GA flying and the Law

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,861
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
This is a rant I have had spinning around my head for a year or more. Maybe you can help me defuse it and see the light or something. If not, at least I feel better for purging, - thanks for listening.

-----------------
Is there too much legal restriction of private flight?

Is the FAA (and other regulatory bodies) micromanaging GA?
At what point should pilots say, "Enough." when it comes to regulation? Is that point behind us, and we are already too far gone? Or should the regulations continue unabated, as new ways to have accidents are found?

Is it reasonable to strive for Zero Accidents? Or should we accept that this is an impossible goal, and that while safety is extremely important, there is a point where the regulations involved are too restrictive, and important freedoms are lost?

Should the FARs continue to grow with no bounds, their legal interpretations become more limiting with subsequent installments of FAA administrators and their legal departments?

Is it reasonable for an aviator to say, "While I will always do my very best to be the safest I can be, I accept that aviation does have some risks."..... and that there should be a balance between these Safety-Related Regulations, and the personal acceptance of that risk?


Do you have any other hobbies of similar risk, in which there is a regular column in the leading magazine dealing with how the law affects that hobby?
Are you a forum member of another avocation of similar risk, where the law is a very common topic, to the point of diminishing your enjoyment of either the hobby, or the forum?
Are you a member of another such hobby where the members constantly dig each other about their actions and how the law views them? Or where the members are on a heightened awareness about the law, or presence of law enforcement when partaking of the hobby?
How about where members felt regulated out of the hobby?

Don't think I am an anarchist. Or that I am anti-safety.
I do think regulations have their place, (especially when it comes to keeping the 'innocents' safe). However I have to wonder where it (the application of law, and its restrictive powers upon aviation) will end. I will shut up now.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Do you have any other hobbies of similar risk, in which there is a regular column in the leading magazine dealing with how the law affects that hobby?
Are you a forum member of another avocation of similar risk, where the law is a very common topic, to the point of diminishing your enjoyment of either the hobby, or the forum?
Are you a member of another such hobby where the members constantly dig each other about their actions and how the law views them? Or where the members are on a heightened awareness about the law, or presence of law enforcement when partaking of the hobby?
How about where members felt regulated out of the hobby?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have two other hobbies that meet all of these conditions. They are amateur radio and model rocketry. Both are constantly under attack by the regulators.
 
smigaldi said:
Yes. I have two other hobbies that meet all of these conditions. They are amateur radio and model rocketry. Both are constantly under attack by the regulators.
Click to expand...
I, too, have ham radio, and you can add pistol shooting to that list.
 
I have to say that "the law" gets discussed on internet forums far more than it does in real life... at least in my real life. Also, it seems like many pilots don't like vague regulations so they press the FAA for more concrete interpretations which might seem like micromanaging.
 
jmaynard said:
I, too, have ham radio, and you can add pistol shooting to that list.
Click to expand...
The ham radio one can be interesting because on one hand, as a ham I want them to be able to protect spectrum. On the other hand my livelihood sometimes runs afoul of needs and wants of the hams. I have actually stood up in the austere ;) ITU chambers and spoke on why ham radio should lose some of its spectrum.
 
It's so far, not about law. It's about taxation and niggling to death with additional requirements.

Anyone in businesss for themselves understands the problem.
 
Zero accidents is a reasonable personal goal only for individual pilots but not for the whole pilot population. Don't hold your breath on regulation abatement Dave, we as pilots are in a very small minority and there's so much money being made by huge numbers of mediocre government types erroneously justifying their jobs in the name of safety for the public that more regs are inevitable.
 
Last edited:
The airlines cannot maintain zero accident rates. The most professionally trained pilot, military or civilian cannot maintain zero accident rates.

The only way to do that is to ground everyone. Even the birds cannot maintain zero accidents, I've had more than one tangle with my truck and lose.
 
Actually, compared to many pursuits, I find that the FAR's are fairly lenient. It seems to me that as much as we ***** about the FAA, they are less restrictive than other government agencies.

If the government manages to do in GA, it will be the TSA, not the FAA, that does it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, compared to many pursuits, I find that the FAR's are fairly lenient. It seems to me that as much as we ***** about the FAA, they are less restrictive than other government agencies.

If the government manages to do in GA, it will be the TSA, not the FAA, that does it.
Click to expand...
Shhhhh. If the FAA reads that, we're in trouble.
Look at driving for an example of micromanaging. Massachusetts just passed a law about texting while driving. This is due to the second accident on a MBTA train where the driver missed three signals because he was texting his girlfriend. This is a worthless law but makes everybody happy that "something was done". It's the same response the FAA has.
Does a law make us safer or does it just make us FEEL safer?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, compared to many pursuits, I find that the FAR's are fairly lenient. It seems to me that as much as we ***** about the FAA, they are less restrictive than other government agencies.

