https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... suspension


Camels got it whole head under the tent now

“ A Massachusetts pilot whose certificate the FAA seeks to suspend for 120 days following apparently legal seaplane takeoffs and landings on the Connecticut River on May 28 is appealing to the NTSB, a case that raises fresh concern about the FAA's interpretation of the regulation invoked against Trent Palmer and use of ADS-B data in enforcement investigations.”

AOPA complaining about ADSB being used for enforcement is rich. AOPA took money to shove ADSB down our throats. Anyone that didn't think ADSB would be used for enforcement is retarded.

Having been in or around government entities for decades, did you really expect anything else. Exactly why I will not install ADSB! Someone, whether government or civilian entity WILL find a way to prosecute, fine or tax you using said technology. Have you seen the articles about people up in arms about how car companies are selling your driving history to insurance companies? Yep, All of a sudden it was fine to track and disclose information about all those wealthy airplane owners, but now that joe citizen is finding out that the same thing is happening to them...well, they aren't happy! Rant over.

Actually, there are two potential issues in this case, neither one of which involves the Trent Palmer case. Palmer was cited for flying closer than 500 feet from a house, but NOT landing. FAR 91.119 allows pilots to fly within 500 feet (or 1000 feet over congested areas) IF (and only IF) doing so is necessary to land there.....my verbiage, not theirs. Here's the actual language: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:"....then goes on to specify those altitudes.

Palmer asserted that he was conducting an "inspection pass" to evaluate whether he could land. He opted not to land. The FAA (wrongfully in my opinion) pointed to the fact that he did not land, therefor, he did not comply with 91.119 (c). AOPA argued that it is often necessary for pilots to conduct inspection passes. FAA disagreed.

BUT, this pilot was cited for flying closer than 500 feet to a bridge over the river he was landing in. But, he did apparently, actually land. So, I assume in this case, the FAA is relying on the very specific wording of 91.119, the words "when necessary for takeoff or landing". It may be that he could have simply landed a few hundred feet further down (or up) river and be legal.

Since this pilot actually landed, its a different case than Palmer's. And, frankly, pilots have been getting cited under 91.119 for decades, so this is probably nothing new. I'm aware of at least four cases which seem to be virtually identical to this one, other than the ADS-B involvement. In each of those cases, the FAA prevailed.

BUT, this case does bring up the issue of the FAA using ADS-B data for enforcement actions. The FAA has agreed that they will not INITIATE an enforcement action based on ADS-B data. That doesn't stop them from following up on a complaint via ADS-B, maybe.....

MTV

Think one of the reasons the FAA wins is the cost of admission to the ride

You got to battle the kangroo administrative law “court” to get to the slightly less kangroo NTSB who’s going to mostly rubber stamp whatever the FAA says.

Now you get the a somewhat real court, problem is the judge is completely ignorant to aviation and trusts “his resources” aka fellow GS workers and their cadre, such as the Palmer governments FAA expert who didn’t know what a flap is. So now it’s some stupid dirty citizens case against the experts at the FAA who just want to “keep everyone safe”

To say the deck is stacked is an understatement, and good lawyers ain’t cheap and the gov has unlimited resources to waste on witch hunts.

Do you take a suspension, or pay the price of a supercub for a major maybe?


I agree with no ADSB, or having anonymous mode these days, even if you’re following the FAR chapter and verse, doesn’t mean they won’t come after you unfortunately




And I’ll second what was said about AOPA and their push for ADSB lol

Doesn't the Chevron ruling mean this would get ruled on by a real court now and not the NTSB or FAA? I understand that lawyers and time arent free but in theory someone could self represent if the alternative is the same outcome regardless.

Josef wrote:Doesn't the Chevron ruling mean this would get ruled on by a real court now and not the NTSB or FAA? I understand that lawyers and time arent free but in theory someone could self represent if the alternative is the same outcome regardless.

What is the "Chevron ruling"?

