteria, and the minimum IFR
altitudes specified in 14 CFR Part 91. The use of this term does not relieve
controllers of their responsibility to separate aircraft in Class B and
Class C airspace or TRSAs as required by FAAO 7110.65.


From FAR Part 1:

1.1 General definitions.

IFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the
operation of an aircraft over-the-top on an IFR flight plan when cleared by
air traffic control to maintain "VFR conditions" or "VFR conditions on top".

VFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the
operation of an aircraft over-the-top under VFR when it is not being
operated on an IFR flight plan.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ZikZak" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Frankly, I don't give a rat's fat ass if it's called a licence or a
> certificate, but mine says "Airman Certificate," the FARs call it a
> certificate, all official FAA publications call it a certificate, and
> therefore so will I when discussing the concept with students. Nowhere
> do the FARs or FAA publications discuss "pilot licenses" and therefore
> that phraseology is incorrect.
>
> Not that I really care one way or the other, except insofar as there
> is an appropriate FAA terminology for the concept, and "license" is
> not it.
>
> Shall we drop it and agree on "ticket?"
>

Let's agree that anything that has the properties of a license, such as an
airman certificate, is a license.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:47:26 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On 18 Apr 2007 23:01:49 GMT, Bob Moore wrote:
>
>> United State Code TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
>> Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
>> (2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
>> through the navigable airspace. No further granting of
>> permission (license) is required, however, a
>> demonstration of training or ability (certification) may be required.
>
>So every citizen of the United States has a license to fly, you're just not
>allowed to do it without a certificate?

That's what the law says. The Administrative Law Judges, on the other
hand ...

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:48:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>Let's agree that anything that has the properties of a license, such as an
>airman certificate, is a license.

Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:48:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>:
>
>>Let's agree that anything that has the properties of a license, such
>>as an airman certificate, is a license.
>
> Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

Sometimes it does. Other times it just "regulates" the prerequisites needed
to exercise those rights.

Want to exercise your "free speech" rights by sending radio messages to
your friends? Well, you'll need a radio license first. Want to exercise
your "free speech" rights by going to talk with your friends across
country? Well, you'll need a driver's license first to drive over the
government-owned right-of-ways. The vehicle you use will need to be
licensed too.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:34:23 GMT, Dallas
> wrote:

>Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
>every time I need to start the engine:
>
>SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
>No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot or
>a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
>8213; 14384)

Sidestepping the "license" vs. "certificate" issue, even a student
pilot has a "student pilot certificate". Though it does make one
wonder about the pilot of an ultralight, which requires no
certificate.
>
>The middle rings of the DFW class B airspace begin at 2500 and 3000 feet.
>This one makes it pretty tough to squeeze in there:
>
>SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
>No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
>2500 feet from the surface of the earth

Definitely not valid... the FAA has actually defended pilots who get
busted on local regulations like this.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowadays only a lawyer can tell legal from illegal, and the lawyers don't know the difference between right and wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

Dallas writes:

> So every citizen of the United States has a license to fly, you're just not
> allowed to do it without a certificate?

These sorts of distinctions are specious. A pilot certificate and a pilot
license are both the same thing, simply because there is only one thing to be
named.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> A certificate cannot be a license?

In most contexts, including this one, the terms are interchangeable.

A certificate is only a certificate if it does not convey an authorization. A
certificate of a completion of an art class is not a license.

A license is only a license if no document attesting to the license exists.
James Bond's license to kill is not a certificate, because it is authorization
without documentation (presumably?).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

Flying, like driving, is not a Constitutional right.

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

[Mxsmanic]

John Galban writes:

> Not unusual. Some cities have even tried to enforce their own
> aviation related ordinances. Several years ago, the city of Mesa, AZ
> enacted an ordinace prohibiting flight over the city below 1,000 ft.
> (except for takeoff and landing).

That is already prohibited by the FARs for the most part. Who was flying over
the city below 1000 feet?

