I should just keep my mouth shut but as Ron White says. "I had the right to remain silent but I did not have the ability to do so"

I have work for the government now 28.5 years. I have seen the enemy and it is us!!

If the Wright brothers had to deal with the FAA we would not have airplanes, sad.

Flying and driving would be a right if not for politicians. Many of them should have had there heads ventilated years ago. Sorry.

If a pilot fixes his plane I am not afraid to share a runway with him. I never have bought into the what if syndrome. To all you look what could happen types. Did you ever have unprotected S$x with a person that wasn't tested first?

As my hero General Chuck Yeager said. "Rules are for people to stupid to make there own" Without permission Yeager and his buddies crashed a govie chopper stocking a lake with fish. Some of our finest Americans have not gone by the rules. I thought that was an American quality!

If we went by the rules we would still be bowing to the king and queen of England.

For the people who want our freedoms, a bullet to the head when your not looking is to good. Sorry.

Can you tell this heavy handed gov stuff pisses me off!

I'll bet a year don't go buy that we all don't violate some FAR. Like the one that says familiarize yourself with ALL available information about the flight. Most of us don't get caught.

aktahoe1 thank you for the lesson learned on my part. I never thought those little bitc*** would take your certificate for a year. If it were me I would fine you $25.00 and tell you never do that again.

Cheers...Rob

RobBurson wrote:I'll bet a year don't go buy that we all don't violate some FAR.

Damn Straight... Some of us more than others.

Gump

Well said Rob, I'll second that!

Roger

Rob,

A question: If the government is sooooo bad, why have you worked for them for 27.5 years? Slow learner??

MTV

This morning after reading a couple of "authorities" opinions of how the GOV. is so great I was going to get real personal and angry and write a steaming rebuttal but thanks to Rob my sentimates are for the most part covered. Thanks Rob as I too am also sick of the over and beyond reality Gov. regulations ( not laws ). Seat belts are my choice not the police.

mtv wrote:Rob,

A question: If the government is sooooo bad, why have you worked for them for 27.5 years? Slow learner??

MTV

If ya can't beat em, join em.

Thanks for that Rob, couldn't have been said any plainer.

GumpAir wrote:

RobBurson wrote:I'll bet a year don't go buy that we all don't violate some FAR.

Damn Straight... Some of us more than others.

Gump

Nope, nope, not me!! I hadn't violated any FAR's .

mtv wrote:Rob,

A question: If the government is sooooo bad, why have you worked for them for 27.5 years? Slow learner??

MTV

Well to be honest, there is good in government too. It is the heavey handed arrogance I have a hard time with.

In my early days I was idealistic and bought into the cities propaganda. But over the years I have become increasingly disillusioned. To the point I am at now where I think we need massive change. Less taxes, fees, laws, rules, bureaucrats, administrators.

Why have I stayed? I think all Americans pay to much in taxes, fees, surcharges, levies, call it what you want. I figured the best way to get my money back was work for them.

I always treat my employer (IE the tax payers) as I want to be treated. If you ever have a official from the government pay you a visit. You want one like me.

I do like helping folks who have a real need for what we do. If you have ever saved a life you know there is no better feeling!

If I was the FAA guy dealing with aktahoe1 he would have got a $25.00 fine and a warning to never do that again.

Cheers...Rob

PS. I am a average learner.

mtv wrote:bcpstudent,

A "what if": Someone does a field repair to their airplane's nose gear. The nose gear is, on this airplane, connected to the firewall, which, by the way is also where the engine mount connects.....

MTV

Don't forget that the flight control cable pulleys are tied to the firewall. Could this potentially cause binding in flight? Was full control authority available? A friend is in a partnership with a 182. He went to fly the thing one morning and felt like the elevator control wasn't right - wouldn't move all the way. Had a mechanic look at it and found the previous pilot had dropped the nose on and buckled the firewall.
When I look at the monocoque (sp?) construction of these spam cans, I am constantly amazed at how we hang a heavy engine on a flimsy piece of aluminum and then apply g-forces and turbulence gyrations to increase the load. Well we all know the strength comes from the intact structure of the assembly. If the lower firewall is buckled, seems like it would be a total crap shoot as to the integrity of the whole damn thing?
If I had an engineering degree, would I be afraid to fly?

Matt,

Yes, I've seen a 172 that appeared perfectly airworthy during pre-flight, except the tunnel was buckled, as you describe, and the controls bound up in certain positions.

Rob,

Hey, I worked for the federal government for 31 years, so I AM a slow learner apparently

I don't disagree with you on most counts, BUT of course, some regulations are necessary to prevent some "free spirit" from driving his go mobile into the middle of LA airspace and tell everyone to get out of his/her way. And, then the problem is, where does it stop?

