GA flying and the Law

smigaldi said:
There are plenty of rules about other vehicles. Though they are not as straight forward as the FARs and the FAA, mostly because states are also heavily involved.
Click to expand...

While people complain about the FAA running aviation, I'm quite sure we don't want each individual state running aviation. Sometimes the federal government really is the best option.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Yes but that doesn't mean it is a) OK or b) that we should be willing to just accept what is happening!

Btw, is there a Federal Motorcycle Administration?
Are there "FMR"s (like the FARs) of many chapters and hundreds of pages of minutae?
How about a Fed. Snowmobile Administration?
(I honestly don't know. If there is, that doesn't make it OK!)

I think if we believe that we are 'doing OK' with the current level of restriction and regulation in aviation then they have wore us down to where they want us.

Just because we have it better than Europe doesn't mean it is anything near acceptable to me. Europe is draconian. We are 'barely tolerable' and headed towards draconian.

It is just part of the More Government Control and Intrusion in Our Lives syndrome. Believe it or not I was oblivious and naive to it, 10 years ago. Doubted that it existed, thought those talking about it were off the deep end.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with you about your subject, but there is a USDOT, and the NHTSA, and a gazillion other sub-bureaus under the DOT.

The amount that the Federal goverment spends on highway safety standards and regulations, safe construction guidelines, automobile safety research and standards, and in the NHTSA likely exceeds the entire FAA and NTSB budgets by an order of magnitude.
 
Here is what I am saying:

Isn’t it nice to be able to drive anywhere you want to, whenever you want to? Isn’t this one of the freedoms we have come to expect here in the USA? Sure, you need to be responsible, have enough gas in the tank, possess a license, and be physically able. But you can do it without the government watching to see who you are carrying, where you are going, and when you are planning to be there. But if the rules being imposed on aviation in the United States take their full course, folks with boats wanting to go out and play on the river and folks wanting to go somewhere in their cars will have something entirely new to deal with – restrictions on their freedom to travel.

Yes, as it stands right now regulations are in place that will severely limit the ability of United States citizens to travel freely around the country by personal aircraft. Efforts to enforce identification requirements are being imposed on airfields, passenger manifests are being scrutinized, and entire blocks of airspace are being deemed off limits to these special citizens. Is this the way we want to live in the USA? Did our forefathers die for these restrictions on our freedom? I don’t think so…

The entire premise for these restrictions is flawed. Sure, hijackers stole aircraft and murdered thousands of Americans on that fateful day in September 2001. Does that mean we should all cower behind a plethora of ineffective regulations? We have had laws for a long time against hijacking, carrying a weapon onboard an aircraft, and speeding down the highway for that matter. Did those rules stop these events from happening? No. The only way these sort of events are stopped is through pressure from our fellow citizens paying attention and standing up for their freedom. Personal safety results from personal responsibility. Public safety results from public responsibility. Good police work and communications beat broad stroke searches and restrictions every time.

The hijackers from 9/11 were known to the US government and their methods were already understood; it was the failure of our public institutions to act that enabled these criminals to act. Imposing blanket restrictions on the citizens of the USA does not solve the basic bureaucratic problems that exist in our government, nor does it add any safety to our citizens. Each of us needs to take responsibility for our own actions and act to protect ourselves and our freedoms. We must not shirk these responsibilities. When we allow our freedoms to be compromised in the name of ‘safety,’ then we will have lost some of the inalienable rights that this country is based on. Homeland Security has a sour sound to it that does not express my desire for a free United States of America. Freedom has a cost and sometimes that cost will be in human lives. We must not let the sacrifices of those that have gone before us be for nothing.

Please join me in speaking out against the unnecessary restrictions to American freedoms that are slowly being imposed on the citizens of the USA.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I really liked the term I saw in an article/blog/somewhere calling them "Pilot-controlled airports." We should all try to start using that instead.
Click to expand...
I think AOPA uses the term. I don't really think it will catch on. I think it's a tiny bit too loaded. "You mean all those nutty thrill-seekers who are flying those dangerous small airplanes are controlling the airport!!!???" :eek:

I like non-towered since it sounds pretty neutral. On the face just means there's no tower, not there's no control.
 
smigaldi said:
Bureau

http://www.atf.gov/

They still refer to themselves often as just ATF.

