Virginia Sherriff charges pilot with reckless flying for low pass over lake

Randomskylane said:
Some states require registration/insurance on the plane. I think it’s a one year in jail misdemeanor in Maryland or Virginia.

pretty sure I saw a few articles on people flying without pilot certificate and the fine was 250k plus a fun stay with the govt
Click to expand...

Correction on Maryland and registration. Yes they passed a law in1977, effective in 1978, state registration required for all aircraft owned in the state.

Appealed, and found not valid.

I have in my logbook the registration document for N3891S, for 1978, which I removed and kept for a souvenir. From the number on it, 0474, at least 474 owners ponied up, just to stay legal. We did not file to recover the fee, the cost would have been more than we recovered.
 
Suppose it was a seaplane. Who determines if it is legal to make a water landing?

Asking for a friend.
Cheers
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Easy peasy. FAA definition:

View attachment 109893
And on the sectional:

Light blue open water - Great Lake
Darker blue inland water - bays, lakes, and inlets.


View attachment 109894
Click to expand...

FAA can't even follow their own defintion. They have so many bays that are smaller than inland lakes near cities that aren't marked dark blue. Hell, they even have RIVERS marked as open water when they have lakes 20 miles across not marked that way. So not so easy peasy.

And you can bet your ass they will change the definition in court when they get the chance. So again, what *IS* open water. Just like what is a congested area?
 
SoonerAviator said:
Wouldn't that depend on what the FAA considered to be a "congested area" as well as whether the aircraft descended down over the lake and pulled back up before crossing congested areas? Dunno, just saying the photo doesn't tell us one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Maybe it could climb fast enough to get 1000 feet above the obstacles by the time it got over the neighborhood adjacent to the far end of the lake, but in the photo, it looks to me like the shore behind the airplane is too close for it to have gotten that low if it had been over 1000 feet when it was over the neighborhood.

As for defining a congested area, case law has given the FAA wide latitude on that.

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2016/january/15/congested-area

Furthermore, if you switch the Google satellite view to Map View and zoom in, you can see the outlines of the buildings. There are enough of them, and they are close enough together, that the FAA wouldn't have any trouble at all classifying it as a congested area. (In Satellite View, the trees hide most of the buildings.)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/L...8d989146864295!8m2!3d38.3401712!4d-77.7607522
 
Last edited:
ElPaso Pilot said:
Easy peasy. FAA definition:
Click to expand...

Not convinced that's a legal definition. For easy reference, I point out the intercoastal waterway canal in eastern NC south of the Alligator River. It's shown in light blue, but is a mere 85' wide. Ditto on the number of rivers which penetrate far inland - Rappahannock in Fredrickburg, VA is an example. And yet, the MIssissippi River changes at the mouth of the river.

I suspect the coloring on the chart is a matter of convenience, not legality.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe it could climb fast enough to get 1000 feet above the obstacles by the time it got over the neighborhood adjacent to the far end of the lake, but in the photo, it looks to me like the shore behind the airplane is too close for it to have gotten that low if it had been over 1000 feet when it was over the neighborhood.

As for defining a congested area, case law has given the FAA wide latitude on that.

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2016/january/15/congested-area

Furthermore, if you switch the Google satellite view to Map View and zoom in, you can see the outlines of the buildings. There are enough of them, and they are close enough together, that the FAA wouldn't have any trouble at all classifying it as a congested area. (In Satellite View, the trees hide most of the buildings.)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/L...8d989146864295!8m2!3d38.3401712!4d-77.7607522
Click to expand...

I get it, I'm just saying the photo doesn't explicitly imply that he's in violation of anything in the regs. However, the FAA seems to love their ambiguity in the reg language in these situations. I wouldn't be surprised if they just decide to call it "congested" simply to have a sacrificial lamb in order to dissuade other pilots from performing similar actions.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I get it, I'm just saying the photo doesn't explicitly imply that he's in violation of anything in the regs. However, the FAA seems to love their ambiguity in the reg language in these situations. I wouldn't be surprised if they just decide to call it "congested" simply to have a sacrificial lamb in order to dissuade other pilots from performing similar actions.
Click to expand...
Well in reality, it doesn't seem like the FAA is even going to be involved in this case.
 
bflynn said:
Not convinced that's a legal definition. For easy reference, I point out the intercoastal waterway canal in eastern NC south of the Alligator River. It's shown in light blue, but is a mere 85' wide. Ditto on the number of rivers which penetrate far inland - Rappahannock in Fredrickburg, VA is an example. And yet, the MIssissippi River changes at the mouth of the river.

