Other than FAA regs affect pilots

Interesting. I've come across a bunch of pilots who think that the only rules that affect aviation are from the FAA (can you find the FAR that requires a radiotelephone permit?).

Maybe I need to add a fifth to my short list of "Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths?"

Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths

  1. The AIM is not regulatory.
  2. A Safety Pilot is only a lookout.
  3. The Pilot In Command is the only person with responsibility for the safety of a flight.
  4. It's your logbook.
  5. The FAA is the only legal body that controls what we do in aircraft.
 
steingar said:
Are you legally obligated to show [the logbook] to anyone?
Click to expand...

Don't know...IANAL. However, I know that I can be obligated to comply with a search warrant to search my house. I think we can agree that my house belongs to me.

Or did I miss your point?
 
Bob Noel said:
(sorry for the hijack) but it's not my logbook? huh?
Click to expand...
Context: many discussions about logging things properly end up somewhere along the way with someone saying, "It's your logbook, so you can write in it anything you want," suggesting that it's nothing more than a personal diary with no legal consequences to what's written in there.

I call that a regulatory half-truth.

Yes, it's "your" logbook, exactly the way your business ledgers are "yours" a document that contains information required to be collected by law and for which improper collection could subject "you" to penalties.

You're welcome to call it something else.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Context: many discussions about logging things properly end up somewhere along the way with someone saying, "It's your logbook, so you can write in it anything you want," suggesting that it's nothing more than a personal diary with no legal consequences to what's written in there.

I call that a regulatory half-truth.

Yes, it's "your" logbook, exactly the way your business ledgers are "yours" a document that contains information required to be collected by law and for which improper collection could subject "you" to penalties.

You're welcome to call it something else.
Click to expand...

ok. I understand the context. Thanks for the explanation.

I don't agree that it somehow isn't my logbook, but I understand your position.
 
kkoran said:
Why do you say "inadvertent"? That would make sense if the pilot didn't know the nest was there, but it appears that is not the case.
Click to expand...

You are right, it now says he thinks they were trying to see the nest:
"The warden said he believes ultralight pilots are flying within a few hundred feet of the nest to get photographs of its occupants."
On another site, someone was quoted as saying they thought the buzzing was 'inadvertent'.
Either way, da birds need their privacy!
 
steingar said:
How else would an airman know about the restriction?
Click to expand...
Same way ordinary mortals would. There "might" be a sign on the ground reminding folks about a law prohibiting bothering the endangered national emblem of our country while it's nesting but there might not.
 
steingar said:
The FAA has sole regulatory authority over the airspace. Their method of communication to pilots is NOTAMs. Anything else is patently illegal.
Click to expand...

I believe the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 gives them sole authority only over navigable airspace, rather than all airspace. I believe you'll find the definition for navigable airspace in the FAR/AIM. Its seems to coincide with section 91.119, minimum safe altitudes.

Odd thing though - when I follow all the legal definitions and Part 91 regs, it seems the regs say pilots entering or leaving navigable airspace for any purpose other than taking off or landing are in violation of said regs. On the other hand the legislation that authorizes their regime of authority seems to indicate they have no authority there.

So if you fly too close to assemblages of people, you may meet the criteria to be in violation of FAA regs, but on the other hand you also technically meet the criteria placing you outside the airspace that the FAA has, presumably by definition and legislative mandate, authority over.

(Clearly I have no grasp of the nuances of the law - there is probably no contradiction.)
 
steingar said:
The FAA has sole regulatory authority over the airspace. Their method of communication to pilots is NOTAMs. Anything else is patently illegal.
Click to expand...
Murdering someone by flying into him is ok if there's no FAR or NOTAM telling you not to. And, at worst, you won't get any penalty other than a license revocation.

Nice theory.

See, I =do= need to add that last item to my signature block. :rolleyes2:
 
The ultralight pilot in question was fined for violating a State wildlife protection statute, not a FAR. The fact that an aircraft was involved is incidental. He would have accrued the same fine if he used a ladder to get close to the nest.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Murdering someone by flying into him is ok if there's no FAR or NOTAM telling you not to. And, at worst, you won't get any penalty other than a license revocation.

Nice theory.

See, I =do= need to add that last item to my signature block. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Non sequitur and straw man argument.

Murder and an infinite number of other things has naught to do with arguments over what government agencies have authority to dictate movement restrictions in airspace.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Murder and an infinite number of other things has naught to do with arguments over what government agencies have authority to dictate movement restrictions in airspace.
Click to expand...

This case has very little to do with movement restrictions in airspace and everything to do with consequences of your activities on the subject-matter jurisdiction of other regulatory agencies. That one happens to be flying in an airplane while harassing wildlife etc. is irrelevant (or more accurately, immaterial) to the jurisdiction of the controlling agency.

If I had a dollar for every one of these threads...
 
Sac Arrow said:
The ultralight pilot in question was fined for violating a State wildlife protection statute, not a FAR. The fact that an aircraft was involved is incidental. He would have accrued the same fine if he used a ladder to get close to the nest.
Click to expand...

Suppose the state protection statute said the closest vertical distance was 5000 feet - use of an aircraft still incidental?

The jurisdictional area is not "incidental" - it appears to be the core of the thread.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Suppose the state protection statute said the closest vertical distance was 5000 feet - use of an aircraft still incidental?

