2nd crash---

[TMetzinger]

.

Not saying there aren't people who drive me nuts and I think have no business being at the control of an airplane, but everyone is thought to be a crappy pilot by someone. That alone shouldn't allow anyone to lose their ticket.
.

And it won't. At the worst it will cause the FAA to monitor the guy, and IF they find cause they'll take action.

Nobody gets a certificate action because another pilot says bad things about them, unless that other pilot is also an inspector who witnesses a violation.

 

[Missa]

And it won't. At the worst it will cause the FAA to monitor the guy, and IF they find cause they'll take action.

Nobody gets a certificate action because another pilot says bad things about them, unless that other pilot is also an inspector who witnesses a violation.

Exactly, so what is the problem everyone has with reporting him? Isn't it good to have the FAA paying more attention to someone whom seems to need it?

I don't expect the police to arrest people who appear to be robbing my neighbors house just because I said so. I do expect the police to check it out further.

Once upon a time, my mother saw flash lights roaming around the darkened house of a neighbor whom she knew to be out of town. She called the police. They showed up and investigated and it turned out to be the kids who were being paid to feed an animal and get the mail. The animal had gotten out and for some reason they were searching for it with flash lights.

The neighbor and the kids thanked mom for calling the police because she had reason to believe something "not right" was going on.

Same with calling the FAA about someone who you think is doing something "not right" with flying.

 

[silver-eagle]

I'm just curious. Would Greg be inclined to ignore the fact that the guy living next to him had an arsenal of weapons and chose to use them in the backyard any time he felt the need. Or some clown racing his motorcycle/sports car/family mini van up and down his street. Would Old Greg be inclined to notify the authorities or just wait for the clown to hurt someone then stand in front of the news cameras saying he knew this would happen.
When someone sees an issue regarding safety of life and limb, you bet I'll call the appropriate authorities. That's not being holier than thou, that's being safe and cautious.
Stick your head in the sand if you want but the life you save just might be yours.

 

[Dean]

And have flown in your part of the state, there are a bunch of them, what is it with Crop Dusters in that area?

 

[ClimbnSink]

You need to get out of Massachusetts once in a while. I have been that guy with an arsenal of weapons and I used them in the backyard whenever I felt the need. Not unsafe or illegal. Not a common occurrence in MA but not illegal/unsafe everywhere in the state. Do you want the public calling the cops whenever they see an airplane flying at an unsafe altitude? How the heck would the public even know what an unsafe altitude is? See the problem? I'm sure our neighbors in the stop the noise program would be happy to help educate the public though.
As far as 'speeding' cars go that is classic hypocritical behavior. Yeah sure there are one or two random reckless cars here and there but most folks drive 10-15 mph over the speed limit everywhere but want everyone else to do less than the speed limit on their street. I do have neighbors that own quads and ride them on the public roads to get to dirt and no I don't call the cops because I see no harm to myself or others in them doing so. Simply put you don't know what is safe, so no you shouldn't call the cops.

I'm just curious. Would Greg be inclined to ignore the fact that the guy living next to him had an arsenal of weapons and chose to use them in the backyard any time he felt the need. Or some clown racing his motorcycle/sports car/family mini van up and down his street. Would Old Greg be inclined to notify the authorities or just wait for the clown to hurt someone then stand in front of the news cameras saying he knew this would happen.
When someone sees an issue regarding safety of life and limb, you bet I'll call the appropriate authorities. That's not being holier than thou, that's being safe and cautious.
Stick your head in the sand if you want but the life you save just might be yours.

 

[jesse]

I'm just curious. Would Greg be inclined to ignore the fact that the guy living next to him had an arsenal of weapons and chose to use them in the backyard any time he felt the need.

What's wrong with having an arsenal of weapons and shooting them in your backyard? In much of the country this is very legal.

 

[TMetzinger]

OK, let's say he was using that arsenal in a manifestly unsafe way - no backstop, for instance. You'd do something then, wouldn't you?

