Oh boy, unlicensed pilots and overbearing managers

Brad Smith said:
Can you just roll up to any public airport with plane in tow, unload and fly? Does the airport manager have the authority to tell you no? Does the manager have the authority to ask for airworthiness docs and pilot certs?
Click to expand...
Brad, if the plane conforms to Part 103 and the public airport doesn't have a control tower and it's daylight hours and operation is not within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the answer to the first question is yes; you can roll up to the airport with plane in tow, unload and fly. There are no airworthiness certificates for Part 103 ultralights and no pilot certification is required, so I doubt the airport manager could demand to see them.

If that last flight when the runway lights were broken happened after twilight, there might be a case to take action against the pilot for flying at night and for damage to the lights.

You're a stone's throw from 3S8; have you heard any more details about the incident in the local news, like was it an ultralight?

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ult ralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Those lights are designed to break away with very little force. You can take one out with a tire or wheel pant and barely leave a mark much less render the aircraft no longer airworthy.
Click to expand...

This is what I was referring to.

upload_2018-9-23_13-10-12.jpeg
 
Stan Cooper said:
Brad, if the plane conforms to Part 103 and the public airport doesn't have a control tower and it's daylight hours and operation is not within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the answer to the first question is yes; you can roll up to the airport with plane in tow, unload and fly. There are no airworthiness certificates for Part 103 ultralights and no pilot certification is required, so I doubt the airport manager could demand to see them.

If that last flight when the runway lights were broken happened after twilight, there might be a case to take action against the pilot for flying at night and for damage to the lights.

You're a stone's throw from 3S8; have you heard any more details about the incident in the local news, like was it an ultralight?

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ult ralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights
Click to expand...

Stan,
The aircraft was a Bowers Flybaby. It's an old all-wood, low-wing, single pilot design that has a foldable wing that was actually meant to be towed behind a car for short distances as the original designer Peter Bowers intended. Like the news article said, he packed up his plane and left the airport. He took out 2 runway lights and not sure if they charged him for it.
 
Brad Smith said:
Stan,
The aircraft was a Bowers Flybaby. It's an old all-wood, low-wing, single pilot design that has a foldable wing that was actually meant to be towed behind a car for short distances as the original designer Peter Bowers intended. Like the news article said, he packed up his plane and left the airport. He took out 2 runway lights and not sure if they charged him for it.
Click to expand...

After vandalizing his plane sending a bill for a couple easily fixed lights would be asking for trouble IMO.
 
James331 said:
After vandalizing his plane sending a bill for a couple easily fixed lights would be asking for trouble IMO.
Click to expand...

If the guy is truly flying without a license, I suspect he wouldn’t want to make any more waves.
 
Half Fast said:
If the guy is truly flying without a license, I suspect he wouldn’t want to make any more waves.
Click to expand...

Between the airport manager the pilot, we very well might have a case of

images


Also where did you see it was a flybaby?
 
Half Fast said:
If the guy is truly flying without a license, I suspect he wouldn’t want to make any more waves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if it was a Flybaby, it definitely doesn't fit within the ultralight regs, so a pilot certificate is needed.
 
Yeah, so much for the ultralight theory. The Fly Baby might qualify as a light sport, but that would still require at least a sport pilot airman certificate.

Lock him up! While they're at it, lock up the airport manager too.
:D
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I've seen a wheel pant that clipped a light. It needed to be replaced. Even if the lights weren't attached, they weigh several pounds, and you can't beat physics. If you clip something that weighs five pounds while driving down the highway, it will leave a mark.
Click to expand...
The bolded part is important, especially the while driving down the highway part. If you take a stream of water and make it go fast enough, you can cut steel with it. Hit a breakaway light at 60 knots and its going to leave a mark on fiberglass. Hit it at 6 knots and its not going to nearly as much damage.
 
Brad Smith said:
Stan,
The aircraft was a Bowers Flybaby. It's an old all-wood, low-wing, single pilot design that has a foldable wing that was actually meant to be towed behind a car for short distances as the original designer Peter Bowers intended. Like the news article said, he packed up his plane and left the airport. He took out 2 runway lights and not sure if they charged him for it.
Click to expand...
The wings fold on a Fly Baby, and it CAN be towed, but the process isn't a quick one. Probably takes a minimum of 15 minutes, more likely a half hour or so, to fold the wings and secure everything for towing. A bit quicker, with a helper.

towing.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
Juliet Hotel said:
The bolded part is important, especially the while driving down the highway part. If you take a stream of water and make it go fast enough, you can cut steel with it. Hit a breakaway light at 60 knots and its going to leave a mark on fiberglass. Hit it at 6 knots and its not going to nearly as much damage.
Click to expand...

