He put out a video of the conclusion of this whole debacle

TLDR(W?), Having to prove your innocence to your accuser is nearly impossible

And gov is going to most often rubber stamp fellow gov, judge who doesn’t know a rudder from a radio is going to listen to NSTB and FAA and ignore the citizen 9.9/10




He also mentions the floatplane pilot the FAA is going after in CT, who was doing clear T&Gs on a big river commonly used by floatplanes


One small victory I didn’t now about, the backcountry aviation protection act

https://www.budd.senate.gov/backcountry/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... /2675/text

Thankfully this might save the next airman from having to choose between crashing their plane or the FAA crash your certificate/PRIA

“ SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Backcountry Aviation Protection Act”.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING MINIMUM ALTITUDES FOR GO-AROUNDS, INSPECTION PASSES, PRACTICE APPROACHES, AND QUALIFIED INSTRUMENT APPROACHES.

(a) In General.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall revise section 91.119 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to allow a properly qualified pilot operating an aircraft to conduct a go-around, an inspection pass, a practice approach, or a qualified instrument approach without regard to the minimum altitudes set forth in such section.

(b) Prohibition On FAA Enforcement Actions.—Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action against a person under section 91.119 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, related to a go-around, inspection pass, or practice approach unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register as required by subsection (a).

(c) Burden Of Proof.—In an enforcement action for a violation of section 91.119 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, the burden of proof shall be upon the Administrator to prove each element of the offense and the inapplicability of each exception to the offense, including takeoff, landing, go-around, inspection pass, practice approach, or qualified instrument approach maneuvers.

(d) Savings Clause.—Nothing in this Act shall impose a requirement on a person to complete a go-around, inspection pass, or practice approach before a landing.

(e) Definitions.—In this Act:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

(2) GO-AROUND.—The term “go-around”—

(A) means an aborted landing which occurs at any point prior to the aircraft coming to a complete stop at a potential landing site; and

(B) includes a maneuver—

(i) for flight safety purposes; or

(ii) to practice or instruct the appropriate procedures for an aborted landing.

(3) IFR CONDITIONS; INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE.—The terms “IFR conditions”, and “instrument approach procedure” have the meaning given those terms in section 1.1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

(4) INSPECTION PASS.—The term “inspection pass” means a maneuver conducted to evaluate, at a low altitude, whether a potential landing site is suitable for takeoff and landing.

(5) POTENTIAL LANDING SITE.—The term “potential landing site” includes any place on the surface of land or water where—

(A) the takeoff or landing of an aircraft is not prohibited; and

(B) the person operating the aircraft believes that it is possible a landing and subsequent takeoff could safely occur in the area such that it is objectively reasonable to evaluate the area at a low altitude.

(6) PRACTICE APPROACH.—The term “practice approach” means a maneuver conducted with or without the intent to land for the purpose of practicing—

(A) an instrument approach procedure in conditions other than IFR conditions, provided that the pilot complies with—

(i) the published instrument approach procedure; or

(ii) a clearance or instruction issued by air traffic control; or

(B) a simulated engine failure or emergency descent.

(7) QUALIFIED INSTRUMENT APPROACH.—The term “qualified instrument approach” means an instrument approach procedure under actual IFR conditions in which the pilot complies with—

(A) the published instrument approach procedure; or

(B) a clearance or instruction issued by air traffic control.”

After all that he's been through, Trent obviously still doesn't understand 91.119. Here's the first bit from the regulation, with emphasis added:

§ 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.

Read the regulation one part at a time: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing..... What does the term "Necessary" apply to? That term says that if there is no other way to land there EXCEPT to fly closer than 500 feet/1000 feet, then you can fly closer than those distances from people, places and things..... It does NOT say or even suggest that ANY time you're landing, you can fly closer than those distances from "stuff". That's the way Trent apparently interprets the rule, but he's wrong.

He points out that any time you're landing at a runway, by definition you will fly closer than XXX feet of "structures", like runway, lighting systems, etc. That is true. And the point is, in that case, there is no way to land on that runway without passing closer than XXX feet of those "structures". If a person is standing next to the runway surface, are we supposed to avoid landing there? NO, the only way to land there right now is to fly closer than XXX feet to that person, so be it.

