OK reg mavens, where in part 61/91 is the Jessica DuBroff rule?

Brad Z

Brad Z

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
7,034
Location
Alexandria VA
Display Name
Display name:
Brad Z
Some of you may remember the Jessica DuBroff accident that took place 21 years ago. A week after the event, Congress proposed H.R. 3267 Child Pilot Protection Act, which was codified in law as section 44724 of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act (Public Law 104–264). In that act, it states that:

No pilot in command of an aircraft may allow an individual who does not hold—
‘‘(1) a valid private pilots certificate issued by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
‘‘(2) the appropriate medical certificate issued by the Administrator under part 67 of such title,
to manipulate the controls of an aircraft if the pilot knows or should have known that the individual is attempting to set a record or engage in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat, as defined by the Administrator

I swear I thought that was codified in part 61 or 91. For the life of me I can't seem to find it. One free "like" on the response of first person who can find it for me, and a virtual high-five. It's also possible that it was never made a regulation but is still law, nevertheless.
 
It's a law, not a regulation.

In other words, it's not in the regulations promulgated by the agency pursuant to the code. It's actually in Title 49 of the US Code:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44724

49 U.S. Code § 44724

ps Circling back - Since it arguably required terms to be "defined by the Administrator" in advance of enforcement, and I can't find anything in the regulations on that, it may not have any teeth.
 
Last edited:
Iif we had a law that said "Don't do stupid stuff." It would supersede this one. Clearly that law does not exist.
 
Brad Z said:
Some of you may remember the Jessica DuBroff accident that took place 21 years ago. A week after the event, Congress proposed H.R. 3267 Child Pilot Protection Act, which was codified in law as section 44724 of the 1996 FAA Reauthorization Act (Public Law 104–264). In that act, it states that:

No pilot in command of an aircraft may allow an individual who does not hold—
‘‘(1) a valid private pilots certificate issued by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
‘‘(2) the appropriate medical certificate issued by the Administrator under part 67 of such title,
to manipulate the controls of an aircraft if the pilot knows or should have known that the individual is attempting to set a record or engage in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat, as defined by the Administrator

I swear I thought that was codified in part 61 or 91. For the life of me I can't seem to find it. One free "like" on the response of first person who can find it for me, and a virtual high-five. It's also possible that it was never made a regulation but is still law, nevertheless.
Click to expand...
So if you have a commercial or ATP certificate rather than a private and are setting a record or engaged in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat, and you are at the controls but another pilot is the legal PIC, they are breaking the law? Am I reading that right?
 
cgrab said:
Iif we had a law that said "Don't do stupid stuff." It would supersede this one. Clearly that law does not exist.
Click to expand...
That's probably why we have 91.13!
 
MassPilot said:
So if you have a commercial or ATP certificate rather than a private and are setting a record or engaged in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat, and you are at the controls but another pilot is the legal PIC, they are breaking the law? Am I reading that right?
Click to expand...
The FAA considers ATP's and commercial pilots to have all the privileges of lower level pilot certificates, but I haven't been able to find that in the regulations so far.
 
Palmpilot said:
The FAA considers ATP's and commercial pilots to have all the privileges of lower level pilot certificates, but I haven't been able to find that in the regulations so far.
Click to expand...
As written, it excludes sport pilots.
 
Well, theoretically, at least!
 
Sometimes when congress passes a new law that affects aviation and the FAA, they structure the language of the law to require the FAA to make a regulation (i.e. BasicMed). Other times, the just codify it and let that be sufficient. In regards to the law at hand, it was the latter option.
 
ejensen said:
Never should have taken off from Cheyenne until the TS passed.
Click to expand...
That was during the mapping days. We were working south of that area and saw the thunderstorm up north. It looked nasty, but didn't think anything about it until I got home and saw the news.
 
Another unhelpful law.

Our system:

---> Undesirable event --->
---> Public outcry = "Do something!" --->
---> lawmakers --->
---> toothless and unnecessary law which will help no one.
Result:
-Public appeased (something appears to have been done)
-Lawmakers happy (they responded to public outcry and get more votes)
-Niche group is now hamstrung or burdened with cost.
-Undesirable events often not prevented.
-Lawbooks multiply

And.....
Our System is basically unchangeable in our lifetimes.
 
That law is such an epitomic example of nanny government that it's kind of bizarre.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Another unhelpful law.

Our system:

---> Undesirable event --->
---> Public outcry = "Do something!" --->
---> lawmakers --->
---> toothless and unnecessary law which will help no one.
Result:
-Public appeased (something appears to have been done)
-Lawmakers happy (they responded to public outcry and get more votes)
-Niche group is now hamstrung or burdened with cost.
-Undesirable events often not prevented.
-Lawbooks multiply

And.....
Our System is basically unchangeable in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
The knee-jerk proposals that were originally floated after that crash were much worse! At least the lobby groups got Congress to tone it down to something that would not hamstring normal operations by licensed pilots.
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. Isolated storm, fairly rare morning storm, no reason to launch straight into it.

CFI committed suicide and killed everyone on board to keep a schedule for the cameras.
Click to expand...
Well, they got on TV all right! :(
 
This may be a double Necro.

I hadn't heard of Jessica (or the resultant law) until today when a non-aviator friend pointed it out.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Another unhelpful law.

Our system:

---> Undesirable event --->
---> Public outcry = "Do something!" --->
---> lawmakers --->
---> toothless and unnecessary law which will help no one.
Result:
-Public appeased (something appears to have been done)
-Lawmakers happy (they responded to public outcry and get more votes)
-Niche group is now hamstrung or burdened with cost.
-Undesirable events often not prevented.
-Lawbooks multiply

And.....
Our System is basically unchangeable in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

You mean like this?

 
I was on hold for weather at Spear Fish SD when this accident happened. Really a good reason not to skud run.
 
I was flying in Northern CO and saw the storm over Cheyenne. That was a long time ago. I looked it up. She would have been 31 if she was still alive.
 
N1120A said:
Not at all. It is the epitome of a law being passed because people do really stupid things and endanger others.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t stop them. Pretty much useless.

If such laws actually worked, we wouldn’t still have people purposely flying into weather every year.

Training and a sense of self worth / self preservation work.

Laws are just blather to let the dumb people’s insurance company off the hook.

They do serve as a mild warning to those with self worth... “Every law is written in blood” but otherwise pretty useless.

Seen the stories of the guy who flew fake charter for like a decade after certificate revocation and they couldn’t figure out how to stop him?

It’s almost pitiful how little they can actually do. Sucky job if you’re the poor schmuck tasked with stopping a rogue like that.

Buuuuut anyway... world records... probably a reasonable ban, but nobody really cares about youngest pilot anymore. It was just a dumb fad until it got a kid killed. The fad died with her, the law was reactive and needless.

Like a lot of laws, the stupid stopped at the death. The law is just the “no trespassing” sign back at the start of the road leading up to the cliff. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Buuuuut anyway... world records... probably a reasonable ban, but nobody really cares about youngest pilot anymore. It was just a dumb fad until it got a kid killed.
Click to expand...

The politicians wanted far worse. Fortunately, AOPA etc. got them to tone it down to something that was narrowly enough focused to not do significant harm to GA.

The fad died with her, the law was reactive and needless.
Click to expand...

Not completely dead. A few years ago I saw where somebody was planning something under the auspices of the Tuskegee Airmen or someone like that. I don't recall if it was a record attempt, but it did seem to have a publicity factor. I recall thinking that it was stepping over the line that the Dubroff law drew, to some extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top