The jurisdictional area is not "incidental" - it appears to be the core of the thread.
Click to expand...

The state protection statute does not mention any such number and I would wager that it does not mention aircraft at all.

Contrast this with the current NOAA NPRM attempting to establish a solid AGL floor over a marine sanctuary on the west coast whereby if you fly below it there is a presumption that you have harassed sea mammals and thus violated a regulation. Much more problematic (legally, not to mention practical enforcement) and may not survive court review in light of Congress' wish.
 
And one final thought: Though the FAA through congressional mandate has occupied the field of civil airspace regulation they have no such mandate for regulating criminal conduct in the airspace.
 
Jim Logajan said:
(Clearly I have no grasp of the nuances of the law - there is probably no contradiction.)
Click to expand...

Well the law is swallowing camels, straining gnats, quoting the archaic texts, et al. Legal theory is like mathematics and philosophy, it only meets reality where convenient.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Suppose the state protection statute said the closest vertical distance was 5000 feet - use of an aircraft still incidental?

The jurisdictional area is not "incidental" - it appears to be the core of the thread.
Click to expand...

I think the core of this thread (at least as I understand it) is whether or not State and other governmental authorities can exercise de-factor authority over airspace and flight operations, right?
 
alaskaflyer said:
And one final thought: Though the FAA through congressional mandate has occupied the field of civil airspace regulation they have no such mandate for regulating criminal conduct in the airspace.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's good or bad. One of the reasons Europe is such a cluster is that it is still a bunch of individual "state" governments grudgingly working together rather than a true "Federal Super-State" (thanks to Jeremy Clarkson for that comparison). The difference is that Europe that can't even agree on an electric plug socket. Where they do "agree", it's often a cluster compromise of the worst regulation options from each of the member-states.

Look at the people trying to establish their own "no-fly" zones in the last few years. From that grower suing every balloon operator in sight, to the people not liking the guys (legally) practicing aerobatics and suing them.

I agree with the AOPA on this. One body writing regulation is enough.
 
alaskaflyer said:
And one final thought: Though the FAA through congressional mandate has occupied the field of civil airspace regulation they have no such mandate for regulating criminal conduct in the airspace.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable point - and I assume would be particularly true for civil law also.

I tried Google searching the subject of legal jurisdiction of crimes committed in the air and discovered whole books had been written on the subject. Couldn't find any clarity on how broad a reach state laws can be drawn or interpreted before they are considered overstepping into Federal jurisdiction. E.g. what if a pilot of a noisy helicopter had been fined by the state for circling at 3000 ft?

Who has jurisdiction of crimes committed in aircraft? This gives some ideas:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/781350.html

I would not think noise regulations would per se be within the mandate of the FAA, but there is this (several other examples can be found):

http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/government/departments/Planning/AircraftNoise.cfm
 
Jim Logajan said:
I believe you'll find the definition for navigable airspace in the FAR/AIM.
Click to expand...

You're right. It's in 14 CFR 1.1:

Navigable airspace means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.
​
 
Jim Logajan said:
Suppose the state protection statute said the closest vertical distance was 5000 feet - use of an aircraft still incidental?
Click to expand...
Probably. If the goal is species protection and they are up in trees, a good argument can be made that the impingement on aviation is still incidental to the main purpose of the statute or rule.

The jurisdictional area is not "incidental" - it appears to be the core of the thread.
Click to expand...
The jurisdictional issue is also not as simple as you're comment suggests. You can go through the US appellate cases (even Supreme Court cases) that have dealt with the issue and you get a very complex analysis that isn't as simple as "it was an airplane and it was in the air. End of story."

And the jurisdictional issue is different if we're dealing with state regulation or federal regulation by another agency.
 
Someone ought to shoot those eagles so we don't have to worry about getting a ticket.:wink2:
 
When i was young, drunk and stupid, i made 3 low passes over an open air assembly (rock concert). The FAA liftem my ticket for awhile, then the state arrested me in a restaurant for same offense. They issued a warrant for reckless operation of an aircraft. The fine was about $300.00. I sobered up a little over 28 years ago.
 
supercub185 said:
When i was young, drunk and stupid, i made 3 low passes over an open air assembly (rock concert). The FAA liftem my ticket for awhile, then the state arrested me in a restaurant for same offense. They issued a warrant for reckless operation of an aircraft. The fine was about $300.00. I sobered up a little over 28 years ago.
Click to expand...

Were the Eagles playing songs from their album Desperado at this rock concert?

I don't think the Eagles have been considered endangered since their reunion. :wink2:
 
Jim Logajan said:
Were the Eagles playing songs from their album Desperado at this rock concert?

I don't think the Eagles have been considered endangered since their reunion. :wink2:
Click to expand...
It was the warmup band . They dropped their instruments and ran, along with many concert goers. Troopers told FAA i was lower than 20 feet. They identified me by sight, not tail numbers alone. I am very greatful to hold a second class medical and commercial ticket. Life has been good in sobriety. 28 years without spending a christmas in the county jail.lol.
 
I think the takeaway from all this - as Jim and Mark have also alluded - is, if your sorry piloting behavior has a nexus to things happening on the ground, or rises to criminal conduct, no one is going to be impressed with a claim that only the FAA can touch you for it - except similarly misinformed pilots on discussion forums :ihih:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top