The case in Massechusetts is VERY different from Trent's case. In that case, the flight instructor allegedly flew closer than 500 feet to a bridge over the Connecticut River. So, we go back to was it NECESSARY to fly closer to that bridge than 500 feet? And, the answer is NO, it was not NECESSARY to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge. All the pilot had to do was fly a bit higher passing over the bridge and land a short distance further down (or up) stream, thus keeping 500 feet between his aircraft and the bridge. But, he CHOSE to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge, it was NOT necessary to do so to land in that stretch of river.

And, folks, this is not some brand new phenomenon, and Trent didn't invent this. I wrote an article about his in Water Flying Magazine in 2010, based on a couple of contacts I had with attorneys who had clients who'd been violated under 91.119. Exact same situations.

For years, I regularly and routinely did seaplane training in the Chena River, where it flows through the west side of Fairbanks. A hotel there has a very nice dock and deck. It was the only place I could find around there to practice docking a seaplane. I requested persmission from the Hotel Manager to practice docking there, and he said he should pay me to do so....great tourist attraction, folks sitting on the deck and a seaplane pulls up, ties up, then departs. At the same time, this winding section of narrow river presented real practice in confined area practice and avoiding vessels, with all the drunks driving their jet skis.

I contacted the Chief of the FSDO and asked him if this would be in compliance with 91.119. His response was "There's no way you can land in that stretch of river WITHOUT passing withing 500 feet of houses or people. Several float planes are based there, as well.

So, we started training there. Never an issue. Again, there is no way to land there without flying closer to "stuff". And, that is what the term "Except when necessary" means, not that any time you land, you can fly closer than XXX feet to people places and things.

If I could figure out how to embed a photo here, I'd post a picture of that area of the Chena we used.

Now, I routinely hear the arguement that "Well, that was in Alaska, and everyone knows the FAA is a lot kinder and gentler in Alaska". To that, my response is simply "Horseshit!". At least one of the violations I wrote about in 2010 occurred in Alaska.

And, Trent didn't establish any precedent by not landing and getting violated. Back in 2009, a pilot was flying along the Alaska Peninsula in a seaplane. As he passed a lake, he noticed two guys standing on the shoreline, and a seaplane that appeared to be floating out in the middle of the lake.....like way out away from the guys on the shore. The pilot assumed maybe the wind had got these guys' plane and it drifted away, and maybe he could help. As he passed over the plane lower, he got a good look, and realized that the plane was actually beached in this very shallow lake. So, he powered up and flew home. He was violated by the two guys who were on shore, who were FAA Inspectors......why? He flew closer than 500 feet to their airplane (and probably them), but wasn't landing.

Now, talk about a couple of ingrates, violating a guy who was honestly trying to help them.......but it stuck. In Alaska.

I didn't think Trent should have been violated. But, it's pretty amazing he still doesn't understand the difference between his case and the one in Massechusetts.

MTV

mtv wrote:After all that he's been through, Trent obviously still doesn't understand 91.119. Here's the first bit from the regulation:

§ 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.

So when I’m flying the work plane that’s over 250 times the mass of my wagon, if I’m on final and it doesn’t look good, just send er?

I wouldn’t want to be violated

Also no more dragging a ski, just land it and “in administrator we trust”?

I mean you do all those passes that’s going to look way worse on Karen vision than Palmers one pass and “nope”

Sorry, I hadn't finished that dissertation when I pushed the wrong button. Please go read my complete diatribe.

No, Trent shouldn't have been violated in my opinion, but his case has nothing to do with the guy in Mass. except it's the same regulation.

MTV

mtv wrote:Sorry, I hadn't finished that dissertation when I pushed the wrong button. Please go read my complete diatribe.

No, Trent shouldn't have been violated in my opinion, but his case has nothing to do with the guy in Mass. except it's the same regulation.

MTV

The issue is the guilty till proven innocent banana administrative court shades of grey

From the video of Palmer he was in BFE, did a inspection pass, to me that seems very needed and NOT doing that would be a 91.13

Which goes to just killing backcountry aviation, ok so we are now relegated to land at a 5k runway and park at signature with all the fees and prison fences and badges for our badges, or get suspended, silly but that’s where this goes it seems

Now for the floats, we both flew them professionally, being closer than 500’ from a bridge or boat or something is par for the course

Hopefully that legislation passes and snips the nuts on the FAAs a little on these windmills they enjoy charging

Shame we can’t just end administrative “law”

“The "void for vagueness" legal doctrine does not apply to private law (that is, laws that govern rights and obligations as between private parties), only to laws that govern rights and obligations vis-a-vis the government. The doctrine also requires that to qualify as constitutional, a law must:
* State explicitly what it mandates, and what is enforceable.
* Define potentially vague terms.”

