Clearly Nate does not accept the division of powers in the US Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act or the legal definitions of things like "air transportation". Absent common ground within the basic framework of aviation law, I cannot continue to respond to his posts.
Huh. Interesting response.
All those things existed prior to 2009 when a lawyer changed the FAA's stance on the topic at hand, in a single letter. Not by due process of law, not by NPRM, not by any of the voter/Congress approved ways to change FAA law. Just poof. The vast majority of folks both in and out of FAA were surprised at the letter, and there's never been any reviewable data nor studies done that back up the claim that it changed the safety record of aviation in any significant numerical measurable way.
I call BS on that, and you think I have the problem? I'm supposed to have respect for a system with that big of a loophole that can't be closed?
When a majority of pilots now say, "NEVER contact the Chief Counsel's office, the risk that your inquiry into any particularly (poorly written law) won't result in a better law, it stands a huge chance of the Chief Counsel changing aviation law for the worse?"
Saying I'm "anti-Constitution" is quite a stretch, even for you, a known apologist for the overbearing legal system that is choking private ownership of aircraft by the working class, to the point where it barely has a pulse.
I know you make your living teaching this information, but pull your head out for just a minute and look around. Simplification of law, and common sense are being eroded by this broken process. More laws is not the answer to better safety.
More FLYING is. More MENTORING is. Look at this community. Did pilots suddenly decide they wanted to have 20 page discussions about arbitrary and badly written regulations, or are the laws just overwhelming the ability for most folk to keep up? I'd rather see twenty threads on technique than 20 threads on law, liability, and shoddy approach plates, wouldn't you?
Shouldn't a highly qualified and experienced CFII as yourself be beating students away with a stick, if the aviation industry were healthy?
Would you prefer we shut the industry down again with another liability lawsuit driven by some lawyer arguing that a pilot broke some nit-pick law while flying some folks somewhere, because they were caught thinking their airplane could be used like their privately owned house, car, boat, motor coach, or travel trailer?
Keep rooting for additional regulations and laws if you enjoy such things. I respect the law. I follow the law. What I don't respect is the Chief Counsel legislating via FAA letterhead, with no review process, nor evidence they did any good.
You enjoy the minutiae, I know. The fact that the minutiae are a significant deterrent to anyone interested in joining the ranks of aviators, is mostly lost on you.
The gang that flies Commercially, always pipes up that Private regs are fine, while flying under their Company-created regs. That always cracks me up. They know best, of course... and yet they haven't flown under Part 91 in decades other than to Gaston's for a weekend. They get a sense of, "Well there's lots of rules and they're tailored to the scenario", and in their world... They're right.
As a lifetime Part 91 person who only sees bad changes that serve no purpose coming from the Chief Counsel's office and only one set of regs to fly by... The perspective is completely different.
Try getting someone my age interested in flying. The conversation will start with, "That's cool!" and end with, "Why would I pay that much money for an airplane and have to memorize all that arcane crap about when I can use it to fly for business vs pleasure? And there's more silly stuff to memorize a bunch of laws where I can be cited by the Feds? And how old is your airplane? Do they make newer ones? How much? See ya. I have a nice race car in the garage that's far less headache and a really nice deck I can throw parties on."
Your zeal for the regs is understandable. You live in the world of instruction where forgetting to impart or check that someone knows all of the silly things, carries a high liability for you. But you're completely missing the overbearing squeezing suffocating death of the middle-class private aircraft owner completely, and even helping it along.
From another thread...if the public is either saying no to $50K for a pickup truck, or financing it for SEVEN years, the smart ones are certainly already saying no to $500K light aircraft. What did the industry as a whole sell last year? A couple hundred?
Anything that makes ownership and private use of such an expensive toy more onerous, is just another nail in the almost-nailed-shut coffin.
Mangiamele is just one example of bad behavior. It's been five+ years and the industry hasn't slammed the door on such surprises. The industry hasn't gone for the jugular and slammed the door on user fees by pointing loudly at Europe and saying "you will kill individual GA", the industry hasn't pounded desks for larger liability reform and a return to sanity there. And the fleet keeps getting older... and less interesting... to anyone in the middle class.
The continued operation and sustainment of government loan backed bankrupt airlines competing for routes that move thousands of people and cargo a day and Net them a few hundred bucks profit per flight, isn't helping any either. "Airline service everywhere!" at $99/pax means no one even needs a light aircraft anymore.
I know you'll think all these things are unrelated, but you take them as a whole, a decision like Mangiamele is huge.
It's part of the "death of a thousand cuts" that may or may not be irreversible. It's a guarantee that it certainly can't be reversed with individuals championing each little slice as good things. Championing the process that produces things like Mangiamele isn't going to get us where we need to go.
Feel free not to reply. The above is so "anti-Constitution". Love the process. Kill the people. Douse the dream. It's your right. Personally, I'll happily take an FAA that says private flights are none of their business who pays for them and higher standards for currency to have the privilege over an FAA that outright bans private carriage paid for by a business.
An example: How long did it take most of the charitable organizations to get waivers to "compensate" pilots with free flight time? Was that good for aviation? Was the publicity of grounding those ultralight guys leading the geese around during migration because kids sent their piggy banks good for aviation?
Or does the above just make us look like a bunch of twits willing to put up with non-sensical crap in order to barely remain aloft?
Is that the image we want? Or want to encourage from an FAA lawyer's office?
"Welcome to aviation, here's a 2000 page rulebook! Start reading! We won't make you read all of the maintenance stuff, we've got mechanics who still know all that. They charge $95/hr. We've pushed the cost of a GPS in our little world up to $10K. Isn't that impressive? Yeah, I know it's free on your $500 phone. Get over it. You should see the cost of our special fuel! Don't tell your kids it has lead in it still, they've probably been indoctrinated at school about lead in the environment and they'll think you're an evil person for even thinking about burning it. We can put a diesel in your Skylane for $350K if you're worried about it. What? I know that's more than your underwater house cost. Get over it. Ron will call you an anti-Constitutionalist if you keep this up! Hush!"