If the government manages to do in GA, it will be the TSA, not the FAA, that does it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've said this before and will again - I have generally been pleased with the service I've received from the FAA. In my dealings with the various FARs (which is part of what I get paid to do), the only regulations I consider to be illogical are those regarding "compensation," and even then I see where they're coming from, I just disagree with the extent to which they take it. Taxation/fees and the TSA are the big issues. Illogical airspace restrictions are problems, too.

Zero accidents is a good personal goal, but will never happen for the population as a whole. It's always good to strive for more safety, but the attitude people have of being unwilling to accept any risk drives me nuts.

As to other activities with similar risks, the primary one is motorcycle riding. Fortunately, the government generally keeps its hands out of motorcycling with the exception of helmet laws, which I disagree with but don't affect me since I always wear a helmet.
 
Fortunately, although the FAR's are the hidebound and hideous love-child of one of the worst dysfunctional atrocities of a federal agency, they do not have the enforcement ability to really make our lives miserable.
 
smigaldi said:
I have actually stood up in the austere ;) ITU chambers and spoke on why ham radio should lose some of its spectrum.
Click to expand...

Heathen. ;)

bbchien said:
It's so far, not about law. It's about taxation and niggling to death with additional requirements.

Anyone in businesss for themselves understands the problem.
Click to expand...

Correct. 'Course big business isn't exempt. There are rules for EVERYTHING. Make the FARs look like the Declaration of Independence.

I've said many times in the last 6 months that Dilbert is real.

Take for example the corporate policy that says "for international travel thou shalt not..." and continues on how to avoid wearing or carrying anything that outwardly identifies who you work for, to exercise caution in talking with foreign officials - and especially not to mention who you work for unless required to, etc. etc. So what do they hand out as swag to each participant at a management conference??? Yep, a passport holder with the company name emblazened.
 
wsuffa said:
I've said many times in the last 6 months that Dilbert is real.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that Scott Adams gets a lot of his inspiration from real-world occurrences. Truth is funnier than fiction.
 
jmaynard said:
I, too, have ham radio, and you can add pistol shooting to that list.
Click to expand...
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.
 
That's a little weak to be a rant. How about an example that really ****es you off.


Let'sgoflying! said:
This is a rant I have had spinning around my head for a year or more. Maybe you can help me defuse it and see the light or something. If not, at least I feel better for purging, - thanks for listening.

-----------------
Is there too much legal restriction of private flight?
Click to expand...
 
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...

Scott, do you still fly HPR? I've been pretty much out of it since the BATFE really cranked up the regs. I did see that Tripoli and NAR finally won their lawsuit against the BATFE. Not sure how that affects things going forward (ATF may appeal), but it may make things easier.

Hmm apparently APCP is no longer on the explosives list...
http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/20090518JointStatement.shtml

I may have to dust off my old missiles :D
 
Last edited:
I think that compared to other countries, we have it prettttty good. Imagine filing a mandatory vfr flight plan to practice maneuvers for 30 minutes over huge fields (among other things), I know a couple pilots (including myself) that would ***** about that. But I think the bottom line is that we have it so good...that is to say, the only thing that's ever held me back is the weather or my own "I just shouldn't be flying right now" decision (and the occasional maint. squak here and there).
However, in terms of closing airports and the TSA cracking down on bizjets and stuff, yea, that's ridiculous.

Also, about the zero-accident thing -- I was thinkin' about this on my drive back from the airport today. The gas light came on and I realized how much I'd rather have it happen here then up 'there.' So yeah, I guess I'm okay with safety-regs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, isn't the point of flying to land and do it again?
 
ajalali said:
I think that compared to other countries, we have it prettttty good. Imagine filing a mandatory vfr flight plan to practice maneuvers for 30 minutes over huge fields (among other things), I know a couple pilots (including myself) that would ***** about that. But I think the bottom line is that we have it so good...that is to say, the only thing that's ever held me back is the weather or my own "I just shouldn't be flying right now" decision (and the occasional maint. squak here and there).
However, in terms of closing airports and the TSA cracking down on bizjets and stuff, yea, that's ridiculous.

Also, about the zero-accident thing -- I was thinkin' about this on my drive back from the airport today. The gas light came on and I realized how much I'd rather have it happen here then up 'there.' So yeah, I guess I'm okay with safety-regs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, isn't the point of flying to land and do it again?
Click to expand...

OK compared to other countries is true, but it doesn't prevent GA's continued decline. Also, other country's standards aren't very high.
 