^ administrative “law” is sadly a constitution free zone

mtv wrote: So, we go back to was it NECESSARY to fly closer to that bridge than 500 feet? And, the answer is NO, it was not NECESSARY to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge. All the pilot had to do was fly a bit higher passing over the bridge and land a short distance further down (or up) stream, thus keeping 500 feet between his aircraft and the bridge. But, he CHOSE to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge, it was NOT necessary to do so to land in that stretch of river.


MTV

I do not like this notion that it wasn’t necessary because they could have landed somewhere else. If a legal landing site necessitates passing within xxx feet of something, is it no longer a legal landing site simply because there are other landing sites available? Why must pilots forgo landing where they want to when the rules clearly state that they are indeed allowed to pass closer to objects to do so?

BigBen wrote:I do not like this notion that it wasn’t necessary because they could have landed somewhere else. If a legal landing site necessitates passing within xxx feet of something, is it no longer a legal landing site simply because there are other landing sites available? Why must pilots forgo landing where they want to when the rules clearly state that they are indeed allowed to pass closer to objects to do so?

That’s fortunately AND unfortunately…not the case

What we have learned is this

The FAA is like Schrödinger's cat, anytime you do anything, you are both following the all the FAA rules while also breaking all the FAA rules at the same time, there simply is no way of knowing your legal status till “the box is opened”, ie till a snitch calls it in

BigBen wrote:

mtv wrote: So, we go back to was it NECESSARY to fly closer to that bridge than 500 feet? And, the answer is NO, it was not NECESSARY to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge. All the pilot had to do was fly a bit higher passing over the bridge and land a short distance further down (or up) stream, thus keeping 500 feet between his aircraft and the bridge. But, he CHOSE to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge, it was NOT necessary to do so to land in that stretch of river.


MTV

I do not like this notion that it wasn’t necessary because they could have landed somewhere else. If a legal landing site necessitates passing within xxx feet of something, is it no longer a legal landing site simply because there are other landing sites available? Why must pilots forgo landing where they want to when the rules clearly state that they are indeed allowed to pass closer to objects to do so?

You are mis-reading the regulation..... IF that stretch of river had, say, two bridges, fairly close together, there would be no doubt that to land in THAT stretch of river, one might have to fly closer than 500 feet to a bridge. But, that wasn't the case here, as I understand it. By simply passing more than 500 feet from that bridge, the pilot could easily have landed the same stretch of the river WITHOUT having violated 91.119. The FAA basically makes the case that if you simply have to taxi a short distance to get to your "destination" it's not a big deal.

Look, the whole point of 91.119 is to prevent pilots from landing literally on top of, over or very close to people, structures, etc. As we all prove pretty regularly based on accident statistics, pilots fairly frequently lose control during landings/takeoffs. If that happens very close to people, someone could get hurt. So, we should avoid those kinds of operations.

BUT, if the only way we can get somewhere is to fly closer than 500 feet (or 1000 feet) to people, structures, etc, then it is legal.

Consider a dock on a lakeshore. There is a group of people standing on the dock. You want to land and join them there. It's on the shore of a huge lake. You opt to land right next to the dock and taxi back to tie up. You MAY have been in violation of 91.119 IF you flew closer than 500 feet to the dock. But, if you simply landed 500 feet out from the dock, no problem.

Now, consider a narrow, winding river, with a dock and people. The entire shoreline of that stretch of river is populated with homes, docks, boats, etc. Does 91.119 say you can't land there? Not at all. Since there's no way to land there WITHOUT passing within 500 feet of people, structures, etc, you're good to go.

That's what "except when necessary" means.

MTV

mtv wrote:

BigBen wrote:

mtv wrote: So, we go back to was it NECESSARY to fly closer to that bridge than 500 feet? And, the answer is NO, it was not NECESSARY to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge. All the pilot had to do was fly a bit higher passing over the bridge and land a short distance further down (or up) stream, thus keeping 500 feet between his aircraft and the bridge. But, he CHOSE to fly closer than 500 feet to that bridge, it was NOT necessary to do so to land in that stretch of river.


