What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Professionals play by the rules?.or at least have a well thought through strategy

Louise Hose

Well Known Member
I currently work for the National Park Service. Anyone who has visited one of our parks knows that there are plenty of restrictions for safety, environmental/heritage protection, and bureaucratic reasons. Despite my personal misgivings and frustration with some rules and their limitations on my personal freedoms, I do not claim a right to violate those regs and rules while on vacation at a park. If I were to throw stones off the Rim of the Grand Canyon, potentially endangering hikers below, I would hope someone would report me?..even if it threatened my livelihood. I?m potentially endangering people. (I have been the person cowering under a boulder as some twit threw rocks from an overlook, sure that no one was below!) If I carved my honey?s name into a tree bark on a weekend visit, I would expect to be reported. I sure can?t imagine trying to bully or intimidate people who wanted to stop my behavior. (I might add that as a scientist, I have never felt the compulsion to ignore the proper scientific methodology and procedures when I write a scientific paper on my own time and dime. And, I?d fully expect to be called on it if I did!)

So, why do some paid (or even unpaid) pilots in our community think they have a right to flagrantly violate the rules and regs without consequences? How many professions have practitioners that think they don?t have to behave legally when off the clock? The immaturity of this attitude is mind-boggling to me. And, snitching? I don?t think I?ve ever heard adults use that term outside of the aviation world and television (usually a Mythbuster parodying a convict). I occasionally think I?m back in a junior high school classroom when reading some forum discussions like the one on Doug?s personal rules.

In my humble opinion, if you want to violate laws, regulations, and rules, you have three reasonable choices:

1. Work to change the rules (and just whining doesn?t count);

2. Go be a ?cowboy? in a manner and place that it doesn?t impact anyone else. Go express your freedom away from airports and inhabited areas (and, please, away from national parks!). If no one sees you do it, no one is going to report you; and

3. If you chose to violate laws, regs, and rules, don't advertise/publicize your misdeeds. It impacts others if you put them in the uncomfortable position of trying to decide if they should report your activities. It also reflects poorly on the maturity of our community. If you want to make a statement of protest by ?civil? disobedience, a tradition considered by most in the U.S. to be fair tactic as long as no one else is endangered, please ensure no one outside yourself is at risk and go ahead. But, be prepared to take the consequences like any ?professional? protestor would do.

I will now step off the soapbox?.
 
Specific Violations

Louise,

Can you be a little more specific on what FARs you've seen violated? Are you talking about low level? As you know, Part 91 does not specify a minimum altitude in sparsely populated areas so long as the aircraft is not flown "...closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." Also, the pilot must fly at "an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." (91.119).

Now, there's a disciplined way to fly low and an undisciplined way. When flying low, I carefully plan my route, avoid wildlife preserves (even though the 2,000 minimum altitude is a "request"), not fly the area until I've flown it a higher altitude first, carry plenty of airspeed, don't do aerobatics, and give people/property a wide berth.

-Matt
402BD
 
I occasionally think I?m back in a junior high school classroom when reading some forum discussions like the one on Doug?s personal rules.

You consider it juvenile to suggest a higher success rate with (a) respect and peer approval than with (b) calling the authorities?
 
Coming from someone that works outside of the major bureaucracies of the federal government, there is a very real difference between someone that wants to get involved with the feds on any enforcement action. I don't know, but i suppose that from long time employment at NASA for Paul and you with the NPS there are different rules for the employees vs the people.

with the proliferation of laws that are hard to keep track of, have life changing consequences, and seem tailored to selective enforcement, most people view getting authorities involved on anything less than life and death to be somehting to be avoided.

that is my stance, i don't have a mafia mentality of avoiding being a snitch, i don't want someones life ruined for selective enforcement of laws that don't make sense
 
...I occasionally think I?m back in a junior high school classroom when reading some forum discussions like the one on Doug?s personal rules...

I feel the same way when reading some of these posts!

...Of course, it is for the exact opposite reason than you have expressed.

So which one of us is "right"?

Anyway, I do mostly agree with your 3 points. It is only the tipping point which causes a moral conflict (i.e. "should I report this guy, or not?"), that we may differ.

I would report someone only if it was a particularly egregious violation that was very likely to cause injury to innocents - others might turn in a pilot for making an improper radio call. Both positions could be fully justified... And that is the main problem here.

