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

1. One of the passengers paid for the fuel thus it was compensation to the pilot.

2. The pilot's friend came up with the idea of the trip that the pilot wasn't originally going to make therefore it's an illegal 135 charter.


As for the towbar, tarp, concrete boots, deep lake and no witnesses routine; that's exactly what needs to happen to whoever came up with the silly rule that we can't take our friends somewhere if they came up with the idea first. It's no different than driving your friend somewhere in a car yet no one insists the friend has to take the bus and you face a drivers license suspension for it.
 
So far, I haven't seen any explanations which do not assume facts not in evidence. Either Jaybird's holding out on something, or the violation is so subtle as to be essentially undetectable.

Or it's so obvious that none of us can see it. ;)
 
(end of story)

....The Inspector, realizing that he was having a bad day after discussing it with the nice pilot, realized that there was no violation afterall. They both made a friend that day.

THE END
 
Jaybird180 said:
(end of story)

....The Inspector, realizing that he was having a bad day after discussing it with the nice pilot, realized that there was no violation afterall. They both made a friend that day.

THE END
Click to expand...

Then, later that evening at a local bar, the pilot and inspector looked longingly into each others eyes, ...
 
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...

I would push the FAA inspector down, leave all my passengers on the ground, take off in my airplane, land in a field on my dad's farm, push the plane into the machine shed, and wait for the heat to die down. That's what I would do.:thumbsup: I'm that kind of guy. I mean, as long as we are all being silly that's the way I want it to end. :D
 
Jaybird180 said:
(end of story)

....The Inspector, realizing that he was having a bad day after discussing it with the nice pilot, realized that there was no violation afterall. They both made a friend that day.

THE END
Click to expand...

What a letdown. :incazzato:
 
You're free to write an alternate ending. I am also free to claim your ending as my own intellectual property (smile).
 
Am I free to compare you to whoever wrote the crap-bomb known as Top Gun?
 
Jaybird180 said:
You're free to write an alternate ending. I am also free to claim your ending as my own intellectual property (smile).
Click to expand...

I didn't know you licensed the beginning of the story under the GPL so you could steal my derivative works! :eek:
 
Ron Levy said:
So what was the Inspector's later-defused concern that led to the meeting in the first place?
Click to expand...

Why does anyone hang out at airports? To look at planes....

There was an FAA inspector that would show up at my local airport a few times a year. He used it as an excuse to shoot the breeze and skip out of work early. The airport was near his home, while the office was not.
 
Steve Foley said:
Why does anyone hang out at airports? To look at planes....

There was an FAA inspector that would show up at my local airport a few times a year. He used it as an excuse to shoot the breeze and skip out of work early. The airport was near his home, while the office was not.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's true, but there must have been something that triggered the Inspector to start asking questions of an investigatory nature before realizing that the something wasn't actually a violation.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm sure that's true, but there must have been something that triggered the Inspector to start asking questions of an investigatory nature before realizing that the something wasn't actually a violation.
Click to expand...


~~~~~~~ It's the inspectors nature to be suspicious of anyone on a ramp and start looking............
 
"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."


I don't know if this is a legal violation or not, however, it certainly fits into the stupid category. A fully loaded aircraft that uses 70% of the runway to lift off, then has to clear a 50' obstacle, is not the plane ride I would want to be on. With only 30% of the runway left, should the noise stop, and a 50' obstacle to clear, with full fuel tanks..................crispy critter time.


John
 
John Baker said:
"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."


I don't know if this is a legal violation or not, however, it certainly fits into the stupid category. A fully loaded aircraft that uses 70% of the runway to lift off, then has to clear a 50' obstacle, is not the plane ride I would want to be on. With only 30% of the runway left, should the noise stop, and a 50' obstacle to clear, with full fuel tanks..................crispy critter time.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Most airplanes can land in a shorter distance than they can take off, so if the fan quits at rotation, they may be able to stop on the runway and if nothing else will go off the end of the runway at a slow speed and almost certainly be survivable and probably a walk-away, bumps and bruises affair.

Now, if the engine quits after takeoff and just prior to clearing the obstacle - Yikes. But that can happen no matter how lightly you're loaded.
 
John Baker said:
"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."

I don't know if this is a legal violation or not, however, it certainly fits into the stupid category. A fully loaded aircraft that uses 70% of the runway to lift off, then has to clear a 50' obstacle, is not the plane ride I would want to be on. With only 30% of the runway left, should the noise stop, and a 50' obstacle to clear, with full fuel tanks..................crispy critter time.
Click to expand...

That could happen just as easily when you're flying over parts of New Hampshire like I was the other day. A Cirrus pilot I met at the airport said regarding twins "I suppose it makes sense if you do a lot of night flight." Buddy, day or night, there's no place to land there. The main difference is at night you can't see the mountain you're going to hit. And, worse than right after takeoff, you have lots of time to contemplate the fact that you're going to crash into trees.

The 310 I fly used to live at a 2700 ft strip with 50' obstacle at either end (actually more than 50' on one end, as there were power lines on short final). It lived there for 25 years without issue. That is a tight strip on a good day, and add things like gusting crosswinds and it gets tighter still. The plane survived there with good flying technique and good planning in the event of problems (which, fortunately, never happened). I've flown it in and out of there a few times since taking delivery. It requires more concentration than any other strip I fly it into, but most of the places I land are 4000+ ft runways.

I wouldn't call it stupid, just a calculated risk. Such calculated risk is also just fine if you wish not to take it.
 
John Baker said:
"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."


I don't know if this is a legal violation or not, however, it certainly fits into the stupid category. A fully loaded aircraft that uses 70% of the runway to lift off, then has to clear a 50' obstacle, is not the plane ride I would want to be on. With only 30% of the runway left, should the noise stop, and a 50' obstacle to clear, with full fuel tanks..................crispy critter time.


John
Click to expand...

I guess we won't be seeing you at 6Y9.

It used to be that way - not quite that bad any more though.
 
There's no FAR setting a specific minimum runway length for Part 91 light GA operations, only that you must "become familiar" with the runway length and your aircraft's takeoff/landing performance (and, of course, that you not operate in a careless/reckless manner, which basically means if you hit the trees on a really short runway, the FAA will find fault with you).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top