But I like calling them the BAT-F
Click to expand...

F-troop..

Always Think Forfeiture.

You are correct, BATFE, doesn't generally regulate the use of firearms after they are purchased, only the production/acquisiton/disposition of them. Local authorities regulate when/where/how you can use firearms. At least you can still own an airplane if you have a criminal record. You just can't fly it if they revoke your license.
 
alaskaflyer said:
No one would give a rat's tookus if we only killed ourselves - problem is we kill plenty of passengers and those on the ground too.
Click to expand...


We do? How many non-pilots/people on the ground are killed by GA each year?

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Number of Fatal Accidents 335 301 297 299 307 306 286 290 267 252
Fatal Accident Rate 1.38 1.11 1.14 1.27 1.32 1.29 1.25 1.38 1.24 1.18
Fatalities 626 560 527 573 527 576 528 506 497 449
Click to expand...

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf


From the Nall Report. Looks like around 500 people die including the pilots, passengers and bystanders due to GA accidents each year compared to around 50,000 per year for the highways.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
We do? How many non-pilots/people on the ground are killed by GA each year?



http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/08nall.pdf


From the Nall Report. Looks like around 500 people die including the pilots, passengers and bystanders due to GA accidents each year compared to around 50,000 per year for the highways.
Click to expand...

Those losses are all acceptable, both driving and GA. They could be better and we should strive privately to make them better, but they're good enough so as to not need additional government regs.
 
smigaldi said:
Pistol shooting and model rocketry are both regulated by the BATF. YIKES what a PIA agency that is. After 9/11 the BATF ruled that if you buy rocket engines in one state you CANNOT transport them across state lines to use them.

This meant that for me, who lives in Illinois but fires rockets at Bong Rec area in Wisconsin, that I had to buy engines and have a BATF licensed seller carry them to the launch area for me. I then sign that I received them and have to use all of them before I leave the launch.

For those that are willing to go through the licensing procedures they also have to build an approved storage facility in their homes and have a sign off by the local fire department and meet all codes for explosives. Even though rocket motors are NOT explosives under any federal law.
Click to expand...

Wow are you talking like Estes model rocket engines AA-E? That type ?
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Those losses are all acceptable, both driving and GA. They could be better and we should strive privately to make them better, but they're good enough so as to not need additional government regs.
Click to expand...

Now that's what I'm talking about!
You can only legislate so much.
 
2009 so far: 0 persons killed by crashing general aviation aircraft that were not on the aircraft
2008: 4
-12/17/2008 Civilian killed by rotor blade of crashing helicopter (LA County);
-8/22/2008 Crash of experimental aircraft out of North Las Vegas airport; two killed in home struck by aircraft
-1/20/2008 One killed on ground after mid-air collision over Corona, CA

Also:
-Flight paramedic killed in Sedona, AZ when he walked into the rotor
-FBO worker struck by a prop in Oklahoma City (1/3/2008) and
-One mechanic killed in Taylor, TX (4/11/2008) when he was struck by a door that "flew off" a Beech turboprop

2007: 4
-Occupant of boat struck by seaplane killed (5/24/2007; Leeville, LA)
-Three killed when the NASCAR executive aircraft struck an apartment complex (7/10/2007; Sanford, FL)

Also:
-Pilot struck by rotor of helicopter (11/9/2007 Morristown, TN)
-Passenger struck by rotor of helicopter (9/8/2007 Ellensburg, WA)

2006: 1
-Bystander (wife of pilot attempting to take photographs of aircraft) struck by experimental aircraft; 8/18/2006