Doug has indicated that ANY violation posted on "his" site is likely to be forwarded to "the authorities". Since I don't know Doug, I can only take statements like that at face value. I don't know about you, but that certainly tempers the level of "communication" that I'm willing to engage in.
 
You consider it juvenile to suggest a higher success rate with (a) respect and peer approval than with (b) calling the authorities?

I don't understand the question, at least option "a", and I didn't say a word about whether someone should or shouldn't call the authorities. My comments were about people who think they should be immune to being reported.....not whether they should be reported. You want to talk about the people who call the authorities, start your own thread. :(
 
Louise,

Can you be a little more specific on what FARs you've seen violated? Are you talking about low level?

I suppose I could try to recite FARs that I've seen violated, but I wasn't commenting on any flying actions I've seen. I commented on an attitude I see often displayed on these forums. Just read the posts in Doug's personal standards page and you'll see several great examples.
 
You know, I find that comment offensive

Coming from someone that works outside of the major bureaucracies of the federal government, there is a very real difference between someone that wants to get involved with the feds on any enforcement action. I don't know, but i suppose that from long time employment at NASA for Paul and you with the NPS there are different rules for the employees vs the people.

First, I'm certainly not a career bureaucrat (coming into this world only recently), so my culture and perspective is far more molded from a career in academia than the federal government. That said, I have frankly felt compelled to put aside some of my more "cowboy" behavior in national parks once I became an employee. I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to following the rules, on and off the job, than I did or probably will when I'm not an employee. I've mostly given up one of my greatest passions because I find the current rules too restrictive and my personal code while an employee doesn't allow me to act on my second "reasonable" option for violating rules/regs . I have to say that as I write this response, I'm offended that you think I would violate rules and regs as a privilege of my job. I expect that Paul will feel the same way when he reads your comment.

Paul wrote me when he saw my post that it was a good thing my avatar has a climbing hardhat on!

Again, I didn't delve into whether a person should be reported or not. I say you shouldn't have an expectation of NOT being reported if you violate FARs....in the air, in a national park, or in the air over a national park.
 
If you want to talk about when to report, please start your own thread

I would report someone only if it was a particularly egregious violation that was very likely to cause injury to innocents - others might turn in a pilot for making an improper radio call. Both positions could be fully justified... And that is the main problem here.

And, why do you think I would report someone using different standards than you? I haven't commented on when I would report someone.

It seems that there is a tremendous need to rant about whether one should report FAR violations, or not. That's not the subject of my post. I urge you to go start your own post. Think out your position on when and why one should or shouldn't report a violation. Make it thoughtful and well-considered. Put it out there and let the discussion begin. The previous thread on Doug's post had some thoughtful comments/warnings on the subject (e.g., Danny King's), but no one has yet provided a thoughtful discussion piece/thread starter on how to make the decision except Doug....and that wasn't a thread.

I started this thread because I would be interested in anyone who can articulate why pilots have an expectation of not being reported when they flagrantly violate regs. It's not an expectation that I understand. Is there a valid reason that pilots have different expectations than most of the working world? Or, is the response I see the equivalent of street gangs trying to intimidate others into not reporting them?
 
How said that?

So, why do some paid (or even unpaid) pilots in our community think they have a right to flagrantly violate the rules and regs without consequences?

Who said that?

Would you kindly point out what gave you such an impression? I assume you are referring to a post(s) on the thread you mentioned since you go on to express your indignation concerning the immature behavior exhibited by the responses you've read.

I might have missed it but I didn't read any such claim. Don't mean to attack you, but perhaps the responses you agreed with seemed more mature than the ones you disagreed with.

Your posts will probably have a more positive effect on those you seek to reach if you avoid insulting them. And yes, I think you have insulted me a little bit - but that's quite alright.
 
Last edited:
And, why do you think I would report someone using different standards than you? I haven't commented on when I would report someone.


I started this thread because I would be interested in anyone who can articulate why pilots have an expectation of not being reported when they flagrantly violate regs. ?

Interesting thread.
Why would any driver have and expectation of not being reported when they flagrantly violate traffic laws, yet is happens day in and day out everywhere. And then we cry and moan about radar sites and road blocks.
Different standards for pilots? I for one am alot more worried about getting smacked by a speeding drunk than an airplane. Just my 02 cents worth.
 