> They went so far as to have their
> police helicopters chase down suspects and issue tickets on the ramp.
> Many complained, but the FAA didn't show any interest in getting
> involved. Eventually, local pressure ended the enforcement (i.e.
> don't airborne cops have anything better to do than waste fuel chasing
> errant Cessnas?), but the ordinance is still on the books.

Were the suspects in question convicted, and did they have to pay fines?

It's also illegal to wear jeans in Mesa, but that isn't enforced much, either.

Rarely-enforced and stupid laws enable the development of a police state.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Erik writes:

> When I first started all of this I was completely amazed at the
> similarities between a C150 engine and my VW Bug's engine.
>
> Outside of a funnily-placed carb and another couple cylindars, you
> could probably bold a C150 engine into a bug and run it just fine.

The technology of propulsion for small aircraft lags greatly behind the times.
I suppose there is little incentive to develop new powerplants and there are
high costs associated with getting them certified. Fuel issues in the future
and/or pollution or noise issues may force the hand of manufacturers
eventually.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dana M. Hague" > wrote

> Sidestepping the "license" vs. "certificate" issue, even a student
> pilot has a "student pilot certificate". Though it does make one
> wonder about the pilot of an ultralight, which requires no
> certificate.

Not at all. The rule concerning ultralights state very plainly, that
ultralights are not aircraft.
--
Jim in NC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?
>

No.

Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even bring it
up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you notice the format
when no one else has complained? I'd seriously like to know - I'm not being
a smartass here.... otherplaces, probably.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03:00 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
wrote in >:

>Ya' live and ya' learn.

But, can you learn to turn off html encoding for Usenet articles? :)

[Jim Logajan]

"Jim Carter" > wrote:
> Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even
> bring it up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you
> notice the format when no one else has complained?

Just FYI, I noticed but not sure why I didn't bother mentioning the HTML.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote

> Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even bring it
> up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you notice the format
> when no one else has complained? I'd seriously like to know - I'm not
> being a smartass here.... otherplaces, probably.

You are the rare person that responds favorably to this request.

I have asked others, and almost always, they come back with a smart assed
response, or ignore you.

There are others out there with the html running away, but I rarely say
anything, either. It has sort-of become convention for usenet groups to use
plain text formats. In my newsreader, the html font choices are narrow,
smaller and harder to read, and it behaves differently with line wraps.

I like reading the plain text better, 5 to 1.

Thanks
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Jim Carter > wrote:
> Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even bring it
> up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you notice the format
> when no one else has complained? I'd seriously like to know - I'm not being
> a smartass here.... otherplaces, probably.

> --
> Jim Carter
> Rogers, Arkansas
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03:00 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
> wrote in >:

> >Ya' live and ya' learn.

> But, can you learn to turn off html encoding for Usenet articles? :)

To me it is a pain in the ass as I have to tell the news reader to
ignore all the junk, a piece at a time, before I can go to the next
article.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Erik writes:
>
>> When I first started all of this I was completely amazed at the
>> similarities between a C150 engine and my VW Bug's engine.
>>
>> Outside of a funnily-placed carb and another couple cylindars, you
>> could probably bold a C150 engine into a bug and run it just fine.
>
> The technology of propulsion for small aircraft lags greatly behind
> the times.

No it doesn't, fjukkwit



Bertie

[Jose]

> Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

No, but there -is- a certificate.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even bring it
> up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you notice the format
> when no one else has complained? I'd seriously like to know - I'm not being
> a smartass here.... otherplaces, probably.

HTML wastes bandwidth (often multplying the size of a post by ten),
contributes nothing, and can be dangerous (depending on the reader and
the HTML codes involved). USENET is a text medium. If it can't be said
in plain text, this isn't the place for it.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:43:10 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?
>>
>
>No.
>
>Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
>


The former is something to which one has a just claim; the latter is
granted to one by an entity with the power to do so.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:50:15 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
wrote in >:

>Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even bring it
>up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you notice the format
>when no one else has complained? I'd seriously like to know - I'm not being
>a smartass here.... otherplaces, probably.