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.
 
ajalali said:
I think that compared to other countries, we have it prettttty good. Imagine filing a mandatory vfr flight plan to practice maneuvers for 30 minutes over huge fields (among other things), I know a couple pilots (including myself) that would ***** about that. But I think the bottom line is that we have it so good...that is to say, the only thing that's ever held me back is the weather or my own "I just shouldn't be flying right now" decision (and the occasional maint. squak here and there).
However, in terms of closing airports and the TSA cracking down on bizjets and stuff, yea, that's ridiculous.

Also, about the zero-accident thing -- I was thinkin' about this on my drive back from the airport today. The gas light came on and I realized how much I'd rather have it happen here then up 'there.' So yeah, I guess I'm okay with safety-regs.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, isn't the point of flying to land and do it again?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's arguing that we don't have it great in comparison to other countries, or that safety regs aren't reasonable. However there is a disturbing trend towards limiting GA, and that is the bigger problem. If you look at the other countries, GA tends to be in such a horrible state that flying is not only out of reach for most, but when they do participate is very limited by a number of factors. We don't want to get to that point, and it would be better if those other countries got to our level. The freedoms we enjoy with GA here are wonderful, and should be preserved and shared. The trend from opposition is not to leave well enough alone - airports are continuing to get shut down, user fees continue to be pushed, and TSA keeps on wanting to impose idiotic regulations that do nothing for safety. Why do we want to let ourselves get to the state of other countries?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't think anyone's arguing that we don't have it great in comparison to other countries, or that safety regs aren't reasonable. However there is a disturbing trend towards limiting GA,
Click to expand...
There has always a trend toward limiting GA. It began about the day that pilots began to be licensed instead of simply saying, "I bet I can fly that thing" and hopping in. It became much worse when the concept "controlled airspace" started. I'll bet that there were hangar discussions about how the government was killing GA with over-regulation every time aviation grew (a wee bit of irony there).

Like all government regulation, the goal is a balance. Unfortunately it's rarely achieved because we live in a political system. The bottom line is that for every one of us that thinks there's too much regulation, there are those who think there is too little.

I was at a family gathering just last weekend. I was talking about flying with someone and the idea that I didn't always have to talk to ATC was a shock, with pictures of airplanes in busy areas running into each other haphazardly running in her head.

(btw I never refer to nontowered airports as "uncontrolled")
 
dmccormack said:
Hunh?

There is no "regulation" of "pistol shooting" by the BATF (unless you are referring to the BATF's definition of something "other than a handgun")
Click to expand...
So are you saying that BATF does NOT track gun sales, has no opinions nor regulations on gun shows and dealer permits, established no residency requirments for gun sales, etc. RIIIGGGHHHTTT :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You might want to make yourself familiar with Title 27 and who in the Federal government actually has the regualtory oversite for that section.
 
smigaldi said:
So are you saying that BATF does NOT track gun sales, has no opinions nor regulations on gun shows and dealer permits, established no residency requirments for gun sales, etc. RIIIGGGHHHTTT :rolleyes::rolleyes:

You might want to make yourself familiar with Title 27 and who in the Federal government actually has the regualtory oversite for that section.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

The BATF does not regulate "shooting" (your word).

Now you bring up transactions, which are not the same as "shooting."
 
dmccormack said:
The BATF does not regulate "shooting" (your word).
Click to expand...
Just everything relating to it.

If the FAA strictly regulated the sale of airplanes and avgas, and placed stringent regulations on airports, would they not be regulating flying?
 
jmaynard said:
Just everything relating to it.

If the FAA strictly regulated the sale of airplanes and avgas, and placed stringent regulations on airports, would they not be regulating flying?
Click to expand...

There's a difference.

If the BATF regulated shooting, there would be an agent at my front door.

Words have meaning.
 
jmaynard said:
Just everything relating to it.

If the FAA strictly regulated the sale of airplanes and avgas, and placed stringent regulations on airports, would they not be regulating flying?
Click to expand...
you're right Jay, the use of the term was in general related to the activity and associated acts that are required to support it.
 
smigaldi said:
you're right Jay, the use of the term was in general related to the activity and associated acts that are required to support it.
Click to expand...


Un hunh

BackPeddlingViolinist.jpg


smigaldi said:
Pistol shooting and model rocketry are both regulated by the BATF.
Click to expand...

So by your logic, your breakfast was regulated by the FDA, since they regulate some aspects of the food supply?
 
Last edited:
As to the original topic. I think aviation has it pretty good in some places and enough crap in others to make it less than worthwhile. Just depends where and what you fly. I recall a friend getting into snowmobiles and going with him to find speed/helmet/registration checkpoints out in the woods. Couldn't help but think what's the point? It is getting harder to operate a vehicle, any vehicle without gov't interference.
 
when I was a kid it was the ATF. What does the B mean?
 
well thats boring. I was hoping it was for Badass or Blow em up or Bazooka or something cool.
 
It is getting harder to operate a vehicle, any vehicle without gov't interference.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!)
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top