In trouble… for what??? (A Collaborative Short Story)

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,037
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
I have a question and thought of this short story as a way to get an answer to the question (plus the collaborative story just might be fun)
---------------------------
Private Pilot Joe Bob is diligent to remain current. He flies his 4-seater single often and remains day and night current. Joe Bob plans a cross country trip with some friends. Everyone shows up at the airport for the night takeoff. Joe carefully plans weight and balance and calculates performance figures. The plane will be within the Normal Category for the flight with 3 hrs fuel on board. The flight will have 2 legs with a landing at each leg, separated by 1 hour. Performance calculations indicate that takeoff roll will consume 70% of the usable runway with 100-foot margin over a 50 foot obstacle at the departure end.


Everyone boards the aircraft, which include himself, plus 3 adults and 1 baby. Mom, sitting behind Joe Bob is holding the baby.

At the first leg, the baby is given to the grandparents and the 4 adults takeoff for their stay-over vacation.


The next morning, diligent Private Pilot Joe Bob loads 30 mins of fuel for the flight back to pick up the baby, where fuel is cheaper, but not as cheap as his home airport. He takes on 1 hour of fuel while waiting 15-mins for the grandparents to deliver the baby.


Baby on board, the aircraft lifts off and heads for home. The landing is uneventful and Private Pilot Joe Bob heads for the fuel pumps where he unloads the aircraft of people and baggage, and tops off the fuel tanks before storing the aircraft.


Mr. Frankie “FAA Inspector” Ingerwort, watching from the FBO walks over to Private Pilot Joe Bob and hands him Notice of Violation.
The violation reads…

(finish the story)
 
Last edited:
I must be missing something. The way I read it...

3 hours of fuel - 2 hours of fuel + 30 minutes of fuel - 1 hour of fuel + 1 hour of fuel = 1hr 30 minutes of fuel for a 1hr flight. Legal.
 
Last edited:
Its night. He needs 45 minutes of fuel. Joe Bob never flies again because he's too embarrassed to have missed such a simple detail.

The end.
 
SkyHog said:
Its night. He needs 45 minutes of fuel. Joe Bob never flies again because he's too embarrassed to have missed such a simple detail.

The end.
Click to expand...

He waited ALL day for the grandparents? He did say the next morning.
 
to finish the story:

...nothing. Joe Bob kills the FAA inspector with his tow bar, wraps the body up in a tarp, and stuffs it in the baggage compartment. Joe Bob flies over Lake Michigan and has his wife push the body out with a few concrete blocks attached to the body.

The end.
 
And Jay is sweating this question because....?
 
I made 2 small changes to clear up something. But I'm watching this thread with an Evil Grin :devil:wondering if somone will spot a violation.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I made 2 small changes to clear up something. But I'm watching this thread with an Evil Grin :devil:wondering if somone will spot a violation.
Click to expand...

I still don't see a violation....unless its an over-gross weight issue, but there's not enough information in the OP to indicate that.
 
There's no indication that the baby was properly belted in, but there's no discussion of anyone being belted in either.

Somewhere I have a letter showing that one seatbelt can be wrapped around two people, so if the kid was between the adults in back, and secured by a seatbelt, there's no problem.
 
Steve Foley said:
There's no indication that the baby was properly belted in, but there's no discussion of anyone being belted in either.

Somewhere I have a letter showing that one seatbelt can be wrapped around two people, so if the kid was between the adults in back, and secured by a seatbelt, there's no problem.
Click to expand...

The baby doesn't need to be belted in. And there is no way in hell I would put a baby in the same belt as anyone else.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I have a question and thought of this short story as a way to get an answer to the question (plus the collaborative story just might be fun)
---------------------------
Baby on board, the aircraft lifts off and heads for home. The landing is uneventful and Private Pilot Joe Bob heads for the fuel pumps where he unloads the aircraft of people and baggage, and tops off the fuel tanks before storing the aircraft.


Mr. Frankie “FAA Inspector” Ingerwort, watching from the FBO walks over to Private Pilot Joe Bob and hands him Notice of Violation.
The violation reads…

(finish the story)
Click to expand...