It is a long standing principle of Usenet, like the preference for
bottom-posting, that all messages are plane ASCII text. Coding your
articles in HTML serves no useful purpose, and only serves to increase
the size of articles needlessly. There's more information about this
specific topic here: http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ncaps.html

And general Usenet information is available here:
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nnqlinks.html#know
The newsgroup news.newusers.questions is specifically for newcomers to
newsgroups and the Internet in general. It is a forum in which they
can ask questions about newsgroups and the Internet and hopefully get
useful answers from other more experienced users.

[Denny]

>
> Now why the FAA uses one term for the paper it issues and another for the
> paper issued by all other nations is beyond my meager ability. It may be
> easier to understand quantum mechanics. ;-)

Not at all hard to understand...
A License gives you legal rights... Some countries issue a Pilot
License...
A Certificate attests to a level of competence... The USA issues an
Airmans Certificate...

Your state drivers license gives you the legal right to operate a
motor vehicle and you may exercise that right at will and without
interference from the state.. For the state to take that license away
it must be able to prove to the court that there is an overriding
legal reason for the taking of something that is your 'right'....

A certificate (in this case the Airmans Certificate) does not confer
legal rights. Your airmans certificate gives you the 'privilege' of
flying only as long as Ms. Administrator of the FAA chooses. It can
be revoked at will, then you have to take the FAA to court and prove
that they had no reasonable cause for the revocation...

So the difference is sharp and clear...
To revoke a drivers license THEY must first prove that there is
adequate reason..
To get back your airmans certificate YOU must prove they were wrong in
revoking it...

denny

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The former is something to which one has a just claim; the latter is
> granted to one by an entity with the power to do so.
>

If the entity with the power must grant it, is it a right or a privilege?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Your state drivers license gives you the legal right to operate a
> motor vehicle and you may exercise that right at will and without
> interference from the state.. For the state to take that license away
> it must be able to prove to the court that there is an overriding
> legal reason for the taking of something that is your 'right'....
>

There are many that insist driving is a privilege, not a right.


>
> A certificate (in this case the Airmans Certificate) does not confer
> legal rights. Your airmans certificate gives you the 'privilege' of
> flying only as long as Ms. Administrator of the FAA chooses. It can
> be revoked at will, then you have to take the FAA to court and prove
> that they had no reasonable cause for the revocation...
>

If they can revoke it at will they do not need cause.

[Jose]

> that all messages are plane ASCII text.

Is this an attempt to stay on topic? :)

(Sorry, I couldn't resist - I'll go back into my corner now.)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:48:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>:
>
>> Let's agree that anything that has the properties of a license, such
>> as an airman certificate, is a license.
>
> Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

Yes, from time to time it does.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:02:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?
>>
>> The former is something to which one has a just claim; the latter is
>> granted to one by an entity with the power to do so.
>>
>
>If the entity with the power must grant it, is it a right or a privilege?

If you refer to your initial question, you will see that I have
provided the answer to your second question.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:49:58 -0400, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> that all messages are plane ASCII text.
>
>Is this an attempt to stay on topic? :)
>
>(Sorry, I couldn't resist - I'll go back into my corner now.)
>

Thanks. I kneaded that. :-(

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Denny" > wrote

> A certificate (in this case the Airmans Certificate) does not confer
> legal rights. Your airmans certificate gives you the 'privilege' of
> flying only as long as Ms. Administrator of the FAA chooses. It can
> be revoked at will, then you have to take the FAA to court and prove
> that they had no reasonable cause for the revocation...
>
> So the difference is sharp and clear...
> To revoke a drivers license THEY must first prove that there is
> adequate reason..
> To get back your airmans certificate YOU must prove they were wrong in
> revoking it...

