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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... And the statement was: "The 45 degree turn to downwind violates the letter of the law regardless what the FAA sayeth" Good. You've learned the diffeence between a question and a statement. I'm glad to see we're making progress. Stick in up your ass, ****bag. -- Matt --------------------- Matthew W. Barrow Site-Fill Homes, LLC. Montrose, CO |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m... Gene Whitt wrote: The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft. This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the runway being buzzed. There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft. However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless you're landing. This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes. 500' is plenty low for a low pass. Ron and Gene, can you point to any documentation of these enforcement actions? I'd like to look at the details. The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and untowered airports (4-3-12). Although the AIM doesn't say explicitly what altitude they're talking about, the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary defines "low approach" as a maneuver "over an airport or runway...where the pilot intentionally does not make contact with the runway"; that phrasing certainly suggests a much lower height than 500'. (The AIM also cites practice precision approaches as an example of low approaches; there, too, you would typically fly much lower than 500'.) It's hard to see how the FAA could get away with busting a pilot for following the procedures recommended in the AIM. So I'd be interested to see if something else might have been going on in the cases you mention. Thanks, Gary |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Drescher wrote:
The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and untowered airports (4-3-12). http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/1111.htm |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m... Gary Drescher wrote: The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and untowered airports (4-3-12). http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/1111.htm Cool. Thanks for the reference! --Gary |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Rob Montgomery" wrote in message ... So, how far out are you when you start "approaching the airport to land"? I don't know, but if you're at a point in flight where you are maneuvering for the purpose of putting the airplane on the ground, then you are "approaching the airport to land". I'm doing that from the time I take off. :-) Matt |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Whitt wrote:
Y'All, Gene is right about the possibility of the FAA types being hiding in the weeds at your local airport. I landed at Albany, OR about 20 years ago becasue of weather. Fellow pilot gave me a ride into town and told me his story. Seem he owned an American Yankee Trainer. He took a lady friend for a ride and decided to give her a thrill. Thrill consisted of making a low pass down the runway prior to landing. And he did it and the FAA was watching and listening. The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft. This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the runway being buzzed. Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that he was going to make a low pass down the runway. My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled differently. Gene Whitt I agree the penalty was severe, but given the number of accidents due to "buzzing", I don't think the incident should have been overlooked by the FAA either. Stupidity alone (for announcing his plans to buzz the airport) warrants some penalty! :-) Matt |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Newps wrote:
wrote: Be careful, tho: whenever the tower calls for you to 'enter left (or right) traffic, runway x,' he is expecting you to go out to and enter on the 45. Good Lord, no. You enter the pattern directly from where ever you happen to be. That's what I've always done and have never yet had a tower controller complain to either me or the FAA, at least not to my knowledge as the FAA has never contacted me about my pattern entry technique. Matt |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Yes!
I just completed the Remedial Instruction Program on a pilot who entered a traffic pattern at an uncontrolled field and did not abide by the AIM-recommended entry. It was his unlucky day, and there was a Fed at the field, and the rest is history. Gene |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Gary,
To the best of my knowledge, the FAA does not release details of enforcement actions. Their position is that information about a particular action is between the FAA and the pilot, and due to privacy and such is not releaseable to the public. My personal knowledge comes from 10k+ flight hours, most of it as a flight instructor, and 15yrs or so as a remedial instruction program instructor. I know several people personally who have been involved in enforcement actions in addition to the scores I have worked with under the remedial instruction program. The unfortunate reality is that wherever the law is ambiguous (and those places are legion), said ambiguity is resolved at the judgment of the NTSB judge at the hearing. Being a civil court, you have few rights, and no presumption of innocence. Your testimony is held as suspect as you are the respondent and therefore 'have a reason to lie,' and the FAA inspector is considered to be an officer of the court. If somebody wants to test their personal interpretation of an unclear reg, be my guest, but leave me out of it. The system may not be what is should be, nor what we would like it to be, but that doesn't change it. The FAA inspector has a great deal of lattitude to decide what the 'law' is on the spot, and there mostly is precious little any of us can do to the contrary. Best way to deal with this kind of a system is to stay out of the spotlight. Gene |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Requirement to fly departure procedures | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 77 | October 15th 03 06:39 PM |
Riddle me this, pilots | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | August 30th 03 04:02 AM |