First, I'm certainly not a career bureaucrat (coming into this world only recently), so my culture and perspective is far more molded from a career in academia than the federal government. That said, I have frankly felt compelled to put aside some of my more "cowboy" behavior in national parks once I became an employee. I hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to following the rules, on and off the job, than I did or probably will when I'm not an employee. I've mostly given up one of my greatest passions because I find the current rules too restrictive and my personal code while an employee doesn't allow me to act on my second "reasonable" option for violating rules/regs . I have to say that as I write this response, I'm offended that you think I would violate rules and regs as a privilege of my job. I expect that Paul will feel the same way when he reads your comment.

Paul wrote me when he saw my post that it was a good thing my avatar has a climbing hardhat on!

Again, I didn't delve into whether a person should be reported or not. I say you shouldn't have an expectation of NOT being reported if you violate FARs....in the air, in a national park, or in the air over a national park.


I do have an intense respect for the crawling around in holes that you do, not to mention the flying and building you are doing and documenting. Non of this is an attack on you or Paul, ....

[ed: Deleted three paragraphs of comments completely insulting to ALL government employees and academics. Totally unfounded, completely prejudicial, essentially political. ]


anyway, that's my belief that makes it very unlikely to want to get someone reported unless i thought a life was at stake. Now whether someone thinks they shouldn't be reported for violating FARs, why not? Do we report people for driving while on a cell phone, while speeding, distracted, out of date registration tags, etc? I suppose you see much more reportable motor vehicle infractions in the big state of TX, but that isn't really the point. The point is- why is reporting someone in an airplane for any violation something you think should be regular and common, while cars/ trucks/ motorcycles get a free pass?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wules, wules, wules....

My wife, a retired kindergarten teacher, controlled her class with rules, rules, rules. It was the first thing kids learned in K and later in 1st grade when she went to that grade.

One little girl complained bitterly to her mother when asked about school, all we have are wules, wules, wules, which was reported back to the school with its intended humor.

Truth is, no society can function without rules. There are some who will disagree but that's not a very enlightened point of view.

Without rules and people who respect them, life is one step closer to chaos and anarchy. I will take a few rules anytime rather than have to deal with chaos and anarchy.
 
Coming from someone that works outside of the major bureaucracies of the federal government, there is a very real difference between someone that wants to get involved with the feds on any enforcement action. I don't know, but i suppose that from long time employment at NASA for Paul and you with the NPS there are different rules for the employees vs the people.

Huh? That?s pretty funny actually. My NASA badge won?t even get me through the security door at our local FSDO, and quite frankly, for those few percent of FAA investigators who betray their duty to serve the public and instead want to stroke their own egos (think the Bob Hoover debacle), they would love nothing better than to accuse a high-visibility person of an infraction. Hence, anyone who has a semblance of notoriety needs to keep their nose even cleaner than the average anonymous pilot. There have been numerous cases where one agency attacks the employee of another just to make a point - quite childish really.

Heck, the TSA doesn?t even accept my Federal ID at the airport?.


Now whether someone thinks they shouldn't be reported for violating FARs, why not? Do we report people for driving while on a cell phone, while speeding, distracted, out of date registration tags, etc? I suppose you see much more reportable motor vehicle infractions in the big state of TX, but that isn't really the point. The point is- why is reporting someone in an airplane for any violation something you think should be regular and common, while cars/ trucks/ motorcycles get a free pass?

Unless i am off base, this thread is not about reporting/not reporting people - it is about professionalism. You can, as suggested, start another thread about whether or not people should or should not report each other to authorities. All you have to do is click "New Thread"....
 
I admit, I turn left on red lights.