I was originally replying to Hank S (don’t know how to link users here). He mentioned serial ground looping. I don’t know if that is a medical condition but it sounds serial! In any case it’s a physics problem. Mass and energy.
 
James331 said:
If I came back to the ramp and some moron put a chain on my plane, wed be having a rather serious come to jesus
Click to expand...
Let's say you own the airport and this moron shows up on your property risking everybody's life and limb. You aren't going to put an end to it? I know of a similar situation where the airport owner parked the moron's car in the middle of the runway so the unrated Twin Beech pilot couldn't come back and land. He had to take it elsewhere. Later, he killed himself and his nephew in it because nobody else had the gumption to stop him.

Let's say you own a bigger airport and hire a manager to take care of it for you, like most municipalities. Why would it be any different? I applaud the manager, we need more like him.
 
dtuuri said:
Let's say you own a bigger airport and hire a manager to take care of it for you, like most municipalities. Why would it be any different? I applaud the manager, we need more like him.
Click to expand...
Well the airports in your example are privately owned. Privately owned airport funded with private money? Sure do whatever you want. But the moment you get FAA or other public funding, that becomes an airport funded with public money for public use. That's why its different.
 
IANAL, but I know how to google...

18 USC 32
(a)  Whoever willfully--
(1)  sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
(2)  places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;
.
.
.​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
​
Seems like disabling an aircraft might be a pretty big deal. I'm not sure that being an "airport manager" grants any special privileges or immunity regardless of whether the airport is public or private.

Maybe one of the forum lawyers can chime in.
 
dtuuri said:
Let's say you own the airport and this moron shows up on your property risking everybody's life and limb. You aren't going to put an end to it? I know of a similar situation where the airport owner parked the moron's car in the middle of the runway so the unrated Twin Beech pilot couldn't come back and land. He had to take it elsewhere. Later, he killed himself and his nephew in it because nobody else had the gumption to stop him.

Let's say you own a bigger airport and hire a manager to take care of it for you, like most municipalities. Why would it be any different? I applaud the manager, we need more like him.
Click to expand...


NO

Stupid is to be avoided, not doubled down on
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
nobody else had the gumption to stop him.
Click to expand...
From my experience directly/indirectly with similar issues, the problem with your method is that airport owner and airport manager have to no recourse to back them up if things go south. In the moron example perhaps if someone had the gumption to report the pilot through channels that exist for these types of issues, they may have saved the life of the nephew instead of playing king of the runway. Personally, I would severely discipline or fire any airport manager who acts in such a manner.
 
Half Fast said:
IANAL, but I know how to google...

18 USC 32
(a)  Whoever willfully--
(1)  sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
(2)  places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;
.
.
.​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.​
Seems like disabling an aircraft might be a pretty big deal. I'm not sure that being an "airport manager" grants any special privileges or immunity regardless of whether the airport is public or private.

Maybe one of the forum lawyers can chime in.
Click to expand...

So..... you can't mess with the airplane......... can you shoot the pilot instead..??? :lol::lol::lol:

(before anyone flies off the handle, it was a joke...)
 
Zeldman said:
So..... you can't mess with the airplane......... can you shoot the pilot instead..??? :lol::lol::lol:

(before anyone flies off the handle, it was a joke...)
Click to expand...


Merely crippling the pilot should be sufficient, and would probably carry less jail time than disabling the plane.

:)
 
Bell206 said:
From my experience directly/indirectly with similar issues, the problem with your method is that airport owner and airport manager have to no recourse to back them up if things go south. In the moron example perhaps if someone had the gumption to report the pilot through channels that exist for these types of issues, they may have saved the life of the nephew instead of playing king of the runway.
Click to expand...
While I agree that the action he took would have no legal support, how do you know he (or any of them) didn't attempt reporting the pilot through channels?

Let's say I make a written complaint to the FSDO about Bob flying without benefit of certificate, and that I have witnessed (and specifically describe) unsafe or dangerous behaviors. What action(s) will be taken, and how many steps in the process before Bob actually stops flying his airplane?

I'm not necessarily saying the airport manager did the right or wrong thing...I'm just wondering how frustrating the official process might be, and how long before he might be tempted to take matters into his own hands.
 
MauleSkinner said:
how do you know he (or any of them) didn't attempt reporting the pilot through channels?
Click to expand...
I don't know they did. But what I do know is that in the course of several weeks that this aircraft flew at Grants Pass, had the manager: called the FSDO, filed a hotline report, and/or called 911 the issue would have been dealt with. I've done it. And it didn't take "weeks" to correct it.