MTV

I do not like this notion that it wasn’t necessary because they could have landed somewhere else. If a legal landing site necessitates passing within xxx feet of something, is it no longer a legal landing site simply because there are other landing sites available? Why must pilots forgo landing where they want to when the rules clearly state that they are indeed allowed to pass closer to objects to do so?

You are mis-reading the regulation..... IF that stretch of river had, say, two bridges, fairly close together, there would be no doubt that to land in THAT stretch of river, one might have to fly closer than 500 feet to a bridge. But, that wasn't the case here, as I understand it. By simply passing more than 500 feet from that bridge, the pilot could easily have landed the same stretch of the river WITHOUT having violated 91.119. The FAA basically makes the case that if you simply have to taxi a short distance to get to your "destination" it's not a big deal.

Look, the whole point of 91.119 is to prevent pilots from landing literally on top of, over or very close to people, structures, etc. As we all prove pretty regularly based on accident statistics, pilots fairly frequently lose control during landings/takeoffs. If that happens very close to people, someone could get hurt. So, we should avoid those kinds of operations.

BUT, if the only way we can get somewhere is to fly closer than 500 feet (or 1000 feet) to people, structures, etc, then it is legal.

Consider a dock on a lakeshore. There is a group of people standing on the dock. You want to land and join them there. It's on the shore of a huge lake. You opt to land right next to the dock and taxi back to tie up. You MAY have been in violation of 91.119 IF you flew closer than 500 feet to the dock. But, if you simply landed 500 feet out from the dock, no problem.

Now, consider a narrow, winding river, with a dock and people. The entire shoreline of that stretch of river is populated with homes, docks, boats, etc. Does 91.119 say you can't land there? Not at all. Since there's no way to land there WITHOUT passing within 500 feet of people, structures, etc, you're good to go.

That's what "except when necessary" means.

MTV

That’s waaaaaayyyyy too vague, man. Way too loose. It’s like they’re tossing out some half-baked idea and expecting us to just nod along like it’s gospel.


So, they need to put it down in black and white ink on paper, no shortcuts. Name the genius who dreamed this up, slap their damn signature on it, and define what the hell “necessary” even means in their warped little universe. Spell it out, because I’m not here to play guessing games with their cryptic nonsense.


They also need to carve in stone how close we can get to an object on takeoff and landing. Apparently, they’ve got some magic number rattling around in their heads, pulled out of thin air like a cheap parlor trick.

Show me the math, damn it lol
If those numbers don’t hold up, don’t jive with the realworld, battletested operations that’ve been humming along forever then those digits need a hard rewrite. And whoever conjured up that garbage? Fire ‘em. Straight out the door, no severance, no apologies.

I’d trust the NBAA to draw the line over the FAA’s gang of perpetual misfires any day. Those FAA cats can’t even get off the ground in the private sector half the time, yet they’re the ones setting the bar? Please. That’s the kind of accountability they love to shove down us pilots’ throats.

Expecting us to decode the scrambled brains of GS workers? That’s a laugh, a dark, twisted joke. But here we are, stuck with these clowns pulling levers they don’t even understand how the industry works

Or, hell, make ‘em prove their case beyond a shred of doubt, not just wave their bureaucratic wands and call it a day.

Perhaps I am not understanding MTV's interpretation of "necessary". In the float plane case, he says it wasn't "necessary" to land in a place that required the pilot to be within 500' of the bridge. If I understand his words correctly, the suggestion is that the pilot could just land somewhere else on the river. But, what then defines "necessary", was the landing itself necessary, was landing in that river necessary? It was a training flight, that training flight could likely have been conducted somewhere else altogether, or maybe the flight itself wasn't even necessary? In his example of the dock in the river in Alaska, where there is no way to land there without being within 500' of people, why is it "necessary" to land in the river at all? To practice docking, is there no other place in Alaska to practice docking without landing in a river lined by civilization? Is docking practice really even necessary? You want to land in the river and dock at the lodge, go in and get a burger, was the burger necessary? if not, then the landing was not necessary.

I have an FAA approved runway at my home, the runway is less than 500' to 3 homes. Not one of my flights is "necessary", no one is going to perish if I don't go flying. Seems a slippery slope for some judge or bureaucrat to define what is and is not necessary in this context. Where I believe Mike is wrong is that the necessary in 91.119 means necessary to where you intend to land, NOT whether their are more suitable landing spots that would not require being withing 500'.

StillLearning wrote:Perhaps I am not understanding MTV's interpretation of "necessary". In the float plane case, he says it wasn't "necessary" to land in a place that required the pilot to be within 500' of the bridge. If I understand his words correctly, the suggestion is that the pilot could just land somewhere else on the river. But, what then defines "necessary", was the landing itself necessary, was landing in that river necessary? It was a training flight, that training flight could likely have been conducted somewhere else altogether, or maybe the flight itself wasn't even necessary? In his example of the dock in the river in Alaska, where there is no way to land there without being within 500' of people, why is it "necessary" to land in the river at all? To practice docking, is there no other place in Alaska to practice docking without landing in a river lined by civilization? Is docking practice really even necessary? You want to land in the river and dock at the lodge, go in and get a burger, was the burger necessary? if not, then the landing was not necessary.

I have an FAA approved runway at my home, the runway is less than 500' to 3 homes. Not one of my flights is "necessary", no one is going to perish if I don't go flying. Seems a slippery slope for some judge or bureaucrat to define what is and is not necessary in this context. Where I believe Mike is wrong is that the necessary in 91.119 means necessary to where you intend to land, NOT whether their are more suitable landing spots that would not require being withing 500'.

Exactly. That’s why I don’t like mtv’s notion of necessary.

One could determine that none of my flying is actually necessary.

NineThreeKilo wrote:.....That’s waaaaaayyyyy too vague, man. Way too loose....

A lot of regs are vague.
FAR 91.119 makes several references to "congested areas".
Exactly what is the definition of a congested area?
My definition is quite likely different than the FAA's,
esp if they're trying to violate me for flying too low over one.

I have always thought the yellow on VFR charts indicated “congested areas” and meant 1,000 AGL or greater. Apparently that is not necessarily the case and it is a grey area and open to interpretation.

hotrod180 wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:.....That’s waaaaaayyyyy too vague, man. Way too loose....

A lot of regs are vague.
FAR 91.119 makes several references to "congested areas".
Exactly what is the definition of a congested area?
My definition is quite likely different than the FAA's,
esp if they're trying to violate me for flying too low over one.

Indeed!

Telling ya, regulatory equivalent to Schrödinger's cat, won’t know if it was congested till ya open the box.


There is a reason real law and justice are held to a burden of proof and a constitution complete with prohibitions on things be vague.

I’d prefer all FAR violations were ultra low level misdemeanors, same with medical (which the FAA weaponized), at least that would force the FAA to be held to a constitutional, beyond any reasonable doubt standard

StillLearning wrote:Perhaps I am not understanding MTV's interpretation of "necessary". In the float plane case, he says it wasn't "necessary" to land in a place that required the pilot to be within 500' of the bridge. If I understand his words correctly, the suggestion is that the pilot could just land somewhere else on the river. But, what then defines "necessary", was the landing itself necessary, was landing in that river necessary? It was a training flight, that training flight could likely have been conducted somewhere else altogether, or maybe the flight itself wasn't even necessary? In his example of the dock in the river in Alaska, where there is no way to land there without being within 500' of people, why is it "necessary" to land in the river at all? To practice docking, is there no other place in Alaska to practice docking without landing in a river lined by civilization? Is docking practice really even necessary? You want to land in the river and dock at the lodge, go in and get a burger, was the burger necessary? if not, then the landing was not necessary.

I have an FAA approved runway at my home, the runway is less than 500' to 3 homes. Not one of my flights is "necessary", no one is going to perish if I don't go flying. Seems a slippery slope for some judge or bureaucrat to define what is and is not necessary in this context. Where I believe Mike is wrong is that the necessary in 91.119 means necessary to where you intend to land, NOT whether their are more suitable landing spots that would not require being withing 500'.

No, the FAA does not question whether a landing was "necessary" or not. Again, the word "necessary" in this regulation specifically applies ONLY to flying close to "stuff". If it's necessary to fly close to stuff to land there, then you are golden.

Look at it this way: If the FAA said you can NEVER fly within a certain distance of people, structures, etc., then we could not legally land at an airport, because those all have "structures", like pavement, lighting, etc. very close to where we're landing/taking off. Same goes for your private strip. If the only way to land there is to fly closer than 500 feet to "stuff", you're good to go.

Take it a step further: We're going to land at Johnson Creek during a busy weekend fly in. Planes parked along both sides of the runway, all within 500 feet of the landing surface. In fact, PEOPLE standing all along there as well, taking photos and video. Can we not land there? Nope, because to land there we'll HAVE to fly within 500 feet.... FAA does NOT say we can't land there just because of the congestion.

Again, the "except when necessary" applies to flying close to people or structures, not to whether you can land there or not. And, I'm sorry, but this is purely plain English......it may be easy to mis-read, but it is quite specific in its meaning and intent.

MTV

Ross4289 wrote:I have always thought the yellow on VFR charts indicated “congested areas” and meant 1,000 AGL or greater. Apparently that is not necessarily the case and it is a grey area and open to interpretation.

Correct on that front. In fact there was a case many years ago where a pilot flew over a Boy Scout camp, where a group of Boy Scouts were standing in the camp. I have no idea how this came to the FAA's attention, but they apparently asked the pilot what his height was passing over that camp, and whatever he said, it was less than 1000 feet. He was cited for flying closer than 1000 feet to a "congested area".

That's the only case I know of, but it was pretty infamous when it occurred. And, the case stood.

MTV

NineThreeKilo wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:.....That’s waaaaaayyyyy too vague, man. Way too loose....

A lot of regs are vague.
FAR 91.119 makes several references to "congested areas".
Exactly what is the definition of a congested area?
My definition is quite likely different than the FAA's,
esp if they're trying to violate me for flying too low over one.

Indeed!

Telling ya, regulatory equivalent to Schrödinger's cat, won’t know if it was congested till ya open the box.


There is a reason real law and justice are held to a burden of proof and a constitution complete with prohibitions on things be vague.

I’d prefer all FAR violations were ultra low level misdemeanors, same with medical (which the FAA weaponized), at least that would force the FAA to be held to a constitutional, beyond any reasonable doubt standard

So, what you're saying is that you'd prefer that aeronautical regulations were civil law, which means that FAA Inspectors would then have arrest authority and carry guns??

mtv wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:.....That’s waaaaaayyyyy too vague, man. Way too loose....

A lot of regs are vague.
FAR 91.119 makes several references to "congested areas".
Exactly what is the definition of a congested area?
My definition is quite likely different than the FAA's,
esp if they're trying to violate me for flying too low over one.

Indeed!

Telling ya, regulatory equivalent to Schrödinger's cat, won’t know if it was congested till ya open the box.


There is a reason real law and justice are held to a burden of proof and a constitution complete with prohibitions on things be vague.

I’d prefer all FAR violations were ultra low level misdemeanors, same with medical (which the FAA weaponized), at least that would force the FAA to be held to a constitutional, beyond any reasonable doubt standard

So, what you're saying is that you'd prefer that aeronautical regulations were civil law, which means that FAA Inspectors would then have arrest authority and carry guns??

Make the FARs criminal law

Civil law is slightly better than administrative kangaroo court, it’s by a preponderance of evidence.

But criminal gives the accused vastly more rights, right to a lawyer even if they cant afford one, and the feds would need to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt.

Believe it or not it would be much better for the airman than the administrator

Most of the nonsense they pull with pilots, the pilot could simply invoke their 4th and 5th and watch the FAA squirm and then do the walk of shame away as they couldn’t prove their case.

Plus if the FAA violated my rights it would now be a possible payday

If you did do something slightly stupid, it would be more like getting caught with a joint, or public disturbance, you’d pay a fine, keep your nose clean for a year and poof it would be expunged, which is way better than your permanent record of PRIA

The only people who would be against this would be the FAA types who like to jam folks up like Palmer or the CT seaplane dude, or the airmen who do VERY BAD stuff like that idiot who bailed out of the t cart with the fire extinguishers

I must being reading this all wrong, are you suggesting we should be praising the airman who bailed out of the T-cart for his act of heroism and airmanship decision making !!!

I quote....

"The only people who would be against this would be the FAA types who like to jam folks up like Palmer or the CT seaplane dude, or the airmen who do VERY BAD stuff like that idiot who bailed out of the t cart with the fire extinguishers"

Ross4289 wrote:I have always thought the yellow on VFR charts indicated “congested areas” and meant 1,000 AGL or greater. Apparently that is not necessarily the case and it is a grey area and open to interpretation.

I've heard that too.
I've also heard that the yellow shading represented areas where "city lights" were visible at night.
That yellow is conspicuous by it's absence from the legend on sectional charts--
another case of vagueness.