Vindicated: The Rule with the Murphy's Law Chancre on It

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:iE2Re.7744$wE1.2342@trndny01...
From the site you quoted:

Title 15, Section 15.16.110 of the King County
code states, "Except aircraft in control of authorized maintenance
shops, no aircraft engine should be started or run unless a pilot or
mechanic is attending the controls."

It doesn't say anything about 'the beast being tied down'.

" jls" wrote in message
...

Apples and cumquats. They've tried to get through to you libertarians
that
you have to have a competent person at the controls or at least have the
beast tied down.

If I were cited under the King County ordinance for violation and I had the
aircraft tied down, I would argue, probably in futility, that the spirit if
not the letter of the law had been complied with, since the obvious public
policy of the ordinance was to deter aircraft from running off berserk
without a pilot and tearing up things and killing people.

To my knowledge the FAA never violates anyone on the rule requiring a
competent person at the controls when an aircraft engine is started, unless
the aircraft gets away and does some of those weird things they are wont to
do --- as in slice up other airplanes or hangars.

Someone disregarding that rule, for whatever reason, could and should
at
least show common sense.
-------------------------------------------------------

Common sense is remarkably uncommon stuff in the world of aviation.

-R.S.Hoover

"Steve Foley" wrote ...
Title 15, Section 15.16.110 of the King County
code states, "Except aircraft in control of authorized maintenance
shops, no aircraft engine should be started or run unless a pilot or
mechanic is attending the controls."

OK. You got a pilot or mechanic sitting in your airplane and your airplane
only has one set of brake peddles. You swing the prop on your own airplane
and it starts up. Now, how do you get the ******* out of your airplane
without breaking the law?

Rich

A northwesterner is criminally cited for handpropping his aircraft without
a competent person at the controls. Apparently old news but still salient.

The question is...what happened afterwards? Did the guy cop a plea, did he get
fined, did they drop the charges?

Ron Wanttaja

wrote:

Someone disregarding that rule, for whatever reason, could and should
at
least show common sense.
-------------------------------------------------------

Common sense is remarkably uncommon stuff in the world of aviation.

-R.S.Hoover

Why limit the remark to Aviation?
John

Actually, it also doesn't mention "someone competent". It states "a
pilot or mechanic". That's a much narrower group of people.

He should plead innocent, and testify that he was in fact "attending"
the controls. He had them set just so - throttle cracked, fuel off (so
when it starts it runs for just long enough to get in and get your
hands on the throttle) brakes set, tied down with a quick-release. The
letter of the law doesn't require someone in the cockpit.