What some people fail to recognize is that a person's reckless actions on an airport are no different than actions outside an airport. If this guy was in fact a perceived danger then the first call should have been to 911. And even though ASIs carry a badge, they are not cops and have no authority to physically intervene. Funny thing is had an ASI showed up he couldn't have done anything to the guy flying as he didn't have a certificate and was thus not under FAA jurisdiction. The ASI would have to turn it over to the AGC who would probably turn it over to the FBI for further work.

MauleSkinner said:
how long before he might be tempted to take matters into his own hands
Click to expand...
Just my guess but I read this as more a pi$$ing contest by those involved. However, since 9/11 most public airports were required to initiate a security plan for the airport. And seeing that Grants Pass is owned by the county, I doubt seriously that within that plan it states "chaining props" as a security measure.
 
Bell206 said:
I don't know they did. But what I do know is that in the course of several weeks that this aircraft flew at Grants Pass, had the manager: called the FSDO, filed a hotline report, and/or called 911 the issue would have been dealt with. I've done it. And it didn't take "weeks" to correct it.
Click to expand...
So the thrust of my question was what is the response to appropriate action going to look like, and do you have to make the call so that law enforcement can be there when they land to witness it, or what? What exactly did you do and what was the action taken?
 
If the manager called the local police while the pilot was flying and the police met the pilot at landing they have the legal right to demand to see the pilots certificate. If the pilot does not produce said certificate, there are legal avenues the police will take. The manager had no right to break the law because the pilot was breaking the law
 
So here's a question: This story was told to me by the IA who was also the airport manager at the field where my annuals were done. One Saturday they were having a fly in of some sort. Maybe it was pancake breakfast.

They heard a plane approaching but couldn't see it. Then it appeared right over the tree tops flying perpendicular to the runway. Flew over the runway and disappears behind the trees on the other side of the airport. The airport manager recognized the plane as belonging to an older gentleman. They tried contacting him on the radio but couldn't raise him. He overflew the field a couple more times like this. He eventually landed. He taxied off the runway onto the taxiway and then stopped. The airport manager drove out and walked up to the airplane. The pilot seemed confused. The airport manager reached in and took the keys and refused to return them. He was guessing that the pilot had a stroke, dementia, alzheimers, etc.

Is this any different? Taking the keys to an aircraft is definitely "disabling" it. I guess it can also be considered theft.
 
If I can stop someone from endangering the public, I will, screw the "federal offense" crap.
 
donjohnston said:
So here's a question: This story was told to me by the IA who was also the airport manager at the field where my annuals were done. One Saturday they were having a fly in of some sort. Maybe it was pancake breakfast.

They heard a plane approaching but couldn't see it. Then it appeared right over the tree tops flying perpendicular to the runway. Flew over the runway and disappears behind the trees on the other side of the airport. The airport manager recognized the plane as belonging to an older gentleman. They tried contacting him on the radio but couldn't raise him. He overflew the field a couple more times like this. He eventually landed. He taxied off the runway onto the taxiway and then stopped. The airport manager drove out and walked up to the airplane. The pilot seemed confused. The airport manager reached in and took the keys and refused to return them. He was guessing that the pilot had a stroke, dementia, alzheimers, etc.

Is this any different? Taking the keys to an aircraft is definitely "disabling" it. I guess it can also be considered theft.
Click to expand...


Is the plane yours? no? Don't touch it.

Do you have a court order and are acting within the law? no? Don't touch it



Or let's play it out

Next time I hear a weekend warrior start his plane up and the engine roars to life at way too high a RPM, should I assume he is ether having a mental problem or isn't a pilot and reach in and steal his keys?

You don't know how to operate a fuel pump? Even my pre solo guys could pump gas, guess you must not be a pilot, time to chain that prop up

Using all of a 2000' runway to land your cirrus? Time to block you in with a car!

Can't stay on the centerline, must be having a stroke, time to take your keys too!
 
donjohnston said:
The pilot seemed confused. The airport manager reached in and took the keys and refused to return them. He was guessing that the pilot had a stroke, dementia, alzheimers, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly, by taking the keys he acted to stop the threat, but he did not tamper with the aircraft.
 
"Airport manager, Larry Graves, said told NBC5 News that the pilot did not have a license to fly and had learned to fly a plane from watching videos on YouTube."

I've actually said that before, I'm sure glad no one disabled my plane!
 