I know it is violating the rules. It seems very silly to me that I can't make a judgement call about the oncoming traffic. If nobody is coming, there is nobody to hit. However, if somebody turns me in, or an officer see's me do it, I'll take the ticket as I know I should not have done it. However, it is not a safety issue. If you disagree, you dont understand the scenerio. I dont do it unless there is no traffic and it is perfectly safe.
People have seen me do it, and some have gotten angry. I dont understand that. If I am not affecting them, their safety, or anybody else, why should they care?
I am sure it made much more sense to put the rule down than it would have been to say "use your own judgment" and turn when no traffic presents itself. I am sure it made sense to require parachutes in all aircraft when operated with a passenger during aerobatics, even if the aircraft was such that a parachute was useless in an emergency, like an RV. It's still the rule, one commonly violated, but it doesnt affect the relative safety.
I am all for rules to govern our society. However, our society, that of this great country would not be here had somebody not stood up against the rules that governed them and forged a better way. (dont flame me for that, it is a bit weak in the context of this discussion but I feel all patriotic today, Ha!)
 
And, why do you think I would report someone using different standards than you?...

I didn't offer an opinion concerning your reporting "threshold", but I am CERTAIN that it varies among the population. As I said, some (others) will report the most minor infraction and feel they deserve a gold star, while another may never report.

To your point that pilots should "expect" to be reported for observed violations, I happen to agree with you. Where we appear to differ though, is that I see this "willingness to report" as a sad commentary on our current litigious, overly intrusive social norm, while you seem to take the view that violated pilots "have it coming". If that is not your position, forgive me for reading into it.

The problem with labeling pilots as "safe or "unsafe" based strictly upon their blind observance of the regulations is as misleading and ambiguous as comparing RV accidents with all other GA flying. It is an easily digestible metric that looks reasonable at first blush, but there is far more to it than that.

Just like everyone on this board I?m all for flying as safely as you can, but thanks to the focus on ?following the rules?, you are giving a certain group the ammunition to demonize another group at the expense of genuine discussion. For example, it is perfectly normal to roll into a 90 degree bank in my airplane, and I perform such a turn for almost every significant heading change. It?s not required, but it?s fun, and it is safe. Now if this happens at pattern altitude, an observer might conclude that such a bank angle is not required for normal flight, and is therefore ?low altitude aerobatics?. There?s a violation. Contrast this with a properly briefed flight of 4 formation flight. It?s not required, it?s fun, and it is arguably not one bit ?safer? than 90 degrees of bank in the pattern. Thanks to the focus on ?following the rules?, one observed behavior is automatically endorsed while the other is demonized regardless of the relative merits of each.

We all fly for different reasons, and I get the sense that we try too hard to assign our own reasons to others. One pilot may define ?professional? as properly planning and executing an inverted low pass through an abandoned barn, while another may define it as following every written regulation to the letter. Who is right? I?d say both. Who has the right to pass judgment on another aviator? Not quite so easy.
 
Sure do.

Drunks too.

If their actions threaten me, or mine. darn tooting I will report them.

That is what i said all along, any time there was life threatening happening.

What about all the other infractions? edit- all the other non life threatening infractions that we see every day while driving



ps and what was the difference from paul's edit of my post to your edit? i didn't see any difference... seemed kinda ?
 
It's not about you, it the other guy/gal

I know it is violating the rules. It seems very silly to me that I can't make a judgement call about the oncoming traffic. If nobody is coming, there is nobody to hit. However, if somebody turns me in, or an officer see's me do it, I'll take the ticket as I know I should not have done it. However, it is not a safety issue. If you disagree, you dont understand the scenerio. I dont do it unless there is no traffic and it is perfectly safe.
People have seen me do it, and some have gotten angry. I dont understand that. If I am not affecting them, their safety, or anybody else, why should they care? I am sure it made much more sense to put the rule down than it would have been to say "use your own judgment" and turn when no traffic presents itself. I am sure it made sense to require parachutes in all aircraft when operated with a passenger during aerobatics, even if the aircraft was such that a parachute was useless in an emergency, like an RV. It's still the rule, one commonly violated, but it doesnt affect the relative safety.

Jon, I understand that sometime adjusting the rules to fit you better is hard to resist. I think that the anger you notice is because other people feel that you don't want to follow the rules because you are better then they are. You are insulting them when they follow the rules and you don't.

Another consideration to ponder, what if everyone used your 'new' rule. Even the drivers that have license but shouldn't. I think that the 'when it is safe' would have so many interpretations, where would it stop.

I hope this reply does not come out angry, because that is not my intent. Just trying to contribute another idea.