Also:
-Pilot/passenger (?) struck by propeller (7/22/2006; Dexter, NM)
-Pilot struck by prop (6/25/2006; Hayward, CA)
-Struck by prop (2/24/2006; Forrest City, CA)
-Mechanic sucked into engine of 737-500 (1/16/2006)

2005: 2
-Two passengers in SUV struck by aircraft killed; 7/26/2005; Georgetown, DE

Also:
-Ground collision between parked Embraer 170 and belt baggage loader; driver of the baggage loader killed; (6/7/2005, Washington, DC)
-Pilot walked into propeller (1/18/2005; Casa Grande, AZ)

2004: 0
Also:
-Pilot killed when struck in eye by fractured eyebolt during filling of hot air balloon; 4/7/2004
 
Last edited:
On a related note, below was my response to "concerns" about safety for those living near the Cuyahoga County Airport after some local residents tried to make it sound like the sky was falling in this article:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/fatal_mayfield_plane_crash_pro.html

Fatal Mayfield plane crash provokes concern of Cuyahoga County Airport neighbors

Posted by Amanda Garrett / Plain Dealer Reporter April 29, 2009 20:39PM





Some people who live near the Cuyahoga County Airport knew what happened as soon as the ground shook. A plane had crashed.
Their first thought: I hope it didn't hit somebody's house.
When the county airport opened decades ago, the runway was surrounded by farmland. Now, as the airport pushes to expand, it's ringed by suburbs and many who live there fear an airplane will crash into their house.
Investigators haven't determined what caused Tuesday's small-plane crash, which killed two lawyers flying home to Buffalo after taking a deposition in Cleveland.
Just after takeoff, their Cirrus SR22 went down and exploded in woods just east of SOM Center Road in Mayfield about 4:15 p.m.
Some neighbors called the pilot a hero, believing he must have steered the plane awayfrom a subdivision and to the edge of Cleveland Metroparks' North Chagrin Reservation.
"But every time something like this happens, you look at your family and wonder if a plane will hit our house one day," said Mike Coiner, a 20-year resident of Willoughby Hills, whose house lies in the flight path of the Richmond Heights airport.
The skies over Coiner's house were quiet Wednesday. The airport closed to make runway repairs that had nothing to do with the crash.
In Buffalo and in Cleveland, colleagues Wednesday mourned Michael H. Doran and Matthew J. Schnirel.
Schnirel had only recently passed the bar exam. Doran, a certified pilot, was an experienced trial lawyer who frequently appeared in the courtroom of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Harry Hanna, who presides over the asbestos docket.
"He had a very good sense of what to fight over, and he wouldn't waste your time on petty issues," Hanna said.
Maggie Wallison, Hanna's bailiff, added: "It's a very sad day over here."
Meanwhile, many people who live and work around the county airport were asking themselves and their neighbors whether they felt safe, particularly now that the airport plans to grow.
Over the past five years, the airport has averaged about 51,000 takeoffs and landings each year and it plans to expand, airport manager Kevin Delaney said Wednesday.
In February, despite protests of neighbors and some elected officials, Cuyahoga County commissioners voted unanimously to pass a master plan for the airport, which includes a runway extension for jets and a 600-foot-long area at the end of the runway for safety.
Paul Oyaski, the county's director of development, said the plan will make the area safer, quieter and more productive.
But Mayor Robert Weger of Willoughby Hills -- a vociferous opponent of airport expansion -- said the expansion means one thing to his constituents: Increased air traffic.
"And more airplanes means more probability of something going wrong," said Weger, who accompanied about 300 people to a commissioners meeting last April to protest the expansion.
Apparently frustrated by the opposition, commissioners at the time tabled the expansion and offered to sell the airport to those who opposed the plan.
Weger said his city expressed interest, but never heard an asking price until nearly a year later. At 6:30 p.m. on Feb. 11 -- the evening before the commissioners planned to vote on the master plan and after City Hall had closed -- Oyaski left a voice mail for Weger naming the county's price: $100 million.
"It was ludicrous. I had about 16 hours to come up with $100 million," Weger said Wednesday.
Oyaski said he left the message about 4:30 p.m. that day at the behest of a county commissioner who wanted to know whether Willoughby Hills was serious about buying the airport.
Weger maintains he is serious about a purchase, and Oyaski said it's not too late. Even though commissioners approved the expansion, the Federal Aviation Administration must approve and help fund it. Along the way, Oyaski said a buyer can step in.
Willoughby Hills resident Gil Martello said he doesn't care who owns the airport.
He ticked off a few plane crashes that have happened in the neighborhood over the past 20 years, including one in his back yard.
"More planes equals more danger," Martello said. "I'm dead set against expansion."
Click to expand...