MauleSkinner said:
do you have to make the call so that law enforcement can be there when they land to witness it, or what?
Click to expand...
It's no different then any other time you witness something of concern. You call them and start the ball rolling. In the OP, the manager should have called when he determined the guy flying was a danger and a safety hazard on his airport. I would believe that falls under his job description. However, since the manager allowed the situation to continue for several weeks tells me there's more to this or the manager prefers to control things.

MauleSkinner said:
What exactly did you do and what was the action taken?
Click to expand...
In one case, a kid with a student ticket was giving rides to his friends late at night. I was finishing up a wire job on a T-6 and heard them. I knew his dad and questioned him what was going on. He blew things off as they pulled the aircraft out. I tried calling his dad. No answer. I called airport security who are local sheriffs and they arrived about 10 minutes later. Told the cop what was up and he lit up the plane. When I left 3 hours later, they were still there and I saw the kid's dad drive by. Later got a thank you from the dad and the kid's CFI. Seems the CFI signed the kid off to do a little solo night work that night.
 
Half Fast said:
IANAL, but I know how to google...

18 USC 32
(a)  Whoever willfully--
(1)  sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
(2)  places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;
.
.
.​
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.​
Seems like disabling an aircraft might be a pretty big deal. I'm not sure that being an "airport manager" grants any special privileges or immunity regardless of whether the airport is public or private.

Maybe one of the forum lawyers can chime in.
Click to expand...

Also, IANAL, but I don't think this section applies. Note the part I highlighted. Not sure what the definition of air commerce is, but its unlikely a FlyBaby qualifies. Not that it makes what the manager did legal, but not the federal offense we've been bantering about.
 
arnoha said:
Also, IANAL, but I don't think this section applies. Note the part I highlighted. Not sure what the definition of air commerce is, but its unlikely a FlyBaby qualifies. Not that it makes what the manager did legal, but not the federal offense we've been bantering about.
Click to expand...
Here’s how Part 1 defines Air Commerce:
Air commerce means interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce or the transportation of mail by aircraft or any operation or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any Federal airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce
Click to expand...
The “or any operation” clauses look like it’s not aircraft type/model specific, but rather where you fly. I’d guess it’s possible to avoid flying in Air Commerce, but you’d have to plan it pretty well.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Here’s how Part 1 defines Air Commerce:

The “or any operation” clauses look like it’s not aircraft type/model specific, but rather where you fly. I’d guess it’s possible to avoid flying in Air Commerce, but you’d have to plan it pretty well.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't think it was type specific, just that a FlyBaby is unlikely to be used commercially.

That definition is horrible. It's totally circular and tell me exactly nothing, except that transporting mail counts. Here's a rewrite that hides some excess words that makes the problem more apparent:

Air commerce means air commerce or transportation of mail or an operation which directly affects air commerce.

How is that even a definition of anything?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Here’s how Part 1 defines Air Commerce:

The “or any operation” clauses look like it’s not aircraft type/model specific, but rather where you fly. I’d guess it’s possible to avoid flying in Air Commerce, but you’d have to plan it pretty well.
Click to expand...


If the Feds treat it the same way that BATFE treats firearms, interstate commerce will apply if you fly the plane using fuel refined in another state. They tend to be very broad in applying that clause, so that almost anything applies.

If the plane was manufactured in a different state interstate commerce will likely apply.
 
arnoha said:
No, I didn't think it was type specific, just that a FlyBaby is unlikely to be used commercially.

That definition is horrible. It's totally circular and tell me exactly nothing, except that transporting mail counts. Here's a rewrite that hides some excess words that makes the problem more apparent:

Air commerce means air commerce or transportation of mail or an operation which directly affects air commerce.

How is that even a definition of anything?
Click to expand...
True, but it’s also fairly easy to directly apply it as “operation on any federal airway or operations that directly affects operation on federal airways”.
 
arnoha said:
but I don't think this section applies.
Click to expand...
In my limited experience, it's the subsequent paragraphs that apply. The issue is not so much the act itself but the intent to reach the federal level. That is why is some instances simple vandalism of aircraft is not prosecuted at the federal level.

Take for instance the massive vandalism damage done at Merrill Field in ANC several years ago. It's my understanding the FBI is not involved because this act did not meet the threshold for the above law. Yet a high profile vandalism act in CA, I believe, involving a number of high end aircraft including several operating under 135, brought everyone from the NTSB on down to investigate.

What puts the OP case in the gray area is the intent of the manager. If he "disabled" the aircraft with the intent to prevent further flight... well he may have an issue. Is it illegal to disable or damage an aircraft? Yes. Whether the feds get involved is soley on intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top