Kent
 
Jon, I understand that sometime adjusting the rules to fit you better is hard to resist. I think that the anger you notice is because other people feel that you don't want to follow the rules because you are better then they are. You are insulting them when they follow the rules and you don't.

to confuse that though, in my town several of the lights have been changed to have a blinking yellow left turn light during a regular round green. nothing changed physically in the intersection other than the light. So the DOT or city decided people ARE capable of making left turns into oncoming traffic, and using their judgement like you would for any other merging/ crossing procedure. And our roundabouts, all you have to do is speed up when entering and everything works out(not according to the dmv, but that is pretty much how it works every day)!

I think many people get insulted they are told they are not capable of judging what is safe at some intersection but in another one it is up to the individual driver!

Another consideration to ponder, what if everyone used your 'new' rule. Even the drivers that have license but shouldn't. I think that the 'when it is safe' would have so many interpretations, where would it stop.

I hope this reply does not come out angry, because that is not my intent. Just trying to contribute another idea.

Kent


the new rule 'when it is safe': Isn't that what we have as the fail safe position on the PPL? is it FAR 91.3? follow all rules, but if they will cause something very bad to happen you can violate them It is worded much more of an emergency clause than an everyday use, but it seems to be based on the same principle: if it is safe it is ok
 
I am sure it made sense to require parachutes in all aircraft when operated with a passenger during aerobatics, even if the aircraft was such that a parachute was useless in an emergency, like an RV. It's still the rule, one commonly violated, but it doesnt affect the relative safety.

This is one of the FAA rules that I don't particularly agree with, but have decided that I should comply with anyways. Parachutes in an RV (slider or tipup) are not going to help if you can't get the canopy open when it's time to bail out! I've tested my canopy on roll-out, and was unable to slide it open until my airspeed was indicating about 40mph.

But the FAA doesn't seem to care about the usefulness of the parachute(s). They just want them to be worn according to the rules.

DR has his rules as well - including the requirement that posts/pictures/videos do not advocate or show any violations of the FAA rules. I stepped into that error a while ago and got a polite reminder from DR to keep violations off of his website. The way I see it, it's DR's website so it's DR's rules. I went back and scrubbed the offending video from my post.

Do I agree with the FAR about parachutes? No. Do I agree that the FAA and DR can set their own rules regarding their turf? Yes. My passenger and I now fly with parachutes whenever we do aerobatics. It's really a hassle, but it's more of a hassle when the FAA decides to yank my ticket.
 
That would scare me to death..!!!

Another consideration to ponder, what if everyone used your 'new' rule. Even the drivers that have license but shouldn't. I think that the 'when it is safe' would have so many interpretations, where would it stop.

I hope this reply does not come out angry, because that is not my intent. Just trying to contribute another idea.

Kent
....but as mentioned, it is no different than a blinking yellow, and no, your reply did not sound angry or offensive in any way..... hey, you weren't that guy that gave me the bird in Canby on my way to WVCC the other day where you? Ha! cheers!
 
Last edited:
Never confuse.....

Are you talking about Senator Inhofe landing on a closed runway and nearly hitting some workers while getting barely a slap on the wrist?

Never confuse politicians, political appointees, and career civil servants. I would bet that there are a bunch of one group really ticked off at the pressure/orders applied to them by member(s) of another group in order to protect someone in the third group.

(This post was really too far OT to deserve a response, IMHO, but it's been bugging me enough to respond. My bad....)
 
You consider it juvenile to suggest a higher success rate with (a) respect and peer approval than with (b) calling the authorities?
This is a false choice. DR has never suggested it's either A or B and neither have any defenders of reporting to the FAA. Rather, DR has clearly said it's A first, and if that doesn't work, then B.

And before some get worked up by thinking DR is suggesting he's going to bust people for a wrong radio call or less than precise 45 deg entry to the pattern, that's not the way I read his missive. And that's not what I would do. It's the egregiously bad behavior coupled with a "screw-u" attitude that would trigger me to use my cell phone or email. Those types are getting plenty of respect and peer approval: from all their xxxxxxxxxxxxxx buddies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OH CWAP! WULES! by Elmer Fudd

Hey Louise:

I see some mis-compwehension in this thwead. Can you re-state your owiginal intent once more - I think we can all understand the need for wules, but we need to know the 'edges' (limits), which if I read cowwectly, might be what you are trying to ewaborate on?