FAA cases are heard before an administrative law judge, and can be appealed to the NTSB Board if the judge finds against the pilot.

mtv wrote:What is the "Chevron ruling"?

FAA cases are heard before an administrative law judge, and can be appealed to the NTSB Board if the judge finds against the pilot.

I'm neither a lawyer nor anyone's cousin Vinny, but my interpretation of it is the Chevron Doctrine was originally ruled in the 80's to require federal judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting potentially ambiguous administrative law. The idea was to ensure policy is coming from agencies instead of the legislature.
This was rescinded last summer.
This didn't change the procedure - FAR violations still go to an administrative law judge and are appealed to NTSB board, but now that ALJ is not required to defer to FAA personnel if a regulation is deemed ambiguous.
In theory a benefit to a pilot found in violation of an ambiguous reg if you get a sympathetic ALJ.

In this case though I'm curious as to the details - FAA employee gets dinged for using a section of the river long used for seaplane operations and quite near a charted runway. ADSB or not, it's always in the back of my mind someone could video me flying and claim I did something stupid. I'd hope there would be a very strong burden of proof on the FAA to prove malice or willful ignorance on 91.119 and 91.13 violations.

DreadPirateWill wrote:

mtv wrote:What is the "Chevron ruling"?

FAA cases are heard before an administrative law judge, and can be appealed to the NTSB Board if the judge finds against the pilot.

I'm neither a lawyer nor anyone's cousin Vinny, but my interpretation of it is the Chevron Doctrine was originally ruled in the 80's to require federal judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting potentially ambiguous administrative law. The idea was to ensure policy is coming from agencies instead of the legislature.
This was rescinded last summer.
This didn't change the procedure - FAR violations still go to an administrative law judge and are appealed to NTSB board, but now that ALJ is not required to defer to FAA personnel if a regulation is deemed ambiguous.
In theory a benefit to a pilot found in violation of an ambiguous reg if you get a sympathetic ALJ.

In this case though I'm curious as to the details - FAA employee gets dinged for using a section of the river long used for seaplane operations and quite near a charted runway. ADSB or not, it's always in the back of my mind someone could video me flying and claim I did something stupid. I'd hope there would be a very strong burden of proof on the FAA to prove malice or willful ignorance on 91.119 and 91.13 violations.

Thanks for the intel on the Chevron decision! Never heard of that one.

There is absolutely no doubt that there is waaaaaay more to this current deal than is being put out there. It's possible that the pilot landed very close to a person on the bridge, and they squawked to FAA. FAA then verified the distance using ADS-B, and violated him.

As I noted earlier, IF there's any way of staying 500 feet from "stuff", whether landing or not, the pilot must do so. So, if the pilot cut it kinda close to the bridge on a pass, and the FAA says "hey, you could have landed 500 feet further down river....."

Who knows? FAA violating an FAA guy......opens all kinds of potential.

I hope someone comes out with more information on this one.....it's getting a lot of folks stirred up, so would be nice to know what actually happened.

If we ever do.

MTV

Personally I like ADSB for the added safety when in the air. It is NOT a reason to not look out the window, no need to start that debate again!

But ADSB is now being used to collect landing fees at KHCR. $4.00 per landing for a light GA types. Note: this is for aircraft not based at KHCR, but

My rant is I was led to believe that ADSB was for safety, NOT for fees and enforcement.

Rant over

The S in ADSB always stood for surveillance. Pilots were gaslit into thinking it was for safety. We deserve what we embrace.

Utah-Jay wrote:Personally I like ADSB for the added safety when in the air. It is NOT a reason to not look out the window, no need to start that debate again!

But ADSB is now being used to collect landing fees at KHCR. $4.00 per landing for a light GA types. Note: this is for aircraft not based at KHCR, but

My rant is I was led to believe that ADSB was for safety, NOT for fees and enforcement.