The BIG problem is that pilots keep doing innovative things with airplanes (I was once told that there are no new accidents--we just keep doing the same old ones over again) and each of those "innovative" things draws FAA attention, and often draws public attention to those of US who really aren't doing MUCH wrong. And, a new regulation is born.

I am convinced that MOST agencies do not just cook up regulations without reason. Question is whether that reasoning is valid or not. Many times, the "problem" they're trying to "fix" simply isn't a problem, but rather an abberation.

Finally, the FAA is like any other organization. There are some really good folks working there, and some real power hungry butt heads as well. If you're lucky when you cross the line and are observed, you'll get one of the good ones. If not, come with a lawyer, and cover your arse...

I've had the pleasure to deal with many good FAA types, and most all of them are just as frustrated with the agency as most of us. Unfortunately, as in any other endeavor, one rotten one really colors the rest.

I can't defend the FAA because as you've noted, there is a lot of INTERPRETATION of regulation by the agency that's just wrong. Frankly, the regulations themselves really aren't that bad in my opinion. They are complex, but for the most part, they're pretty easy to understand.

It's when you get some FAA type who starts INTERPRETING a reg where it often starts going astray, and some of those can be really weird.

I hope AkTahoe gets by with a minimal slap up along side the head. It seems to me he's figured out the regulation by now. And, that should be the goal.

MTV

7853H wrote:This morning after reading a couple of "authorities" opinions of how the GOV. is so great I was going to get real personal and angry and write a steaming rebuttal but thanks to Rob my sentimates are for the most part covered. Thanks Rob as I too am also sick of the over and beyond reality Gov. regulations ( not laws ). Seat belts are my choice not the police.

I don't know about Texas but in Oregon, where I live, there are no choices with seat belts. Unless you don't mind paying somewhere around $100? for the choice of not using them.

My county had a judge for many years whose standard procedure was to scare the crap out of people. Something like: "I find you guilty of spitting on the sidewalk. You are hereby sentenced to a 1000 dollar fine and 30 days in jail." Then, he would pause and wait for the defendant to gasp with disbelief for getting such a harsh sentence for whatever the infraction was.

A moment later, he would then say something like, "However, because this is your first offense, I hereby suspend $950 of the fine and all of the jail time, subject to the condition that you have no further offenses for one year."

The defendant would then start babbling, "thank you, thank you, thank you!", pay their $50 fine, and 99% of the time, would commit no further offenses. The ones that came back not only got a stiff penalty for their new offenses, they also got to pay fines and serve time for previous offenses. His approach was quite popular with the county's voters, because he REALLY incentivized the defendants to obey the law.

I don't know if the FAA ever takes such an approach with its actions. I've only encountered a few pilots who have had action taken against them, and in those anecdotal cases, I thought that the punishment was too harsh.

The regulations are complex enough that all of us will inadvertently break one sooner or later. I can only hope that we will be judged fairly and that the consequences are appropriate. Can that actually happen with the FAA?

I'd like to hear examples of people who received appropriate actions against them as well as those that were considered inappropriate.

I am currently working on my CFI and one of the main things I have learned in the last week is that all of the answers are available, you just have to know where to look. With each of my past ratings I relied too much on what my instructor said, only now to learn that many of them didn't really know all of it.

Good luck,
Sara

Sara is absolutely correct.

Indeed the regulations are a bit complex. That said, it is NOT true that it's a given that EVERYone breaks the regulations frequently.

People fly airplanes all the time without violating regulations. On the other hand, a number of people DO violate the regulations, often knowingly, not inadvertently, and those folks do us all harm, but bringing the NTSB down on general aviation, claiming that we're all a bunch of scoflaws.

To assume that violating the regulations is inevitable suggests a defeatist attitude, and perhaps someone who is too lazy to actually learn the regulations.

The aviation regulations aren't THAT complex, folks.

MTV

mtv wrote:
Indeed the regulations are a bit complex.

The aviation regulations aren't THAT complex, folks.

MTV

Mike,

You will need to convince all those guys writing these large books that explain and give meaningful interpretations of the FAR's that they are wasting their time. When I research a topic, it usually fills my pea-sized brain with more questions than answers until I talk with someone who really understands them. Between the written regs and the interpretations, I can usually come to an understanding of a topic. Easy reading it isn't.

Like you point out though, saying "I didn't know" just shows laziness and will not fly with the Feds.

mtv wrote:bcpstudent,

A "what if": Someone does a field repair to their airplane's nose gear. The nose gear is, on this airplane, connected to the firewall, which, by the way is also where the engine mount connects.....

Consider that, with vibrations enroute and/or turbulence, really bad things could happen, but let's say they don't.

Upon arrival, the homemade nosegear "repair" fails upon touchdown. The nosegear collapses, and the collapse takes out the gascolator (which hangs down low and often has a glass bowl). Now we have airplane, still moving at speed, on fire, sliding down a runway, with no steering capability, and slides into an airplane waiting to cross at an intersection.

