A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Was The Idiot Legal?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old August 1st 06, 10:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
RST Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,147
Default Was The Idiot Legal?

Ignore if you will for the moment 91.13, the catch-all "careless/reckless"
provision that can getcha if you sneeze during the approach. Let's see if
"idiot" was legal.

What else can getcha? 91.103 might be a good start. Lessee, it starts off
with a catch-all that says you have to have "all available information"
regarding the flight, but it goes on to enumerate what the author of this
section finds important -- weather, fuel, alternates, delays, and
performance figures (takeoff and landing distances). Hmmm ... nothing about
notams or VFR charts that I can see.

What else? How about 91.139(c) that says that a person must operate the
aircraft under the terms and provisions of the NOTAM. Since the idiot
eventually worked himself into the system, and the NOTAM didn't specify that
you have to have VFR charts on board, was he legal?

Seems he had enough fuel. Seems he maintained VFR weather minima. His
airplane didn't have any malfunctions (other than a loose nut on the
microphone) evidencing improper maintenance.

The NOTAM itself is rather vague. It says you MUST execute the Ripon/Fisk
approach if operating VFR. It says you MUST, you are REQUIRED, and you
SHALL in a lot of places in the NOTAM. As to carrying it, the wimpy "pilots
are EXPECTED to ... have a copy of the NOTAM" are the words. EXPECTED.

When a lot of imperatives are used along with a permissive, the general
holding is that the permissive is not mandatory. Expected is a permissive.
Just one little word change could have made all the difference.

Do not under any circumstances misinterpret my questions to say that I
thought the idiot was an exemplary specimen of aviation competence. Not on
your tintype. I'm merely attempting to find something in the written
documentation that we all aviate under to hang my hook on and I can't find
it. Didn't have a VFR chart? Not required to have one. Didn't have the
notam? Not required to have it. Will stand for a long time as how NOT to
fly into Oshkosh? So long as there are computers that will reproduce audio
files.

Jim


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aviation Marketplace 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Piloting 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Owning 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Owning 0 May 11th 04 10:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.