This was my e-mail to the reporter:
Ms. Garrett,
I read your article regarding the plane crash near the Cuyahoga County airport and felt compelled to contact you after seeing the reactionary comments by Mr. Martello and others in your article. As both an aviation safety researcher- and perhaps more significantly to the average reader- someone who lives under the traffic pattern of the a very busy general aviation airport in Indianapolis, I would like to state for the record that the dangers of living near an airport are so minimal as to be the last thing a homeowner should be terribly concerned by. The reason the "problem" seems so obvious boils down to a simple selection bias. In other words, most people do not notice the vast majority of flights that operate without problems and place excessive emphasis on the extreme minority of flights that end in a "crash" which can constitute anything from a hard landing to a fatal event like occurred in Mayfield Village.

While the ideal situation would be to route the aircraft away from a residential area (or not have the airport surrounded by homes to begin with), the hazards to a given home or even a neighborhood is akin to the odds of being struck by lightning while holding the winning lottery ticket. There was actually a study (Goldstein et al, 1992 in Risk Analysis, 12(3):339-41) done several years back addressing the risks of people on the ground from aircraft crashes and it found that there was no need for significant worry. The state chance of a person being struck by a crashing aircraft while not involved in aviation related activities is something on the order of 4.2 per million people over the average life span of a person. By comparison, the most widely cited source on the matter states the risk of being killed by lightning as being 1 in 81,949 (keep in mind that most people struck by lightning, perhaps 50-75%, survive the event). The greatest risk to persons on the ground seems to be from pilots attempting to land on roads and highways when no airport is available rather than persons in homes surrounding an operational airport.

As for the number of crashes that Mr. Martello seemed so determined to make public, here are the actual numbers (from the National Transportation Safety Board) for the towns within about five miles of the airport (based upon Google Maps) between 1 January 1979 and today:
Mayfield- 1
-The Cirrus crash
Highland Heights- 0
Euclid- 0
Wickliffe- 0
Lyndhurst- 0
Richmond Heights- 0
Willowick- 1
No one injured during a forced landing in a parking lot (1981)
Cleveland Heights- 0
Collinwood- 0

So where are the "few" plane crashes he claims indicate a risk to the area? Given the traffic volume, Cuyahoga County Airport seems to be an exceedingly safe airport and not anything approaching an out of line risk to the safety of the surrounding communities.

This sort of discussion comes up every time there is a crash at any airport. It most recently came up as major issue prior to the Cuyahoga County crash when two planes crashed near the North Las Vegas airport in one week. While this was a statistical abberation (in other words, bad luck and coincidence), it incited a lot of negative press towards the existence of that airport. The first crash was mostly due to what is more or less a disregard for basic safety practices by a pilot who was flying an experimental aircraft over a populated area- which is a prohibited practice during the test flights and exceedingly uncommon for exactly that reason. The second was the result of a pilot with mechanical problem attempting to return to the field.

Even in the event an aircraft strikes a home, it is not at all uncommon for the the occupants of the home to escape, often with minimal or no injury. An excellent case of this would be the crash of a helicopter into a home in Kenosha, Wisconsin where the family was awakened by the impact but all escaped the home without injury. The people most likely to die or be direly injured in this circumstance are those on board the aircraft, simply because of the truth behind the old adage: "In the ongoing battle between aircraft going a hundred or more miles per hour and the ground going zero, the ground has yet to lose."