On top of that reasoning, is the fact that you have to meet other
requirements to be able to exercise the right to fly, such as a medical,
BFR's, and being current.
--
Jim in NC

[Denny]

On Apr 20, 11:37 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote
>
> > A certificate (in this case the Airmans Certificate) does not confer
> > legal rights. Your airmans certificate gives you the 'privilege' of
> > flying only as long as Ms. Administrator of the FAA chooses. It can
> > be revoked at will, then you have to take the FAA to court and prove
> > that they had no reasonable cause for the revocation...
>
> > So the difference is sharp and clear...
> > To revoke a drivers license THEY must first prove that there is
> > adequate reason..
> > To get back your airmans certificate YOU must prove they were wrong in
> > revoking it...
>
> On top of that reasoning, is the fact that you have to meet other
> requirements to be able to exercise the right to fly, such as a medical,
> BFR's, and being current.
> --
> Jim in NC

Same requirements for the drivers license, i.e. not blind, not
epileptic, etc...
Yes you have to have a certificate to exercise the privilege of
flying...
Yes you have to have a license to exercise the right to drive...
It isn't granting of either the license or the certificate that is the
difference, it is the level of rights once granted...

denny

[Dallas]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:56:47 -0400, Dana M. Hague wrote:

>>SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.

> Sidestepping the "license" vs. "certificate" issue, even a student
> pilot has a "student pilot certificate".

I didn't have a medical for several months, so apparently I was in
violation when I attended the controls and started the engine.


--
Dallas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>If the entity with the power must grant it, is it a right or a privilege?
>>
>
> If you refer to your initial question, you will see that I have
> provided the answer to your second question.
>

I don't think so. My initial question was, "Is an airman certificate not
formal permission from a governmental authority to do something?"

It was a simple question, why not just provide a simple answer?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:44:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>If the entity with the power must grant it, is it a right or a privilege?
>>>
>>
>> If you refer to your initial question, you will see that I have
>> provided the answer to your second question.
>>
>
>I don't think so. My initial question was, "Is an airman certificate not
>formal permission from a governmental authority to do something?"
>
>It was a simple question, why not just provide a simple answer?
>

Because it is not a question to which I chose to respond.

While you did pose that question in: Message-ID:
t>, it wasn't
addressed to me.

[Aluckyguess]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
> and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.
>
> Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
> every time I need to start the engine:
>
> SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
> No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot
> or
> a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
> 8213; 14384)

You are a licensed student pilot. That is a pilot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Same requirements for the drivers license, i.e. not blind, not
> epileptic, etc...
> Yes you have to have a certificate to exercise the privilege of
> flying...
> Yes you have to have a license to exercise the right to drive...
> It isn't granting of either the license or the certificate that is the
> difference, it is the level of rights once granted...
>

Flying is not a privilege, it is a right.

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> Flying is not a privilege, it is a right.

If that were true, you wouldn't need a license.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
>> Flying is not a privilege, it is a right.
>
> If that were true, you wouldn't need a license.
>

A license is just a good way to filter out idiots like you. Protects people
on the ground from the incompetent.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> A license is just a good way to filter out idiots like you. Protects people
> on the ground from the incompetent.

If that were true, there would be no aviation accidents due to pilot error.
In reality, pilot error is the leading cause of accidents.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 21 Apr, 23:07, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > A license is just a good way to filter out idiots like you. Protects people
> > on the ground from the incompetent.
>
> If that were true, there would be no aviation accidents due to pilot error.
> In reality, pilot error is the leading cause of accidents.
>

No, because it's true we don't have considerably more accidents.


Bertie

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>
>> Flying is not a privilege, it is a right.
>
> If that were true, you wouldn't need a license.
>

That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
> fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.

They are one and the same.

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

[Steven Barnes]

Ohh, here we go...

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain writes:
>
> > That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
> > fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.
>
> They are one and the same.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Chris]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Steven P. McNicoll writes:
>>
>>> Flying is not a privilege, it is a right.
>>
>> If that were true, you wouldn't need a license.
>>
>
> That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
> fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.

Outside the US the certificate is called and treated as a licence under
ICAO.

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
>> fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.
>
> They are one and the same.

We have just explained the (fundamental) difference.
Re-read the post. Stop. Think about it.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Chris wrote:

> Outside the US the certificate is called and treated as a licence under
> ICAO.