2nd point: the wules are in pwace. Suggestion: they are not being followed cwose enough, thus the higher accident wate for the AB/RV crowd. Question: how do we weduce the wate? I think Dan's suggestion of peew pwessure is spot on, tho the thweat of being weported might also help, but that is not the best way to make fwiends and infwuience people.

Black/white:
Sounds like there are 2 paths to accident reduction: peer pressure, or reporting. Maybe we should have a vote here, regarding which is our path of choice. DR, feel free to set 'er up. I'd be interested in the tally for one.

Wules. Great word!:D I guess the opposite would be unwuley? Waskals!

Cawwy on!
Mawk
PS my spell checker exploded on this one....
 
Gwate Post Mawk..

I rarely laugh out loud while reading VAF posts. Thanks.......I needed that. :D
 
Following the rules and safety

Some of the responses to this thread are pretty astounding. For example, interpreting 91.3(b) which gives the pilot the authority to deviate from complying with a rule to the extent necessary in order to deal with "an inflight emergency requiring immediate action" means "if I think it is safe its OK" is a pretty amazing stretch (post 23). Comparing vehicle code violations to FAR violations (post 14), "selective enforcement of laws that don't make sense" IMHO display an attitude that is not conducive to flight safety. Though those who authored these posts have not likely studied the five hazardous attitudes that are detrimental to safe flying: anti-authority, macho, invulnerability, impulsiveness, and resignation. Some of these posts reek with these traits.

Maybe the "pilots" that think complying with FAR's is optional should post when and where they are flying so the "aviators" can stay out of their way so as not to interfere with their fun.
 
Creativity?

Citing 91.3(b) as a rational for some anti-authority, macho, invulnerable, impulsive, or resigned act is a new low. Seems to me to be a sure way to experience the joys of 91.13.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Some of the responses to this thread are pretty astounding. For example, interpreting 91.3(b) which gives the pilot the authority to deviate from complying with a rule to the extent necessary in order to deal with "an inflight emergency requiring immediate action" means "if I think it is safe its OK" is a pretty amazing stretch (post 23)...

I don't read into that at all. The fact is, if following the FAR's was "THE" SAFEST course of action a pilot could take, then deviating from them would be the last thing you would want to do - even in an emergency. Of course, there are plenty of examples where we run into the unbending laws of physics, but the point remains, the FAR's are not the ultimate in safety in and of themselves - They are there to accommodate a safe "process". And sometimes the process does not always apply to the situation. Unfortunately, we as pilots are not given the latitude to decide when the process applies and when it does not except in an emergency.

Sure the FAR's are generally a good idea, but certainly not an end all. The fact that they are overly broad, mind numbingly complex, and selectively enforced does not help the cause of those who are trying to reel in the more cynical of us.

{removed a whole paragraph where the author was chastising someone else for chastising others - go figure....}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Examples, please

... i don't want someones life ruined for selective enforcement of laws that don't make sense

Which life? Not sure what you're getting at here. Most of us on this forum fly for recreation. Some are pros, but they tend to know the rules and consequences even better, and if they choose to break the rules for some reason, they can calculate the risks. They'd be foolish to assume that no other pilot would ever report them, and I doubt many would make that assumption.

Most viloation actions result in relatively brief suspensions at worst, except in really egregious cases or some very rare circumstance.

So, I don't see any "life ruined" within the context of the OP. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Sorry, if you can't do the time...

If I see someone do something really dangerous and against regs on purpose, I reserve the right to report them to the fsdo if I see fit (which is necessarily selective, I admit).

So don't assume I won't make a call or that some other pilot/observer won't. There is way more at stake in this game than one pilot's erroneously perceived right to give an unauthorized/unqualified air show.
 
can o worms

It makes me nervous to see people deciding to "report" rule breakers. Not because I don't think there should be consequences, I do. I just realize that with differing levels of experience, come different perspectives...
Case in point. Experienced pilot flys down the runway at a grass field, to chase the deer back into the tree line, so he can land on the next pass.
Fairly new pilot, with FARs in hand, turns him into the FED's for buzzing the field, not knowing it's it's common practice. (and a good idea)
No enforcement action resulted, but wow, what a hassle the guy caused...