If I were asked for my suggestions to improve the safety of a given airport, it would be to restrict the operation of homebuilt or experimental aircraft from a field as I have serious concerns over the attitude towards safety from certain factions of the homebuilt community and also to limit further encroachment upon the airport by new housing. Closing an airport, not lengthening the runway if such an option is already being funded or otherwise limiting the options pilots have when faced with winds or other forms of bad weather is actually likely to increase the risk to the pilots and their passengers, the very persons already at far greater risk than the local homeowners. Keep in mind that traffic heading to Burke Lakefront still heads over that general area when they are landing from the east. The way to look at it is this: would you rather have the pilot have a field to land at in an emergency or would you prefer them to hope for the best and be forced to try to land on a road, yard or random field? The latter is far more dangerous for all involved (pilots, passengers and people on the ground) than the insignificant risk to area residents offered by the presence of an airport.

I hope my comments can be useful in alleviating the concerns of your readers. .
Click to expand...
 
SteveinMichigan said:
2009 so far: 0 persons killed by crashing general aviation aircraft that were not on the aircraft
2008: 4
-12/17/2008 Civilian killed by rotor blade of crashing helicopter (LA County);
-8/22/2008 Crash of experimental aircraft out of North Las Vegas airport; two killed in home struck by aircraft
-1/20/2008 One killed on ground after mid-air collision over Corona, CA

Also:
-Flight paramedic killed in Sedona, AZ when he walked into the rotor
-FBO worker struck by a prop in Oklahoma City (1/3/2008) and
-One mechanic killed in Taylor, TX (4/11/2008) when he was struck by a door that "flew off" a Beech turboprop

2007: 1
-Occupant of boat struck by seaplane killed (5/24/2007; Leeville, LA)

Also:
-Pilot struck by rotor of helicopter (11/9/2007 Morristown, TN)
-Passenger struck by rotor of helicopter (9/8/2007 Ellensburg, WA)

2006: 1
-Bystander (wife of pilot attempting to take photographs of aircraft) struck by experimental aircraft; 8/18/2006

Also:
-Pilot/passenger (?) struck by propeller (7/22/2006; Dexter, NM)
-Pilot struck by prop (6/25/2006; Hayward, CA)
-Struck by prop (2/24/2006; Forrest City, CA)
-Mechanic sucked into engine of 737-500 (1/16/2006)

2005: 2
-Two passengers in SUV struck by aircraft killed; 7/26/2005; Georgetown, DE

Also:
-Ground collision between parked Embraer 170 and belt baggage loader; driver of the baggage loader killed; (6/7/2005, Washington, DC)
-Pilot walked into propeller (1/18/2005; Casa Grande, AZ)

2004: 0
Also:
-Pilot killed when struck in eye by fractured eyebolt during filling of hot air balloon; 4/7/2004
Click to expand...

This seems to be missing the prominent cases in Florida, with airplanes hitting homes...
 
TangoWhiskey said:
This seems to be missing the prominent cases in Florida, with airplanes hitting homes...
Click to expand...
My apologies....I accidentally left out the crash of the NASCAR corporate aircraft in Sanford. I'll edit the count. Other than that, I am not aware of another crash in Florida that has killed anyone on the ground. There were two other plane vs house crashes I am aware of in Florida but both killed only the persons aboard the crash.
 
Last edited:
If I were asked for my suggestions to improve the safety of a given airport, it would be to restrict the operation of homebuilt or experimental aircraft from a field as I have serious concerns over the attitude towards safety from certain factions of the homebuilt community
Click to expand...

Steve - Your letter was great, right up until that. Seriously, you make any of us look bad, we all look bad to the public. They don't know the difference between an experimental and a Cessna.

Sigh.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Steve - Your letter was great, right up until that. Seriously, you make any of us look bad, we all look bad to the public. They don't know the difference between an experimental and a Cessna.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that the first time through.