A long time ago, before the whole JAR thing, the French used to deliver
two documents: a 'brevet' (roughly speaking a certificate) and a 'license'.

So some other countries at least used to know the difference.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> We have just explained the (fundamental) difference.

All I've seen is total disagreement on what the difference is, if any. It's
pretty clear that nobody really has a clue (but everyone wants to sound like
an authority). Par for the course on USENET.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> A long time ago, before the whole JAR thing, the French used to deliver
> two documents: a 'brevet' (roughly speaking a certificate) and a 'license'.
>
> So some other countries at least used to know the difference.

I'd hardly hold French aviation up as an example to anyone.

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

[Borat]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Outside the US the certificate is called and treated as a licence under
>> ICAO.
>
> A long time ago, before the whole JAR thing, the French used to deliver
> two documents: a 'brevet' (roughly speaking a certificate) and a
> 'license'.
>
> So some other countries at least used to know the difference.

The French still have the brevet but its only good for France and does not
"travel".

[Borat]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Outside the US the certificate is called and treated as a licence under
>> ICAO.
>
> A long time ago, before the whole JAR thing, the French used to deliver
> two documents: a 'brevet' (roughly speaking a certificate) and a
> 'license'.
>

Roughly speaking brevet means "licence" as in "Brevet et autres moyens de
protection des inventions pharmaceutiques: Drug Patents and Other Ways to
Protect Pharmaceutical Research

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
> fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.
>

An airman certificate is a license.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> A license is just a good way to filter out idiots like you. Protects
>> people
>> on the ground from the incompetent.
>
> If that were true, there would be no aviation accidents due to pilot
> error.
> In reality, pilot error is the leading cause of accidents.
>

No, because anyone can make a mistake. It just eliminates the possibility of
some idot like you from teaching himself to fly on MSFS, and then getting
into a real aircraft and killing innocent people because he had no grasp on
his own limitations.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> No, because anyone can make a mistake. It just eliminates the possibility of
> some idot like you from teaching himself to fly on MSFS, and then getting
> into a real aircraft and killing innocent people because he had no grasp on
> his own limitations.

I'm certain that I would be a safer pilot even without a license than some of
the licensed pilots I've encountered. The validity of licensing as a tool for
identifying persons competent in a particularly domain is often exaggerated by
orders of magnitude, and aviation is no exception.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> No, because anyone can make a mistake. It just eliminates the possibility
>> of
>> some idot like you from teaching himself to fly on MSFS, and then getting
>> into a real aircraft and killing innocent people because he had no grasp
>> on
>> his own limitations.
>
> I'm certain that I would be a safer pilot even without a license than some
> of
> the licensed pilots I've encountered. The validity of licensing as a tool
> for
> identifying persons competent in a particularly domain is often
> exaggerated by
> orders of magnitude, and aviation is no exception.
>

No, actually you just proved my point. You have never had you hands on
anything that flys, yet you state emphaticly that you are certain. Idots
like you are the best possible example of why the licensing process is so
vital to everyone's safety.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You have never had you hands on anything that flys, yet you state
> emphaticly that you are certain.

Yes.

> Idots like you are the best possible example of why the licensing
> process is so vital to everyone's safety.

It's not as vital as it appears. How many pilots fly without a license, or
without a medical?

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You have never had you hands on anything that flys, yet you state
>> emphaticly that you are certain.
>
> Yes.
>

Exactly, your ignorance and arrogance proves the point. Thank you.

[Denny]

On Apr 22, 9:42 am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
> > fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.
>
> An airman certificate is a license.