Far fetched?

How far fetched is the scenario where an Airbus ingests a flock of geese, kills both engines right over a major city, then lands in a river, and everyone is rescued with no loss of life?

These things can go both ways. There are reasons the FAA requires a repairman's certificate to perform temporary repairs and certify for a ferry permit.

There is a process in place, and it is NOT very painful to comply with it legally.

And, it's incidents like this, and attitudes that cause the FAA and the public to want to ratchet down on us, regulation wise even more.

MTV

bcpstudent wrote:MTV, you are correct, point well taken.

mtv,
I am not trying to be argumentative but after thinking about this I have a few questions.
I am guessing that if the wings were pulled and the plane was trailered home this would cost several thousand dollars?
Also guessing that a field repair and a ferry permit could also cost several thousand dollars and several days?
He and another seasoned pilot made some back yard repairs and made it home with very little risk to others and saved some money to put towards repairs at home.
Your post quoted above is interesting and makes a good point but I would think it would be more likely that he could have been in a head on collision on his way home and back to the plane with a trailer and home again than sliding into another plane at an airport.
Surely you have taken some calculated risks that the feds would frown upon? Maybe some risks are more of a necessity in remote AK than in remote ID? I don't think so, it is just more of an inconvenience.
I remember reading a post by you a while back about you having sensed some possible motor problems and later lost power in that aircraft. I understand the difference in that something may be wrong and something is bent or broke. But as PIC is there really any difference?
I am not trying to be mean spirited, I enjoy your knowledgeable posts.
Point is, he made a very low risk to others decision, made it home safely, saved himself some money and time. Something that I think happens often after a PIC assess the damages and takes a common sense approach.
Someone turns him in to the feds and his license is revoked? Sorry I don't get it. In this particular case, I believe that anyone thinking he deserved this out come is brained washed into thinking the feds are here to help us and have saved the day.

you are not qualified to make decisions on your own... please.. let the government make them for you..

Student,

Your points are well taken. My point is simply that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, or we'd have airlines filling airplanes with paying passengers on a ferry flight home with repairs made by the pilot.

Don't believe it? I've seen just such an incident.

Two regulations here. One says that you don't move an accident airplane until the NTSB or its delegate gives permission, or is necessary for safety. And, you are required to report the accident. Finally, you can't fly an unairworthy airplane, and any airplane that doesn't meet its Type Certificate design is NOT AIRWORTHY. Now, this particular incident might not have been determined to be an accident by definition, I don't know. If there was firewall deformation it was an accident. If not, it probably wasn't.

So, if a line has to be drawn, where does it have to be? I don't know.

I DO know that getting a ferry permit isn't that hard. I've participated in the process, and it was frankly very painless. Had these folks got in touch with a mechanic at McCall from the accident site, the mechanic could have come to their aid, patched the plane, OR simply verified their "fix", phoned in a request for ferry permit, and ONE of them would have flown it out. How tough is that? How expensive is that? I'm betting less than his last annual.

Again, where does the FAA draw the line? Suppose this was an air taxi type, with a 206 and a load of passengers, and did the same thing, and loaded his pax up for the ride home. What's the difference?
"the pilot said the field repair looked fine to him" after all.

I know of at least one fellow who was to fly a Cessna airplane that'd had a little oops a short distance, to have the wings removed and shipped to the big city. Had a ferry permit for that purpose. Ferry permit said take it to the nearest airport. Instead, he thought the thing flew fine, and he took the plane to a major airport a couple hundred miles away where repairs would be made. Violated the ferry permit. Also, when the mechanics took the plane apart to work on it, they discovered that one wing was being held on by a thread, and probably would have failed had he encountered any turbulence as he flew over a major mountain range..

Where do you draw the line? Where do we say that you need an A & P certificate to determine the airworthiness of a repair or airplane? Why do we HAVE A & P mechanics, after all? Why not just do our own annual inspections? We're pilots after all....

MTV

MTV you finally got it right -- just why do we need the FAA certified A@P mechanic --- I personalally know a hell of alot more about airplanes I fly the most any A@P. We need the gov. out of our business when we don't fly airplanes for hire. I have the right to decide what to do with my life and I don't need no stinking big brother with less knowledge to decide for me........

...and speaking of "Big Brother", I googled my N number just for kicks the other day and got a page full from "flight tracking with fboweb.com".

I was VFR, no flight plan, on a pipeline patrol. When I got near Pittsburgh, PA, I contacted them as usual for a heads up.

This page I got showed my times of radio contact, a full ground track of my movements on a map, my altitute, type and model airplane, and times to the minute, etc. This is all without a 406 transponder.

They know what you are doing.
John