[Louise Hose]

Expand your aviation buddies if you believe this....

As for airport behavior.....we are all at fault.....tell me different and I will call you a lier in your face!

Come on over and tell me I'm a liar but I never intentionally violate conservative and legal airport behavior. I'm sorry that your experience in aviation has limited you to being around folks that cause you to believe otherwise. There are plenty of pilots who ALWAYS try to put safety and regs first in the airport environment. Someday you'll meet them.

 

[David-aviator]

interesting discussion...All valid points....

- we all agree the ******* should loose his license! Agreed?
- We all agree that flying recklesly sucks! (Recklesly = Violating the FAR's, your own trained skills and beyond the aircraft design purpose and certification) Agreed?
- We all agree that he made all of us look bad? Agreed?
- we all agree that everything has its place and moment? Agreed?

As for this idiot....the only violation I saw was flying low over people.....Nothing else!


Last time I read the FAR's I needed 500' AGL from any person,, building, obstruction....not 1000" which is your typically pattern altitude....two different things and misquoted somewhere by a confused person claiming to be a pilot.. (I think it was one of the newspaper commentaries)

Yes! you can do acrobatic manuvers below 1,500! That's why there is a waiver issued by the FAA to do so.....

As for airport behavior.....we are all at fault.....tell me different and I will call you a lier in your face!

True, the only (legal) evidence of a violation is flying low over people, but the question goes much deeper. This guy has an attitude, an attitude way outside the box of normal pilot behavior. He is bound to do it again and no amount of behavior modification training or peer pressure will change this type of attitude for the long run. In my opinion he should be strung up on a lamp post before he kills someone - if he does himself in good riddance - but he needs to be removed from the aviation scene pronto, one way or another.

"As for airport behavior.....we are all at fault.....tell me different and I will call you a lier in your face!". This is pure nonsense.

To hold up such behavior as some sort of acceptable ritual in aviation, as the comment seems to be inferring, simply is not true. You're calling the vast majority of aviators liars. They are not at fault for such behavior nor is it in any way condoned.

If there is a fault it is in the system that permitted him the slip through and become licensed to fly, if in fact he has a license.

 

[RBD]

Come on over and tell me I'm a liar but I never intentionally violate conservative and legal airport behavior. I'm sorry that your experience in aviation has limited you to being around folks that cause you to believe otherwise. There are plenty of pilots who ALWAYS try to put safety and regs first in the airport environment. Someday you'll meet them.

Well said, Louise!

And on that note, this thread is not so gradually taking a turn for the worse. It is, however, an interesting debate to see different viewpoints on aviation safety, which should be THE priority for EVERYONE.

 

[lcnmrv8r]

reaching out...

After reading all of the comments on the Jeep group forums I'm wondering...Would it be worth some of the Houston area RV folks to reach out to them?...show them that we're not all a bunch of idiots. Maybe invite the group to a pancake breakfast or something similar? Showcase the good of the group and the hobby. It would be nice to be able to spin this back our way.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[RV8iator]

Anonymous

I'm not going to comment on the stupidity of this act. It's obvious.

We can all argue safety till we're blue in the face and we should agree on the basics there.

What really gets under my skin is if anybody wants to accuse someone of a violation, have the intestinal fortitude, GUTS, to put your name on it.

We hear of so many folks getting violated by some anonymous individual and the way the FAA works, is your are GUILTY until you prove yourself innocent.

We need to police ourselves or the Feds will.

 

[rv7boy]

What a thread. All I want to say is that I actually had to view the video twice to believe it was real. My first reaction was that it was one of those computer generated videos, kinda like the one that most of us were sucked into believing about the right wing coming off and the pilot landing right in front of the camera. Turns out it was a commercial made in Europe.

As for this one, I think everything's been said that could have been said. Let's all be safe out there this weekend. The weather today is absolutely lovely here in North Alabama. And say something nice to one of your fellow aviators.

 

[mv031161]

I'm not going to comment on the stupidity of this act. It's obvious.

We can all argue safety till we're blue in the face and we should agree on the basics there.

What really gets under my skin is if anybody wants to accuse someone of a violation, have the intestinal fortitude, GUTS, to put your name on it.

We hear of so many folks getting violated by some anonymous individual and the way the FAA works, is your are GUILTY until you prove yourself innocent.

We need to police ourselves or the Feds will.

Well said Widget!!! (BTW...your AVATAR is upside down!!!! becarefull...you might get a call from the Feds (it looks like you are below 1,500 agl there) !!!) If you have the guts to acuse someone, do it in person and not use the Spanish inquisition approach

as for all the offended parties.....my apologies...I guess the "In your face" remark was a little to harsh. However, for those who happen to know me, I dont hide behind anoymously as some.....

Louise; I fly with the most professional and qualified people there is in general aviation. We at IAC put safety first and above all. We all fly well above the regulations at all times and only within our trained abilities. We don't showboat. We dont have to. It is not what sport Aerobatics is all about......We strive for excellence in our flying and all done always in control and with plenty space below us. we never depart from control flying as much and you might find hard to believe.....I sorround mysefl with the best and dont want to be around people who might put my passion for aviation at risk....(purpose of this tread)

And YES....I still keep the original statement....we "ALL" at one time or another, have violated "SOME" rule. Knowinlgy or not.(intentional and unintentional which is the only reason I will call you a liar if you ever say you have not.......) ..if you have not, I would like to meet you one day....I'll like a picture of you with your autograph to place right next to my other aviation icons.

As for the culprit in Texas...take his license and retrain him....Spanish Inquisition Style and all....

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

There are plenty of pilots who ALWAYS try to put safety and regs first in the airport environment. Someday you'll meet them.

Agreed, particularly on the "try" - even if we try and do the right thing, not everyone will be pleased.

TODR

 

[Flyfalcons]

Last time I read the FAR's I needed 500' AGL from any person,, building, obstruction....not 1000" which is your typically pattern altitude....two different things and misquoted somewhere by a confused person claiming to be a pilot.. (I think it was one of the newspaper commentaries)

Yes! you can do acrobatic manuvers below 1,500! That's why there is a waiver issued by the FAA to do so.....

As for airport behavior.....we are all at fault.....tell me different and I will call you a lier in your face!

Wrong, Mitch. In this case the FAA will have no troubles equating the Jeep event to be an open assembly of persons, and will apply the 1000/2000 rule.

Regarding your airport behavior comment, I don't think that is worthy of a reply.

 

[mv031161]

Wrong, Mitch. In this case the FAA will have no troubles equating the Jeep event to be an open assembly of persons, and will apply the 1000/2000 rule.

Regarding your airport behavior comment, I don't think that is worthy of a reply.

91:119(b) you are right however 91:199 (c) is where he was flying...so no....500 feet is my interpretation


regarding your last statement about Behavior: Send me your autographed picture....You belong in my wall of fame as God's copilot whose never have made any mistake...never ever....! Jeeezzzz!!!

 

[Flyfalcons]

Okay good luck if you think that open assembly of persons at the jeep event didn't count as an open assembly of persons. He certainly wasn't over the water by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[mv031161]

Okay good luck if you think that open assembly of persons at the jeep event didn't count as an open assembly of persons. He certainly wasn't over the water by any stretch of the imagination.

As a tipical FAR regulation....it is always open for interpretation....I see your point, Believe me.....But I see mine as the one applicable here which is a good source of debate (again) on what we as Certified and experienced pilots see different....

Regardless of our argument which is amazing we are attacking each other since we are all in agreemnt the guy is in clear violation of 91.119....I will not only suspend his licence but will question his CFII who trained him or gave him his last BFR.....I know one thing for sure....His insurance will probably have a say.....

One last thing.....Most of us aerobatic pilots, we have a minimun floor of 1,500 depending in which class you compete I am limited by myself to 1,500 agl as my absolutelly bottom floor.

Here is the reg...

Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

 

[kentb]

Sorry Mitch, I don't get you....

I don't think anyone on this forum will agree with you on this "open air assembly" issue. I don't think that the FAA would either.

If you are convinced that it is OK to do what this guy did, if you stayed at 500 ft, then why don't you fly over such a gathering and tell the FAA what you did.

If they don't violate you then the rest of us will know that we are wrong and I for one would publicly apologize.

Kent

 

[mv031161]

I don't think anyone on this forum will agree with you on this "open air assembly" issue. I don't think that the FAA would either.

If you are convinced that it is OK to do what this guy did, if you stayed at 500 ft, then why don't you fly over such a gathering and tell the FAA what you did.

If they don't violate you then the rest of us will know that we are wrong and I for one would publicly apologize.

Kent

You know guys.....the personal attacks stinks from some of you.....Why can't you have a healthy debate without getting personal? have you lost your capabilities to have a conversation without getting personal?

To answer your question Kent, No thanks. I live that for the boneheads (you know who they are)

 

[Flyfalcons]

No one has called you names, Mitch. We are constructively arguing your points.

 

[mcjon77]

...And YES....I still keep the original statement....we "ALL" at one time or another, have violated "SOME" rule. Knowinlgy or not.(intentional and unintentional which is the only reason I will call you a liar if you ever say you have not.......) ....

I hear this argument used all the time (certainly not just among pilots) and it doesn't make sense to me. In essence, the argument is that since all pilots may have broken some FAR that they should refrain from reporting another pilot who breaks any FAR. By that logic, if I am doing 60mph on a 55mph highway and I see someone driving erraticlly on the road at 100mph, weaving in and out of traffic, I shouldn't call the police because I've broken the law too.

If one sees something that they feel is both illegal and a safety hazard, don't they have some obligation to say something? I'm not talking about trying to ding a guy with the FAA just because you woke up in a bad mood and decided to be a prick today. Every time I hear people on the forum bring up reporting someone to the FAA, it concerns not only a violation of the FARs, but a safety hazard. Didn't someone mention in an earlier post that 25% of the RV accidents involve buzzing/low altitude aerobatics?

Also, with regards to just pulling the guy aside and giving him a lecture, many times that is not possible. Many times, when it is possible, it is likely not to have any effect. In the end it is a judgement call that the witness has to make on what to do that will work. If they think that talking to the guy will work, fine. If not, then take some other action.

If you don't do something when you see folks performing such illegal and unsafe actions early on, do you really have the right to complain when those same actions result in a public incident/tragedy that causes the Government to become more restrictive to ALL pilots?