Rant over

Some of us always thought it was going to be what it turned into

Just reading ancient US history, since say..circa 1990AD, it’s pretty clear, it’s all reruns so future news is pretty easy to predict

Champ7 wrote:The S in ADSB always stood for surveillance. Pilots were gaslit into thinking it was for safety. We deserve what we embrace.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I have a number of feelings on it.

I'm working on rebuilding a Skybolt for some open cockpit Acro. I live at an airport between a number of flight schools and their practice areas. Slightly begrudgingly I intend to install ADSB in and out though I don't intend to fly this plane where they're required. If I'm upside down and sideways I'd rather get an audible alert that a task loaded student pilot is barreling towards me(and hopefully give them that same alert).

Maybe that means some fed will find I flew at 499ft from a nudist colony and decide to bust me. While I don't think ADSB is any sort of panacea, if there's a chance it will help keep me alive I'd rather be alive and busted by the feds than dead with my anger at big brother intact.

I think if you look at how rare midair’s were before ADSB, combine with the areas where they did occur, and if you’re not flying in those types of areas

Odds are ADSB to work against you more than for you IMHO

If you do install it at least get one of a few that still sends a random hex code when set to 1200

DreadPirateWill wrote:.....I'm working on rebuilding a Skybolt for some open cockpit Acro. I live at an airport between a number of flight schools and their practice areas. Slightly begrudgingly I intend to install ADSB in and out though I don't intend to fly this plane where they're required. If I'm upside down and sideways I'd rather get an audible alert that a task loaded student pilot is barreling towards me(and hopefully give them that same alert). ......

I've heard that some local guys have an "aerobatic box" near their airport.
I dunno what's involved with getting such a thing approved.
I also don't know I've ever seen anything about it published or charted,
so I don't know how much good it does other than giving the guys that use it a warm fuzzy feeling.
It would probably be just as effective (or even more so) to make sure your local flight schools,
AND their instructors, AND their students, are aware of where your acro activities will be taking place.

DreadPirateWill wrote:

Champ7 wrote:The S in ADSB always stood for surveillance. Pilots were gaslit into thinking it was for safety. We deserve what we embrace.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I have a number of feelings on it.

I'm working on rebuilding a Skybolt for some open cockpit Acro. I live at an airport between a number of flight schools and their practice areas. Slightly begrudgingly I intend to install ADSB in and out though I don't intend to fly this plane where they're required. If I'm upside down and sideways I'd rather get an audible alert that a task loaded student pilot is barreling towards me(and hopefully give them that same alert).

Maybe that means some fed will find I flew at 499ft from a nudist colony and decide to bust me. While I don't think ADSB is any sort of panacea, if there's a chance it will help keep me alive I'd rather be alive and busted by the feds than dead with my anger at big brother intact.

I've personally had much more benefit from ADS-B then bad. When slogging around low level in the smoke its pretty handy when that alert comes up. Also, like you being upside down, when I'm down low with the spray plane, those alerts come in pretty nice as well.

hotrod180 wrote:I've heard that some local guys have an "aerobatic box" near their airport.
I dunno what's involved with getting such a thing approved.
I also don't know I've ever seen anything about it published or charted,
so I don't know how much good it does other than giving the guys that use it a warm fuzzy feeling.
It would probably be just as effective (or even more so) to make sure your local flight schools,
AND their instructors, AND their students, are aware of where your acro activities will be taking place.

Yeah, were I to get a box approved I'm sure it'd be about as secure as tissue paper. Maybe if they let me Acro in the Charlie... I do plan to chat with approach and the local tower on best practices before I start any serious acro.

A1Skinner wrote:
I've personally had much more benefit from ADS-B then bad. When slogging around low level in the smoke its pretty handy when that alert comes up. Also, like you being upside down, when I'm down low with the spray plane, those alerts come in pretty nice as well.

Yep, exactly why I intend to install(likely anonymous mode).