Steven, are we just feeling difficult today? the Airmans Certificate
is not a license! That is the whole point...
If it were a license, such as a license to drive, or a license to
drill for oil in the ANWAR, or a license to cut timber on federal
lands, or to mine for uranium, it would give you rights, both
contractual and common law...
However, the Federal Government has chosen from day one, beginning
with the Wright Brothers, to claim itself as the sole owner of the
public airspace and with that Airmans Certificate you are allowed the
privilege of using the airspace, but only as long as the FSDO
inspector chooses - and not one second longer...


denny

[Mxsmanic]

Denny writes:

> Steven, are we just feeling difficult today? the Airmans Certificate
> is not a license! That is the whole point...
> If it were a license, such as a license to drive, or a license to
> drill for oil in the ANWAR, or a license to cut timber on federal
> lands, or to mine for uranium, it would give you rights, both
> contractual and common law...

It does. If you have the certificate/license in your hand, you can legally
fly an aircraft. If you don't have the certificate/license, you can't
(legally).

> However, the Federal Government has chosen from day one, beginning
> with the Wright Brothers, to claim itself as the sole owner of the
> public airspace and with that Airmans Certificate you are allowed the
> privilege of using the airspace, but only as long as the FSDO
> inspector chooses - and not one second longer...

I don't see how that is any worse than having the individual States regulate
it. The national airspace is a lot more fluid than a highway or railway
system, and trying to regulate it on a State-by-State basis would be
problematic, especially at 600 mph.

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

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> In much the same way that flying VFR over a layer of clouds is VFR on
>> top,
>> no matter how much the pack howls.
>>
>
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

The FAA defines the piece of paper in my pocket as a certificate.

The FAA defines flight over a layer by a VFR Aircraft as VFR-OVER-THE-TOP.

The FAA does not define flight over a layer by a VFR aircraft as VFR-ON-TOP

The FAA does not define the piece of paper in my pocket at a license.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dallas writes:
>
>> So every citizen of the United States has a license to fly, you're
>> just not allowed to do it without a certificate?
>
> These sorts of distinctions are specious. A pilot certificate and a
> pilot license are both the same thing,

No, they aren't moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You have never had you hands on anything that flys, yet you state
>> emphaticly that you are certain.
>
> Yes.
>
>> Idots like you are the best possible example of why the licensing
>> process is so vital to everyone's safety.
>
> It's not as vital as it appears. How many pilots fly without a
> license, or without a medical?

What' sit matter to you? You couldn't fly even if you had one. You
couldn't fly if you had a brasss badge riveted to your ass saying you
were Orville Fjukking Wright.


Bertie

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> How many pilots fly without a license,
> or without a medical?

Pilots flying without a license, this one is easy: none of them (ok,
some might be picky and point out that folks flying with a certificate
issued under 14 CFR 61.75 do indeed need a license in addition to their
certificate, if their country of origin issues one).

as for folks flying without a medical; well, you have all the glider
pilots to boot, and they have been doing that for a long time, no
problem; and pilots with sport pilot certificates. (I don't know about
ultralights pilots but I reckon they don't need one either); To that lot,
you can also add a number of instructors, since a valid medical is not
required to instruct a student who is already certificated.

--Sylvain

[Newps]

Sylvain wrote:

>
> Pilots flying without a license, this one is easy: none of them (ok,
> some might be picky and point out that folks flying with a certificate
> issued under 14 CFR 61.75 do indeed need a license in addition to their
> certificate, if their country of origin issues one).
>

Ah, what? There's quite a few people out there with no ratings at all
flying airplanes. I know one guy near me with a pretty nice Ercoupe.



> as for folks flying without a medical; well, you have all the glider
> pilots to boot, and they have been doing that for a long time, no
> problem; and pilots with sport pilot certificates. (I don't know about
> ultralights pilots but I reckon they don't need one either); To that lot,
> you can also add a number of instructors, since a valid medical is not
> required to instruct a student who is already certificated.

And the regular pilots who simply choose not to participate in the
system anymore but fly anyways.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> Pilots flying without a license, this one is easy: none of them (ok,
> some might be picky and point out that folks flying with a certificate
> issued under 14 CFR 61.75 do indeed need a license in addition to their
> certificate, if their country of origin issues one).
>
> as for folks flying without a medical; well, you have all the glider
> pilots to boot, and they have been doing that for a long time, no
> problem; and pilots with sport pilot certificates. (I don't know about
> ultralights pilots but I reckon they don't need one either); To that lot,
> you can also add a number of instructors, since a valid medical is not
> required to instruct a student who is already certificated.