Steve, I say this in complete seriousness: Help like that we don't need. Like it or not, experimental aircraft are here to stay, and statements like this aren't going to help either aviation's image in the wider world or your efforts to improve safety. AOPA just spent a lot of time and money getting a move to do exactly what you advocate stopped in North Las Vegas, because they understand what you don't: if we don't hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately.

Instead of constantly sniping at people for not meeting your lofty and unreasonable standards of safety, why not work to improve them from the pilot end? Safety begins with the guy in the left seat. Instead of telling him he's doomed because he doesn't have 250 hours of dual, why not find out why people have the spike in accidents between 250 and 500 hours total time, and address the real causes? Instead of telling the builder who's walking on air because the FAA just signed off his 7-year project as airworthy that he's flying a death trap, why not work to publish safety improvements to homebuilt designs that builders can adopt?

Your tactics, as they stand, will simply get you ignored by pilots and seen as the best friend anti-airport NIMBYs can have: a traitor of a pilot.
 
Furthermore, encouraging restrictions on experimental aircraft does a tremendous disservice to all the people who build their planes properly. A properly built experimental is just as good as any other new plane. That certainly has some appeal to me vs. my 40 year old plane.

If you want to encourage experimentals do be "better", do so within the pilot community. Defend aviation as a whole to the rest of the world, because nobody outside of it has a clue about the details of what we do.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Those losses are all acceptable, both driving and GA. They could be better and we should strive privately to make them better, but they're good enough so as to not need additional government regs.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree that they are 'acceptable' though most can be shown to have been caused by willful or negligent disregard for current laws or regulations put in place to partly protect public and individual safety. So as much as your and Dave's argument might be about additional rules you are probably right but I would continue to advocate for a mix of better education and better enforcement on both the highways and airways.
 
alaskaflyer said:
So 500 is not 'plenty'?
Click to expand...


No its not. More than half of them are the pilots that probably, due to pilot error caused the accident. Do I feel badly for them? Yes. Am I willing to enact more laws in the name of "safety". No.

And please don't give me the argument that "If we could only save one more life, it would be worth it." Everything has a cost/price, even life.
 
So, of the supposed 500 or so people killed by GA each year, how many were pilots manipulating the controls (or even passenger certificate holders) vs those along for the ride (or on the ground)?

I'll say it again - the FAA and Congress is institutionally unconcerned if we slaughter ourselves as pilots, but they are very interested if we slaughter the flying public or those on the ground. Theorize about liberty vs safety if you will but we do it to ourselves.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
So, of the supposed 500 or so people killed by GA each year, how many were pilots manipulating the controls (or even passenger certificate holders) vs those along for the ride (or on the ground)?
Click to expand...

If you look at the data I posted previously you'll see the number of "Fatal Accidents" which assuming one pilot per aircraft, and then the total fatalities. The majority of the fatalities are the pilots, not passengers or ground pounders. Here it is again. I bolded the numbers I'm referencing.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Number of Fatal Accidents 335 301 297 299 307 306 286 290 267 252
Fatal Accident Rate 1.38 1.11 1.14 1.27 1.32 1.29 1.25 1.38 1.24 1.18
Fatalities 626 560 527 573 527 576 528 506 497 449
Click to expand...

So we are talking about 200 people (plus or minus) per year where somone other than the pilot is killed. Tragic? Yes. A reason to create more laws and beaucracy? No. Flying, driving, swimming, taking a bath, leaving your house, etc has risks. We can't nor should we try to mitigate all.
 
Last edited:
Additional attempts at regulation are usually in response to noncompliance with existing ones or else what some would consider good sense. It is sad that a portion of the population cannot be relied upon to do what is right without actual rules.

On the other hand, with the exception of pure mechanical failure, show me a fatality and I (the hypothetical I) can show you a busted regulation.
 
Show me any facet in life where people follow the regulations 100% of the time. Your logic is flawed. Lack of regulation does not cause these few hundred deaths per year. Stupid pilot tricks do, and no amount of regulation will stop these few deaths unless you regulate GA out of the air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top