I suspect the coloring on the chart is a matter of convenience, not legality.
Click to expand...
Little Traverse Bay is two different colors depending on whether you look at the Lake Huron chart, or the Green Bay chart.
 
Randomskylane said:
Some states require registration/insurance on the plane. I think it’s a one year in jail misdemeanor in Maryland or Virginia.

pretty sure I saw a few articles on people flying without pilot certificate and the fine was 250k plus a fun stay with the govt
Click to expand...

Ohio requires an annual registration Fee. IIRC it is $10.
 
X3 Skier said:
Ohio requires an annual registration Fee. IIRC it is $10.
Click to expand...

Until a few years ago, Ohio also required anyone applying for said aircraft registration to certify that they weren't a terrorist. o_O

FOR AIRCRAFT OWNERS, COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE’S AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT INVOLVES COMPLETING A FIVE-PAGE FORM AND ANSWERING SUCH QUESTIONS AS, “ARE YOU A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION ON THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE TERRORIST EXCLUSION LIST? ” HELPFUL HINT: THE CORRECT ANSWER IS “NO.”​
 
"You in a heap o' trouble, boy!"

11110877_941797815851498_7407392531703952535_n.jpg
 
X3 Skier said:
By any chance is the Sheriff named Buford T Justice or the Judge’s name Chambelin Haller?

Cheers
Click to expand...

Judge Chamberlain Haller would be a good judge to have... unlike Buford or similar characters...
 
X3 Skier said:
Suppose it was a seaplane. Who determines if it is legal to make a water landing?

Asking for a friend.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Local ordinances can be in effect that limit access. Depends on the water body.

similar to helicopters. Can’t land anywhere you want to even if you have owner permission.
 
schmookeeg said:
I wonder if a very good aviation lawyer could somehow get his fees extracted from the sheriff here and create a good rap on the knuckles for not staying in his lane.
Click to expand...
Aviation lawyers likely are going to be lost in GDC which is a freaking zoo in Virginia.
 
Yeah but how many thousands did he spend on a lawyer?
 
Well...I just read the thread this morning for the first time and I have a question: Is the photo in post #5 supposed to be the pilot in question flying an RV-6 ?
The photo shows a plane with a rounded vertical and it also appears that the fuselage is painted below the " center stripe " area. The picture of the RV in post #36 is not the same airplane...only a center stripe on a white fuselage and squared off vertical. I am not saying the pilot was not at fault, but I am saying I do not think the photo from the lake is this RV-6.
 
I remember, vaguely, a local-yokel sheriff/police chief getting his knickers in a knot over a sailplane flying near a nuclear power plant. Got some of the other pilots on the ground to radio him to land, as the "cops wanted to talk to him": Arrested him, took him to jail, etc. I think a LEO pilot on scene showed the cops the sectional, pointed out the sailplane guy was "legal", to no avail. Last I heard they cut the pilot loose same day if he promised not to sue. I guess he was a laid back guy and said "sure."

Not positive I have the details spot on, but pretty sure I'm close. As for this "event" - the actual danger to anyone other than the pilot was next to zero.
 
Doug Reid said:
Well...I just read the thread this morning for the first time and I have a question: Is the photo in post #5 supposed to be the pilot in question flying an RV-6 ?
The photo shows a plane with a rounded vertical and it also appears that the fuselage is painted below the " center stripe " area. The picture of the RV in post #36 is not the same airplane...only a center stripe on a white fuselage and squared off vertical. I am not saying the pilot was not at fault, but I am saying I do not think the photo from the lake is this RV-6.
Click to expand...
I said that on page 1


Salty said:
I don’t think they are the same aircraft

Lake-of-the-Woods-aircraft-violation-081722.jpg




View attachment 109810
Click to expand...
 
Doug Reid said:
Well...I just read the thread this morning for the first time and I have a question: Is the photo in post #5 supposed to be the pilot in question flying an RV-6 ?
The photo shows a plane with a rounded vertical and it also appears that the fuselage is painted below the " center stripe " area. The picture of the RV in post #36 is not the same airplane...only a center stripe on a white fuselage and squared off vertical. I am not saying the pilot was not at fault, but I am saying I do not think the photo from the lake is this RV-6.
Click to expand...
looks more like a chipmunk to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top