Must be something Ingerwort sees watching from the FBO? Unloading pax at the fuel pump? I have no idea.
 
What's a "notice of violation"?

In a real scenario the Inspector would discuss the situation with the pilot and discuss any possible violations. If a violation does exist, then the Inspector would advise the pilot and the next step would be a certified Letter of Investigation.
 
...Oh he dropped his own child off somewhere else. The FAA violated him for running a 135 operation. :rolleyes:
 
EdFred said:
The way I read it...
3 hours of fuel - 2 hours of fuel + 30 minutes of fuel - 1 hour of fuel + 1 hour of fuel = 1hr 30 minutes of fuel for a 1hr flight. Legal.
Click to expand...

Your math looks good to me

SkyHog said:
Its night. He needs 45 minutes of fuel. Joe Bob never flies again because he's too embarrassed to have missed such a simple detail.
Click to expand...

He had 1hr fuel remaining at the only night destination.

SkyHog said:
....unless its an over-gross weight issue, but there's not enough information in the OP to indicate that.
Click to expand...

Airplane is in the NORMAL CATEGORY

Greg Bockelman said:
The baby doesn't need to be belted in. And there is no way in hell I would put a baby in the same belt as anyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree, in a crash the baby could get squished:hairraise:


magicj said:
Five people in a 4 passenger aircraft?
Click to expand...

What do you think of that?
 
I just took 4 other people up in a 4 passenger plane on Saturday.

(My plane actually had a 3rd seatbelt installed in the back seat quite a few years ago)
 
EdFred said:
I just took 4 other people up in a 4 passenger plane on Saturday.

(My plane actually had a 3rd seatbelt installed in the back seat quite a few years ago)
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
Actually, what do YOU think of that?
Click to expand...

I was wondering if it were legal. Hmmmm....I guess because the regs don't say may not, then it should be, right?
 
Jaybird180 said:
I was wondering if it were legal. Hmmmm....I guess because the regs don't say may not, then it should be, right?
Click to expand...

Ahh, now we get down to it. In your scenario there was nothing illegal. As long as the child is under the age of two, s/he does not need a seatbelt and can be held on a lap. It is possible to have 7 soles onboard a 4 place airplane, as long as three of them were under the age of two. However, IMO, it would not be wise to have a lap child in the other front seat. Too many opportunities for something bad to happen.

Having said that, I personally am an advocate of having EVERY person onboard properly secured. In a relatively sudden stop, there is no way a person can hold onto a child, especially the closer to two they are.
 
Is the "baby" over two years old? If so, there's a problem. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong.

BTW, sharing a seat belt not designed for two people (as some early backseat seatbelts were), though dangerous, is not illegal. See attached FAA letter.
 

Attachments

  • Seatbelts p1.GIF
    Seatbelts p1.GIF
    106.2 KB · Views: 4
  • Seatbelts p2.GIF
    Seatbelts p2.GIF
    88.1 KB · Views: 2
Maybe the pilot was wearing shorts, white socks, and sandals and committed a fashion violation?
 
EdFred said:
Completely legal. Both my scenario and yours.
Click to expand...

Except for beating the FAA inspector to death with a tow bar and throwing him or her out of the plane over Lake Michigan. That might violate a few federal laws.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Except for beating the FAA inspector to death with a tow bar and throwing him or her out of the plane over Lake Michigan. That might violate a few federal laws.
Click to expand...

But does it validate an FAA bust?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Except for beating the FAA inspector to death with a tow bar and throwing him or her out of the plane over Lake Michigan. That might violate a few federal laws.
Click to expand...

As long as you stay on your states side of the lake, no federal jurisdiction ;) *







*yes dear, I know, assault on a federal goverment employee/officer who is on-duty is a federal crime wherever it is committed.
 
Either he didn't make a 45 degree entry to the pattern, or he made a right turn in the vicinity of an airport.
 
OK, Jay, what was he supposed to have been written up for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top