Stupid Pilot Tricks

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:43:57 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

On Jul 9, 6:05 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
. com:

In the end, the legality relates to who owns that
land (I believe its the county).

The legality of what, landing on the sandbar?

Yes. There are no FAA regulations that say where you can and cannot
land. In fact FAR 1 defines an airport as a place of intended landing.

-Robert, CFII

I wasn't questioning the legality of the landing spot, but being
forced to land off-airport.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:33:37 -0700, Richard Riley
wrote in
:

If there were 2 people on board, it can't be a 103 ultralight.

Unless it's a training flight, right?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:46:09 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

Yes and no, respectively.

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:46:09 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

Yes and no, respectively.

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

If all parts of Part 103.1 "Applicability" (including the "intended" part
of 103.1(a) regarding single occupant) were satisfied, then it is my
understanding that no aspect of Part 91 is applicable. But there is always
103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather subjective. Then I suspect
it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:41:49 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

But there is always
103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather subjective. Then I suspect
it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

If it's an FAA administrative action, the "pilot" won't be afforded
the benefit of a judge, unfortunately. And because Part 103 operators
needn't hold an airmans certificate, he wouldn't be grounded (I
wouldn't think), but the FAA could impose a fine, I suppose.

If the Sheriff files civil charges against him, it would seem that the
DA would have to prove there was a hazard. Lacking any evidence of
injury or damage, that may be difficult for the DA to prove.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I also wonder by what authority the sheriff was authorized to order the
aircraft down off-airport.

If he perceives an emergency, he may be no more bound to get FAA
authorization than the military might be to intercept a hostile aircraft.

I'd be interested in seeing the law that leads you to that conclusion.

Me too. Notice I said "may."

Flying under a bridge and putting citizens at risk probably qualifies.

Who judges if citizens were put at risk?

Well, if I buzz an airshow in a C-152, who do you suppose judges if
citizens were put at risk?

What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?

Were there people on the bridge? Is it (public) property? If so,
14CFR91.13a:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to
endanger the life or property of another.

Also, was the landing on the sand bar "forced" or would the helicopter
have
followed to the nearest airfield.

The news account used the word 'force.'

Is the news account suddenly authoritative on aviation terminology?


-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

Yes and no, respectively.

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

Somewhat, but they can still stick the pilot.
Sec. 103.9 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
creates a
hazard to other persons or property.-c

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

I know the overweight ones are registered Experimental, and are
subject to Part 91. It's difficult to discern any 'N' number in the
photograph.

If there were 2 people on board, it can't be a 103 ultralight.

Specifically,

Sec. 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight
vehicles
in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle
is
a vehicle that:
(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
single occupant;
And (e) If powered:
(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and
safety
devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic
situation;

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable rendering
the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

I'm not a CFI or anything, but I'd not recommend testing this out in
practice. If you buzz a crowd with an ultralight, you're probably going to
get in trouble.

During the filming of "The Hunted", an ultralight pilot at Scappoose joked
about flying into a building. F-15s were scrambled (like, three hours
later. You can hear them in the war scene in The Hunted because they weren't
informed that the scene was being filmed, and as they were looking around
for the suspicious aircraft the saw a giant fireball rising from the set,
which was next to University of Portland and the Swan Island shipyards.

But there is always 103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather
subjective. Then I suspect
it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

If it's anything like traffic court it'll end up being the pilot's word
against the sheriff (and any offended witnesses.) If you've ever sat in a
traffic court and hear driver after driver say "I wasn't speeding" or "I
didn't run the stop light...", you'd know which way to place any wagers as
to the outcome.

-c

"Gatt" wrote in message
...


If it's anything like traffic court it'll end up being the pilot's word
against the sheriff (and any offended witnesses.) If you've ever sat in a
traffic court and hear driver after driver say "I wasn't speeding" or "I
didn't run the stop light...", you'd know which way to place any wagers as
to the outcome.


I was watching a baseball games a few years ago. At one point the manager
came out of the dugout to argue with the umpire. After a few minutes, the
station ran the following graphic across the screen:

Who will win this argument?

A) The Umpire
B) The Umpire
or
C) The Umpire