Actually, I meant how many pilots are flying illegally (because they lack a
valid license or a current medical, for example)?

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> Pilots flying without a license, this one is easy: none of them
>> (ok, some might be picky and point out that folks flying with a
>> certificate issued under 14 CFR 61.75 do indeed need a license in
>> addition to their certificate, if their country of origin issues
>> one).
>>
>> as for folks flying without a medical; well, you have all the
>> glider pilots to boot, and they have been doing that for a long
>> time, no problem; and pilots with sport pilot certificates. (I
>> don't know about ultralights pilots but I reckon they don't need one
>> either); To that lot, you can also add a number of instructors,
>> since a valid medical is not required to instruct a student who is
>> already certificated.
>
> Actually, I meant how many pilots are flying illegally (because they
> lack a valid license or a current medical, for example)?

Well, not you, even though you don't have a licence, you don't fly!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> That is precisely why you do NOT need a license to
>> fly in USA. You do however need a certificate.
>
> They are one and the same.

No, they aren't, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because it is not a question to which I chose to respond.
>

Perfectly understandable.


>
> While you did pose that question in: Message-ID:
> t>, it wasn't
> addressed to me.
>

But it was my initial question.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
>
> The FAA defines the piece of paper in my pocket as a certificate.
>

The airman certificate in your pocket is by definition a license.


>
> The FAA defines flight over a layer by a VFR Aircraft as VFR-OVER-THE-TOP.
>
> The FAA does not define flight over a layer by a VFR aircraft as
> VFR-ON-TOP
>

Now you're catching on.


>
> The FAA does not define the piece of paper in my pocket at a license.
>

Correct, but some people conclude that because pilots' licenses issued in
the US are called "airman certificates" they are not licenses. In much the
same way some states call drivers licenses "operators permits", but they are
no less a license.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pilots flying without a license, this one is easy: none of them (ok,
> some might be picky and point out that folks flying with a certificate
> issued under 14 CFR 61.75 do indeed need a license in addition to their
> certificate, if their country of origin issues one).
>

An airman certificate is a license.

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The FAA defines the piece of paper in my pocket as a certificate.
>>
>
> The airman certificate in your pocket is by definition a license.
>

Where is that definition written?

My point here is that if the city is going to write laws, they should use
proper terminology. I once saw a real estate development delayed because one
town required the developer to obtain a certificate of compliance for a
traffic study from an adjacent town. The problem is that the adjacent town
doesn't issue certificates of compliance for traffic studies. By the time
the developer came back to the town with the requirement, there was enough
turnover in the planning board that his development wouldn't be approved by
the present board. They refused to remove the requirement, and refused to
approve a new plan. He ended up going to superior court to have the
requirement removed. The whole thing was political, but I could picture
something similar happening when the anti-airport activists get the local
police caught up in their fight. The neighbors call the cops claiming the
airplanes are being operated by people without 'licenses'.

The cop asks for your license, and you produce your certificate. The
neighbor tells the cop "That's not a license, it's a certificate'". What
does the cop do?

I agree with you that it is a de facto license, however it is not a de jure
license.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Where is that definition written?
>

In dictionaries.


>
> The cop asks for your license, and you produce your certificate. The
> neighbor tells the cop "That's not a license, it's a certificate'". What
> does the cop do?
>

Examines the license you produced and tells the neighbor to move along.


>
> I agree with you that it is a de facto license, however it is not a de
> jure license.
>

It is both.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> The FAA defines the piece of paper in my pocket as a certificate.
>>>
>>
>> The airman certificate in your pocket is by definition a license.
>>
>
> Where is that definition written?


http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&Product_ID=7454&DID=19


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
news:VetYh.5917

>>
>> I agree with you that it is a de facto license, however it is not a de
>> jure license.
>>
>
> It is both.
>
>

I disagree. I'll leave it at that.