Administrative “law” strikes seaplane pilot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where is the pilot and sea plane based? Maybe the flight school didn’t like him in their area.
 
TommyG said:
Where is the pilot and sea plane based? Maybe the flight school didn’t like him in their area.
Click to expand...

What’s the FAR violation for a school not liking you in their area?

The famously unconstitutional 91.13?
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

Necessary means required to be done. A river is a heck of a long runway.
Click to expand...

Required you say?

So basically nearly all of GA is not needed, and based on that illegal, soo welcome fellow “aviation enthusiast” lol What’s your GS?


Would be great if we made all goverment not required illegal
 
Roller said:
What’s it is FAR violation for school not liking you in their area?

The famously unconstitutional 91.13?
Click to expand...
Just saying maybe they are the ones complaining to the FAA.
 
TommyG said:
Just saying maybe they are the ones complaining to the FAA.
Click to expand...

Report of a legal action should result in educating the caller on the law and possible punishments for abuse of the reporting system

Filing a false report is still a crime right?
 
Last edited:
Roller said:
Report of a legal action should be result in educating the caller on the law and possible punishments for abuse of the reporting system

Filing a false report is still a crime right?
Click to expand...

Filing a complaint to the FAA is not a crime.

Breaking FAA regulations are civil not criminal.
 
TommyG said:
Filing a complaint to the FAA is not a crime.

Breaking FAA regulations are civil not criminal.
Click to expand...


And that’s why we are a Karen nation

It should be a actionable re education to report legal actions, report someone for something that’s not against the law they should be able to take you to court

And the FAA should be held to beyond the administrative level, airmen should be protected to the criminal level for accusations, innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

But I’m also a fan of

 
Roller said:
Required you say?

So basically nearly all of GA is not needed, and based on that illegal, soo welcome fellow “aviation enthusiast” lol What’s your GS?


Would be great if we made all goverment not required illegal
Click to expand...
Did the government require the PIC to take off on a several hundred mile long river next to a bridge or did the PIC decide that?
 
Clip4 said:
Did the government require the PIC to take off on a several hundred mile long river next to a bridge or did the PIC decide that?
Click to expand...

When’s the last takeoff you had that was required by the state?
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Other than checkrides, it would be 1972 in South Vietnam. <g>
Click to expand...

Take those flights and compare to the rest of the flights you have flown.

I’d figure north of 98% of them were “not required”
 
I have often told my students that other than medevac or combat, almost no flight is required... and it is a good question to ask yourself prior to every takeoff.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
I have often told my students that other than medevac or combat, almost no flight is required... and it is a good question to ask yourself prior to every takeoff.
Click to expand...

Thankfully as Americans we are not that controlled by government.

Every flight I have ever made was required, every bit of steak I ate was required, every one of my hobbies is required, as is my nice watch that doesn’t keep time as well as my phone.

When we have to justify every thing we do to a government, it might be time to rethink said government
 
91.119 makes no mention of whether a takeoff or landing is "required". It exempts one from minimum altitude when necessary for takeoff or landing. So even if you land someplace inappropriate, they shouldn't be able to bust you for minimum altitude doing it... though they might try 91.13.
 
Dana said:
91.119 makes no mention of whether a takeoff or landing is "required". It exempts one from minimum altitude when necessary for takeoff or landing. So even if you land someplace inappropriate, they shouldn't be able to bust you for minimum altitude doing it... though they might try 91.13.
Click to expand...
Not the way I read the regulation, and not the way the FAA reads it.

Necessary means required to be done. When on a 100 mile long river, a takeoff in a location where flying low over a bridge for training or fun is not necessary in a float plane.

Except when it is required for takeoff and landing is the proper interpretation of the regulation pared with careless operation.

You own a 3000 ft sod airport. A house is located at the mid point 2000 ft to one side. If you opt to do a short field take off, bank 45° at 25 ft AGL and fly 100 ft over the house, was that necessary for takeoff?
 
Last edited:
Lacking the realfacts, I suspect the initial takeoff run started too close to the bridge, and the plane crossed the bridge at an unusually low altitude.

Roller may feel that as long as no vehicles were impacted, all is fine.
 
Roller said:
Based on what was released, based on the rule book, seaplane did nothing wrong. How one could get anything else from that is beyond me
Click to expand...
Based on what was released, based on the rule book, how do you get the assumptions in your OP?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Based on what was released, based on the rule book, how do you get the assumptions in your OP?
Click to expand...