 

[sba55]

I have been that guy with an arsenal of weapons and I used them in the backyard whenever I felt the need. Not unsafe or illegal.

I'm so glad that this will get you arrested in CA in a heartbeat. Scary stuff to see other people who might be unqualified and potentially psychotic using weapons meant to kill things next to my house.

How is this similar to reporting a plane flying low? The plane's primary purpose is not to kill, and as a layperson I have no idea if what the pilot is doing is dangerous or irresponsible. Weapons !~ planes in any way.

-Felix

 

[jesse]

I'm so glad that this will get you arrested in CA in a heartbeat. Scary stuff to see other people who might be unqualified and potentially psychotic using weapons meant to kill things next to my house.

Sigh...I have nothing more to say.

There are plenty of places in CA where you could have an "arsenal" of weapons and shoot them in your backyard.

 

[jesse]

OK, let's say he was using that arsenal in a manifestly unsafe way - no backstop, for instance. You'd do something then, wouldn't you?

That's pretty hard to say without seeing the situation. Yes if bullets were flinging into my house or in my general direction then yes, I would have something to say about that. That said - that situation is very rare.

I've grown up around firearms and farms and shooting. I can't think of a single situation where I've ever been concerned about someone else's firearm usage on their property. I'd rather my neighbors be armed then otherwise.

 

[steingar]

I'm so glad that this will get you arrested in CA in a heartbeat. Scary stuff to see other people who might be unqualified and potentially psychotic using weapons meant to kill things next to my house.

Yeah, that'd get you carted off to the pokie in a big hurry in my neighborhood too.

The thing is, for someone on the ground to report a pilot, they'd have to do so using his tail number. If an aircraft is the requisite 1000 feet from any person or dwelling, I doubt the observer will be able to read a tail number without high powered binoculars. So if someone reports a low-flying aircraft and has a tail number, I would tend to take such a report very seriously.

 

[jesse]

Yeah, that'd get you carted off to the pokie in a big hurry in my neighborhood too.

The thing is, for someone on the ground to report a pilot, they'd have to do so using his tail number. If an aircraft is the requisite 1000 feet from any person or dwelling, I doubt the observer will be able to read a tail number without high powered binoculars. So if someone reports a low-flying aircraft and has a tail number, I would tend to take such a report very seriously.

The public reporting every airplane where they could read the tail number would be a serious burden on our tax dollars and the pilots whom would then have to defend themselves. There are plenty of times you can operate legally where someone on the ground would be capable of reading your tail number.

 

[steingar]

The public reporting every airplane where they could read the tail number would be a serious burden on our tax dollars and the pilots whom would then have to defend themselves. There are plenty of times you can operate legally where someone on the ground would be capable of reading your tail number.

If that someone has the visual acuity of a peregrine falcon, perhaps. Otherwise you would have to be operating with some sort of waiver, which should be verifiable in a facile manner.

 

[jesse]

If that someone has the visual acuity of a peregrine falcon, perhaps. Otherwise you would have to be operating with some sort of waiver, which should be verifiable in a facile manner.

Or landing at a private airport someone does not know about - or a public airport someone does not know about - or flying in a very rule area 500 ft from any structures, people, or vehicles.

There are *lots* of times someone can be flying in a situation where someone on teh ground can read the tail number. The last thing we want is everyone calling to nark them out. Most of them would be legal, some of them might not be, and almost none of them would have been a real threat. Last time I checked we should probably slow down our government spending...over regulating sure the hell isn't going to accomplish that.

Everything sounds dandy until you're the person that's having to defend yourself from some bull**** observation or wrongful accusation. When one becomes the subject of regulation it doesn't sound so wonderful anymore.

 

[steingar]

Perhaps I give people a little too much credit, I would like to think that it would dawn on someone if the aircraft were coming in for a landing, and might check to see if this was so before calling the Feds. There already are regulations, I was just mentioning how someone trying to enforce them might not affect anybody legit overly much. Not easy to spot tail numbers if you're that far away. You really don't have to get your panties in a wad over it.

