The "take advantage" phrase doesn't apply to the events Sundancer described, because the aircraft on the ground had not "already landed" and was not "attempting to make way" for the aircraft on final approach.
ATITPPA origin finally discovered?
- Thread starter Let'sgoflying!
- Start date
Whatever the case, it's subjective. It's not "1 mile, or 1 minute" or anything measurable.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
With ADS-B it's a lot easier than it has been, as long as both aircraft are suitably equipped. At a towered field it would be considered a runway incursion, which can be significant violation if evasive action is taken.
I sincerely hope to God NOT. For more reasons than one. That would be terrible in so many ways.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Have you seen any of the ADS-B data from the recent mid-air at Dallas, or the one at Watsonville? There is a tremendous amount of objective data out there if the FAA needs to access it. It may be terrible, but it's there.
That data is not accurate enough to be used to determine violations. It is also not secure enough. Among other issues. It terrifies me that there are people out there that think that's a good idea.Have you seen any of the ADS-B data from the recent mid-air at Dallas, or the one at Watsonville? There is a tremendous amount of objective data out there if the FAA needs to access it. It may be terrible, but it's there.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
The pilot you described would be a fool to make that assumption. It only has to be accurate enough to substantiate the testimony of the people making the complaints.
My only "good idea" was to remind the pilot doing it as a "regular occurrence" that he's jeopardizing his certificate by regularly creating a collision hazard.
I am not and will never be in favor of using ADSB data to support a violation.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Well, then we both wish you were in control of that process.
That would seem to apply to all right-of-way rules. Maybe that's why it takes a pattern of repeated violations for the FAA to take action, as Dave pointed out, and even that's not a guarantee of enforcement. The guy that Sundancer was talking about apparently got away with repeated disregard of the rule.
Sometimes a violation results in the death penalty, however, as happened at Watsonville without FAA involvement.
And more importantly, jeopardizing lives.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I think "evasive action" is the keyword in the subjectivity, and in most cases an unplanned go-around would likely be enough, as it is in a Category B or Category C runway incursion at a towered field. Keep in mind that the FAA is typically more aggressive in taking action when it involves a "hazardous attitude", and repeated actions like this usually fit into one or more of those categories.
I’ve seen people freak out and “go around” when they were still on base and someone pulled onto the runway and took off. It’s subjective.
I once took off right after a guy reported that he was on base, and the guy bitched at me on the CTAF off and on for several minutes.
Can you think of a way to write the rule that would eliminate the subjectivity?
No. I can think of ways to make it better, but not eliminate all subjectivity.
My point is that I don't want the FAA taking action based on subjective "facts" from third parties.
I hope they would at least require adequate corroboration, and compliance with the rules of evidence that apply in court.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Well, I think that generally speaking they do that, but I believe the rules of evidence are different when it's conducted by an administrative law judge. Look at the whole Bob Hoover fiasco to get an idea of how screwed up it can be.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Don’t **** off the FAA, and they probably won’t.
That's not very comforting.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
In 40 years with a pilot certificate, and 30+ of those working fairly regularly with the FAA, I’ve never had reason to believe I ****ed them off, so it works just fine for me.
Things like this always work all the way up until they don't. Then you have no recourse.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’ve told my share of people to **** off, but I’ve managed to avoid that with the FAA. If I did, I’d be pretty sure I ****ed them off, and I’m pretty sure “no recourse” would also be justified.
Even when it is not justified, you still have no recourse.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Feel free to live your life in terror of the big, bad FAA. I’ll live mine assuming that most of them are reasonable people.
Most of them are probably reasonable people. But many are not.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Feel free to live your life in terror of the minority.
Feel free to stick your head in the sand about the danger.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wilco. But I really don’t see a point in worrying about something that you have no control over.
Last edited: