ScaleBackcountryPilot
Registered User
Southern Idaho
You're not wrongYou know! The guys with the hats, but no cattle! ;-p
Ever hear how they got their name? Don't want to bring this thread off topic...
You're not wrongYou know! The guys with the hats, but no cattle! ;-p
A wind sock at one end sure would help the case. Maybe we could get an RAF work party out there to put one in?
You also ask how the FAA defines a congested area. Determinations of what constitutes a congested area under the regulations are made on a
case-by-case basis.
MTV
You're not wrong
Ever hear how they got their name? Don't want to bring this thread off topic...
One of those youngsters here! The Flying Cowboys are the reason I got into flying :smile:
Right there, that's the essence of tyranny. Laws and regulation that can be bent at will to meet the needs of the government that is trying to find you in violation.
Exactly, perhaps this had something to do with his leaving his term of office early?So, the THEORY is, you (the FAA) hire competent, knowledgeable and reasonable Inspectors to make these determinations.
as we’ve all seen, that doesn’t always happen. Secondly, the FAA seems to have no mechanism to reverse an errant Inspectors’ judgement. THAT is the real problem here, NOT the regulation. I was horrified last year at OSH when the Administrator got up at the AOPA tent and told us that he was just as angry about the Warbirds decision as we were.
Seriously? If the Administrator can’t fix these kinds of things, the agency is broke, and needs to be fixed.
Unfortunately, the subject case probably isn’t going to do it.
MTV
I think your tin foil hat got a little too snug there……
MTV
It is also worth noting that ferrying is not a part 137 portion of a flight,
Take care, Rob
No worries here Brian. You are absolutely correct, I was sloppy with my verbiage. And to your point, it is probably how a lot of these situations come to be.this was the only portion of Robs statement I took exception with. It does matter how you state something. This is a perfect example. Had he said the part 91 rule for 500 ft applies during the ferry flight he would have been correct.
No issues Rob, just that how one phrases a comment can make a complete different meaning.
Brian
I admit that I was being too hyperbolic there, but my point stands anyway. We need good laws. Good laws make good people. Laws and regulations should be brief, straightforward, easy to understand and easy to interpret by the public and the authorities.
We should not have to live with vague laws and regulations that have no real definition. It gives the government too much power to take away your freedoms at will. Like:
"Changing lanes too many times" on the highway.
"Making fun" of politicians.
Not "feeding your pets enough."
"Being mean" to your spouse.
"Acting crazy" at a football game.
"Drinking more than you should'" at the beach.
Catching a fish that's "too small."
"Being disrespectful of the animals" at the zoo.
"Not wearing the right clothes" at the PTA meeting.
Flying "too fast" in class B airspace.
With today's mapping and demographic technology, high resolution "congested area" maps could be generated by a sophomore geography major using a well defined formula of some sort. If the FAA felt like it was important enough, it could publish these maps annually & anybody who wants to could refer to it at any time. I would prefer that pilots just use common sense, but we all know that won't happen all the time. When they don't, busting them should be easy and objective.
With today's mapping and demographic technology, high resolution "congested area" maps could be generated by a sophomore geography major using a well defined formula of some sort. If the FAA felt like it was important enough, it could publish these maps annually & anybody who wants to could refer to it at any time. I would prefer that pilots just use common sense, but we all know that won't happen all the time. When they don't, busting them should be easy and objective.
Good discussion, glad I brought it up here on Supercub.org with pilots who have real experience dealing with this type of situation.
Here is where the surveillance pass was conducted (at the invitation of the property owner to land there).
This is an interesting topic.
I joined in 2010 and haven’t changed it since, but I also haven’t posted in a few moons.
What shall we do?
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.
For legal interpretation, I believe the more important word is "for", not "necessary". So, "except when necessary for landing/takeoff...", means, that if it is necessary to operate an aircraft below 500' for the purposes of (safely) landing/takeoff, then the 500' restriction does not apply. I wish Trent the best in his legal case.
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.
How could ADS-B be bad, AOPA was 1,000% for it? Every innocent person and airplane should be required to wear an ankle bracelet. For safety right? Or surveillance, as that is what the S in ADS-B stands for. We deserve ADS-B, it was obvious from the beginning and yet pilots self righteously went along with it.No, they don't bother attempting to photograph the airplane that "nearly killed them" while tenting in a forest.
They simply go to FlightAware (or the like), find pictures, registration home address, everywhere said airplane has been in the last 30 days, then cry to the FAA which kicks off the witch hunt. No pictures, video, or even visual required.
And for the FAA apologists, ADSB will not be used to "clear" you. It is accurate enough to nail you, but in investigators own words: "It is not accurate enough to show no wrong doing."
The only reason we are having this conversation is because someone with enough notoriety has experience what many pilots already have. The FAA will never be proven wrong and the violations will continue until your attitude improves and you stop flying where you are legally able to.
How could ADS-B be bad, AOPA was 1,000% for it? Every innocent person and airplane should be required to wear an ankle bracelet. For safety right? Or surveillance, as that is what the S in ADS-B stands for. We deserve ADS-B, it was obvious from the beginning and yet pilots self righteously went along with it.
This is an interesting topic. A friend of mine loves to fly low and slow, window up door down over huge pastures of farm land. No way would he ever intentionally overfly a person, yet I can see the potential to do it by accident if he is unable to spot someone in the field who is crouched down or hidden by a shrub that obscures his outline. In such an occurrence is the pilot at fault for failing to see and avoid? A human can be anywhere at any time on this planet, including remote wilderness, and then pop up to film you.