 

[jesse]

Perhaps I give people a little too much credit, I would like to think that it would dawn on someone if the aircraft were coming in for a landing, and might check to see if this was so before calling the Feds. There already are regulations, I was just mentioning how someone trying to enforce them might not affect anybody legit overly much. Not easy to spot tail numbers if you're that far away. You really don't have to get your panties in a wad over it.

I would say I'm the one NOT getting my panties in a wad by suggesting that the encouragement of reporting pilots about something they have no knowledge regarding is not a good thing. But, I forgot, the Professor is always right.

 

[silver-eagle]

What's wrong with having an arsenal of weapons and shooting them in your backyard? In much of the country this is very legal.

Context. I live in an urban area where the AVERAGE lot size is 15,000 SF. Some chucklehead starts shooting in the yard next to me, I'm calling the police. If there's acres between neighbors, AND IT IS A FAIRLY COMMON EVENT, then sure, ignore it.
High speed driving on a road that has 5 cars an hour with house lots half a mile a part is probably less an issue than that same high speed driving in an urban area.
It's all context.
Surely you can see the difference.

You need to get out of Massachusetts once in a while....

And no, I don't have to get out of Ma. I understand context.
The OP was pointing out an individual who exhibited poor skill and poor judgment. I'd wager that even IF the FAA pulled his ticket, it wouldn't stop him. If we as pilots are not going to police ourselves, to make flying as safe as possible, then we have to accept the consequences which generally include further regulations and TFRs. So yeah, I'd call on him too!

 

[jesse]

Context. I live in an urban area where the AVERAGE lot size is 15,000 SF. Some chucklehead starts shooting in the yard next to me, I'm calling the police. If there's acres between neighbors, AND IT IS A FAIRLY COMMON EVENT, then sure, ignore it.
High speed driving on a road that has 5 cars an hour with house lots half a mile a part is probably less an issue than that same high speed driving in an urban area.
It's all context.
Surely you can see the difference.

Indeed I can - if the shooting were illegal which it generally is in cities I would call the police too. Problem is when people make statements like the above. I'm not saying don't report things that are illegal. I'm saying if they are legal it's in everyones best interest to mind your own business. If the shooting were legal it would simply drive up everyones taxes reporting it for no reason. Some aren't comfortable around firearms and are in areas where there are few but think that their areas laws apply everywhere or should. Back off with regulation, let communities define their own laws, and if you don't like legal activity take it up with your politicians.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Sample scenario for all on either side of this "narc-out" discussion.

You are a friend of a student pilot.

You notice many problems with the content of lessons being given to your friend. You inquire further and find out that there are significant gaps in knowledge of the individual and determine that the instructor has not given your friend the required information at all. No familiarity with flight following, not much radio communication knowledge, doesn't know what a steep turn is, was free to fly solo to any airport he wanted to, made frequent flights to his beach house which is a long cross country flight, had no sign-offs for anything, etc...

You know the instructor and have flown with him as an acquaintance many times. On several occasions, this instructor has done things that were very unsafe, and certainly, illegal. Flying inside the pattern of another aircraft at an untowered field because the other aircraft was taking too long and had too wide a pattern. Covering the windscreen to practice IFR scan.

Your friend calls you up and says he is quitting because the instructor made him fly toward a thunderstorm, albeit a light one, because "you'll need to know how to deal with turbulence sooner or later." They also almost ran out of fuel on the way home and had to divert because of it.

He contacts the FSDO to complain about the instructor and the FSDO contacts you regarding the instructor.

How do you proceed?