Who was right?

My opinion, after 30+ years in the air? Talk to the guy first. You'll either learn something, or let him know what he did was noticed. Either way, it's a good thing.
 
My opinion, after 30+ years in the air? Talk to the guy first. You'll either learn something, or let him know what he did was noticed. Either way, it's a good thing.

OK, quesiton for all those who are really upset about people "turning folks over to the Feds"....have any of you even bothered to read ANY of the posts (starting with Doug Reeve's Safety Message a couple of weeks back)? I have not read ONE SINGLE POST that says "turn them over to the Feds on their first offense...not one. EVERYONE who has said that going to the FAA might be a good idea has said that you only do that as a last resort.

Joining a discussion without doing your homework doesn't advance the state of knowledge much.
 
OK, question for all those who are really upset about people "turning folks over to the Feds"....have any of you even bothered to read ANY of the posts (starting with Doug Reeve's Safety Message a couple of weeks back)? I have not read ONE SINGLE POST that says "turn them over to the Feds on their first offense...not one. EVERYONE who has said that going to the FAA might be a good idea has said that you only do that as a last resort.

Yes Paul, I read all the posts, in all the related threads, and Doug's stuff too. Everyone did not say they would only go to the FAA "as a last resort".

BTW, you posted a photo this AM which includes a violation of FAR 23.1191. You've been warned ;)

Wait, experimentals are not subject to Part 23....you can do anything you want....you're totally immune to a sensible, safety-promoting regulation, and you've chosen to ignore it because in your judgment it isn't worth following. Sound familiar?
 
...BTW, you posted a photo this AM which includes a violation of FAR 23.1191. You've been warned ;)...

Dan,

Can you elaborate on the violation of FAR 23? I am not seeing that in Paul's pics from 5/9 in the a.m.?
 
BTW, you posted a photo this AM which includes a violation of FAR 23.1191.

Well you're right Dan - it's not a FAR violation becasue we are not required to meet FAR part 23 for our airplanes. Is my firewall a "good" firewall? It is as good as most of the certified light planes I have flown - but that has nothing to do with this thread, so with regard to FAR violations, you're just playing games. (BTW, I can point out a couple of things in those picturss that aren't "finished" yet.)

And I'm not perfect - I make lots of mistakes - can you cite the posts where people said their first repsonse was goign to the FAA? I probably missed them, and personally wouldn't agree with them.
 
Last edited:
I see now. Yes the fuel line fitting C.T. (common to) the firewall should be steel per FAR23.1191.

I agree with Dan on that. It also validpates Dan's response. Seems we all have "voluntary nearsightedness" when it comes to certain rules. Still we need to hold each other accountable. I certainly hope that people call me out if they see me doing something goofy. Lord knows I do my share of bone head moves.

We all know that part 23 does not apply to us, but part 61 and 91 do. I am not sure that some of part 23 should not apply, but that's for another thread.
 
I'm also looking for this photo, out of curiosity. Did that post get pulled?

Nothing mysterious at all Sonny - just this thread:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=71953

Where I was poking fun at myself for taking five or six (or more, I may never tell...) tries to make a simple fuel line. Point was that I had an aluminum firewall fitting, which is true, because the steel fitting is on order, and I used the aluminum one for a fit check. The photo was of a work in progress, and I don't mind folks askign when they see somethgin that doesn't look right - that's how we protect one another.

Paul
 
OOPS!!

Nothing mysterious at all Sonny - just this thread:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=71953

Where I was poking fun at myself for taking five or six (or more, I may never tell...) tries to make a simple fuel line. Point was that I had an aluminum firewall fitting, which is true, because the steel fitting is on order, and I used the aluminum one for a fit check. The photo was of a work in progress, and I don't mind folks askign when they see somethgin that doesn't look right - that's how we protect one another.

Paul

Looks like I'd better get a steel fitting on order too, and change the pick list for that area of the F1 kits. Heck, maybe I should issue a SB for that fitting, and any other firewall penetrations....other kit manufacturers might follow that lead?

Thanks, Dan and Paul, for this bit of 'tuning'.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Gee, all the bulkhead fittings Van's sent for my firewall were aluminum. I guess I better replace them and somebody better tell Van's to put out a SB.

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
Back
Top