Based off the article

Compared to the FAR

Guy didn’t do anything wrong

He was doing a takeoff or landing, maybe got somewhat close to a bridge….and? That’s legal
 
Roller said:
Based off the article

Compared to the FAR

Guy didn’t do anything wrong

He was doing a takeoff or landing, maybe got somewhat close to a bridge….and? That’s legal
Click to expand...
Where in the article did it say the violation was based on ADS-B tracking, with no complaint, no eyewitness statements, and no video of the event?

As @midlifeflyer noted in post #2, there is a striking lack of factual detail in the AOPA report.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Where in the article did it say the violation was based on ADS-B tracking, with no complaint, no eyewitness statements, and no video of the event?

As @midlifeflyer noted in post #2, there is a striking lack of factual detail in the AOPA report.
Click to expand...

Deduction, if there is no witness, no video, what else could they base it on
 
Roller said:
Deduction, if there is no witness, no video, what else could they base it on
Click to expand...
again, where in the article does it say “there were no witnesses, and no video”?

AOPA wrote that article specifically to sucker people into an anti-FAA stance to make it look like AOPA actually does something, and you fell for it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
again, where in the article does it say “there were no witnesses, and no video”?

AOPA wrote that article specifically to sucker people into an anti-FAA stance to make it look like AOPA actually does something, and you fell for it.
Click to expand...

A omission speaks almost as loud as a commission

AOPA loves the FAA and ADSB, they have been little cheerleaders for that

As a pilot and someone who has read the federalist papers and has a memory of history of more than say a month, I don’t need AOPA to tell me not to trust government
 
Roller said:
A omission speaks almost as loud as a commission

AOPA loves the FAA and ADSB, they have been little cheerleaders for that

As a pilot and someone who has read the federalist papers and has a memory of history of more than say a month, I don’t need AOPA to tell me not to trust government
Click to expand...
So you don’t trust the government, but you trust government employees. It’s the people that make government untrustworthy.

And you trust AOPA, who love the FAA and ADS-B.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
So you don’t trust the government, but you trust government employees. It’s the people that make government untrustworthy.

And you trust AOPA, who love the FAA and ADS-B.
Click to expand...


I don’t trust government workers, they are the reason much of government is the way it is.

I don’t trust the media ether, I only trust them to try to get clicks/likes/subscriptions.

That being said they didn’t make this case up and referenced some of what they claim

Between trusting AOPA or the FAA, well the AOPA never tried to destroy my career over nothing, so AOPA is probably going to win that one ha ha!

 
MauleSkinner said:
But none of what you claim.

Face it, you got suckered.
Click to expand...

So what did I claim?

He was flying a seaplane Check

He was doing take offs and landings Check

He was on a river where it’s legal Check

FAA is going after him Check

No mention of a video or witness Check
 
Roller said:
So what did I claim?

He was flying a seaplane Check

He was doing take offs and landings Check

He was on a river where it’s legal Check

FAA is going after him Check

No mention of a video or witness Check
Click to expand...
You claim there was misuse of ADS-B, that an FAA employee didn’t lie.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
??? I’m sure some software program somewhere saw that as a put-down but I’m not sure most humans would see it that way - not sure.

Then again, why am I trying to hold an intelligent conversation with a bunch of electrons?
Click to expand...

If you honestly think everyone you disagree with is a robot or Russian spy

stop-it-get-some-help.gif


MauleSkinner said:
You claim there was misuse of ADS-B, that an FAA employee didn’t lie.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but my gut tells me if they had video or witness. They would be a little more forward with that to make their case sound more credible.


If the FAA action was based on lies or on the misuse of the ADSB system is one really that better than the other, if either a true that should be a fireable offense and a lawsuit
 
Last edited:
Roller said:
Perhaps, but my gut tells me if they had video or witness. They would be a little more forward with that to make their case sound more credible.
Click to expand...
Maybe the video or witness didn’t support their attempt to dupe you.
Roller said:
If the FAA action was based on lies or on the misuse of the ADSB system is one really that better than the other, if either a true that should be a fireable offense and a lawsuit
Click to expand...
I didn’t say the FAA action was based on lies. I merely indicated that you believed an FAA employee who said he was doing takeoffs and landings when, by your own admission, he can’t be trusted.

But you just go on basing judgements on a lack of facts…you might be able to get a job with the FAA.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe the video or witness didn’t support their attempt to dupe you.

I didn’t say the FAA action was based on lies. I merely indicated that you believed an FAA employee who said he was doing takeoffs and landings when, by your own admission, he can’t be trusted.

But you just go on basing judgements on a lack of facts…you might be able to get a job with the FAA.
Click to expand...


Folks don’t lie for the benefit of being they are trying to hurt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top