I don't believe that ratting out the pilot, just because he is flying again is right, personally. Unless you know he is doing it illegally. Then, yes. But, if the FAA grants him another chance, then they feel that he has learned from his past mistakes and has moved on. From the sounds of it, though, the pilot in the original post is not likely to continue unless he gets a special issuance, considering his condition.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Interesting article in the context of the discussion, for those who think the FAA is only ever interested in civil actions...that might be true, but others may decide differently.

http://news.sierrawave.net/index.ph...enced-to-federal-prison&catid=6&Itemid=200021

 

[Henning]

If he is unfortunatly paralyized then he is not going to fly again unless he can work out something with an organization like Able Flight or buys an Ercoupe.

Not true. Louie Rigo has an STC mod for hand controls for Bonanzas. I helped install one for a guy in an A-36 and it works pretty sweet. That the guy had 2 Pilot Error crashes in a short time doesn't really indicate well for whether he should continue flying if he can (especially with pax). There are also quite a few weight shift ultralights that would probably be easier and more accessible both physically and financially.

 

[Ted]

Perhaps I give people a little too much credit, I would like to think that it would dawn on someone if the aircraft were coming in for a landing, and might check to see if this was so before calling the Feds.

You are giving people far, far too much credit.

Remember, these are the same "people" who build a house next to an existing airport that's been around since before they were born, and then demand noise abatement procedures be put in effect so they don't have to hear the planes. These same people demand the airport be shut down.

Why do you think they'll do any research whatsoever to determine whether or not an airplane is flying legally? I have had non-pilots ask me on a number of occasions why engine failures are so common. I probe, confused, and find out there's a baseball field abeam the numbers for runway 12 at Williamsport. Every time that an instructor pulls the power on a student right there, they hear the engine quit, think it's real.

 

[timwinters]

OTOH I didn't report the crop duster that landed opposite direction over the top of me as I was rolling out on the runway one day...I should have...I let his crying wife with a new baby at home talk me out of it. I hope he doens't kill a fellow pilot one day because I didn't report his ignorant ass.

And have flown in your part of the state, there are a bunch of them, what is it with Crop Dusters in that area?

There are indeed a bunch of them and most are crazy. That's why they're cropdusters in the fist place

The incident I described, though, occurred over at Lamar (LLU) when I landed there for grins on the way to visit Diana one day.

 

[SkyHog]

How do you proceed?

According to some of the drivel in this thread, apparently you proceed by staying quiet and letting it be someone else's problem instead.

Myself? I try to keep the bad ones on the ground.

 

[jesse]

Myself? I try to keep the bad ones on the ground.

If they're operating legally how are you going to do that? How do you determine who is "bad". What if someone determines you are "bad". It's a slippery slope.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If they're operating legally how are you going to do that? How do you determine who is "bad". What if someone determines you are "bad". It's a slippery slope.

Maybe so, but look at the guy in Bryon's case - I'd report that guy in a heartbeat, especially because he's a CFI and is making more unsafe pilots.

There are others who are unsafe yet probably legal - I just tell my friends and family not to fly with them, though it saddens me that they'll probably still manage to kill their own friends and family someday.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Well, I will tell you what happened.

I typed a long letter detailing all of the things that I had personally was a witness to. I also gave testimony as to the problems with my friends training and the level of knowledge he seemed to lack and the discussions we had. I also detailed all of the "training" this CFI was doing in an airplane that was not being maintained to a 100 hour inspection program.

The result?

After hearing eveything, speaking to the CFI, they decided to..........

........ allow him to make safety videos for the FAA, AOPA and the general flying public for various types of flights, such as SFRA flying and the like. He was also the safety seminar speaker for the FAA at the last fly-in.

That was certainly not what I would have expected.

As to the original discussion. I can see the point of trying to keep people from flying illegally, and certainly helping people to fly safer, but what are you going to say to people who just don't have the ability to fly safely, but they do it legally? Everybody makes mistakes, and I would guess that there are many accidents out there that could have been prevented had someone just done one thing differently, but didn't. Are they incapable? Where is the line drawn? At one mistake? At a lapse in judgement? When someone was unable to keep from running off the runway because of mechanical issues? When they are too fast and burn up the entire runway on landing? I would hate for someone to decide that because of things I have done, that I am not good enough to fly.