Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910323
The FAA letter goes further than low flying.

quote
5)You operated N318JJ at altitudes that would not allow, if a power unit had failed, an emegency landing without undue hazards to persons or property.

6) Your operation of N318JJ, in the manner and circumstances described above, was careless or reckless so as to endanger the life or property of another.

As a result you violated the following Federal Aviation Regulations:

(a) ....

(b) ...

(c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation. (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
unquote
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910325
You missed out the important bit: "Except where necessary for takeoff or landing"

I'm not an expert on the FARs, but if he was flying as necessary for takeoff or landing, the height and glide clear requirements don't apply as I read it.

As I've now said several times, this all hinges on whether his approaches and go around(s?) were - or were not - "as necessary for takeoff or landing".

Whether it was neighbours complaining, whether the FAA wants to 'get' someone, are all secondary.
Miscellaneous liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910334
patowalker wrote:
>
> 14 C.F.R. § 91.13 makes no mention of "Except where necessary for
> takeoff or landing"

I was going by the image you posted earlier, which apparently refers to 91.119, whatever that is.

My inference being, that if he was flying legally, it wasn't reckless. The proximity of the people watching the approaches, and the propane tank, are not in themselves proof of any kind of recklessness.
TheFarmer liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910341
He was charged with violating three regulations. The careless or reckless operation is in addition to the low flying. We don't know the layout of land or the track of the inspection flights, so cannot know whether he was careless or reckless.

I find it strange that he did this when his friend and family were away from the property. He must have had some difficulty proving he did intend to land.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910342
patowalker wrote:
>
> I find it strange that he did this when his friend and family were away
> from the property. He must have had some difficulty proving he did intend
> to land.

Why on earth would you go and beat up a strip somewhere if there's no one to watch?
#1910346
the more you read, the dafter it all gets. Why visit a site when nobody is home?

If he appeals, the suspension is lifted until the appeal.

If he then went back and actually landed at the site, it would undermine a portion of the claim against him, by proving it was a suitable landing site.

However, if the video shows the inspection pass being conducted at 90knts, with a wingover at each end..... his options then come down to getting the video evidence dismissed on technical grounds.
#1910354
Only Trent & FAA knows what happens, I am sure there is more to it 1/ in other events and 2/ more in the video

The main trigger is still a member of the public, the last thing FAA wants is complaints from taxpayers against high YT profile !

I really doubt it’s about “low pass” vs “go-around”, otherwise, the FAA has just completely lost track of their battles but recently they had to deal with YT stuff (Trevor, RedBull…) and load of public complaints on commercial drones, so they will likely to square this one
#1910358
Miscellaneous wrote:
> If that were the case, [usermention=6019]@lobstaboy[/usermention], surely
> they would have chosen something a little more concrete? This may well end
> up with them having egg on their faces. I don't think that's the motive.

Well, I think the motive is to discourage others from low flying thinking they can use the excuse that they were doing an inspection pass of a potential landing site.
In effect they are arguing that off airport landings don't count as normal aviation practice and are not exempt from the low flying regs.
#1910360
That's certainly not how Trent sees it, [usermention=6019]@lobstaboy[/usermention]. :wink:

Have a look at the video I posted the link to above. He is still landing off field, whilst explaining the law. Not only that he's posting it on YT!

I have no doubt they fly close to the edge of legality at times. However being prolific YT posters and consequently under constant risk of significant scrutiny, I think they are very careful with what they do and by and large abide by the rules.

It seems to me those not in agreement with their chosen flying style tend to be critical of it.

Not that I'm suggesting you are not in agreement. :thumright:
TopCat liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910361
lobstaboy wrote:

> In effect they are arguing that off airport landings don't count as normal aviation
> practice and are not exempt from the low flying regs.

If that were the case, would it not be literally illegal to land on a strip on your own property?
#1910369
No. I mean unprepared landing sites that you choose from the air - the sort of back country stuff they do.
That's clearly not illegal in itself - but getting within 500 feet of person vessel vehicle or structure while doing it is.
That seems to be the FAAs point. That's all I'm saying. Presumably it's up to the courts to decide.
I can't see the outcome having any impact outside the USA anyway.

(the parallel I'm conscious of in the UK of course is doing practice forced landings below 500 feet agl - illegal if you get within 500 feet of anything)
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910370
lobstaboy wrote:
> No. I mean unprepared landing sites that you choose from the air - the sort
> of back country stuff they do.
> That's clearly not illegal in itself - but getting within 500 feet of
> person vessel vehicle or structure while doing it is.

I still don't see how this is the point, unless the FAA is attempting to Bartonise the regs.

Assuming this is a valid source, FAR 91.119 says this:

https://aviation-regulations.com/91.119

It doesn't distinguish between a towered airport, a private strip, the side of a mountain in the middle of nowhere or anywhere else - the restrictions are applied "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing".

So I still think it comes down to whether *not* landing makes it retrospectively not for that purpose.
#1910371
lobstaboy wrote:
> (the parallel I'm conscious of in the UK of course is doing practice forced
> landings below 500 feet agl - illegal if you get within 500 feet of
> anything)

I guess we can still practice PFL as low as 1ft in private strips without landing even when plane spotters are lined up around the threshold? assuming they can land on runway with owner permission...

We can also make low pass on private strips at 50ft without landing, we can also make low pass from ILS on runway at 200ft with ATC clearance and no intention to land (also make descent to 400ft on a closed runway on ATC clearance)

My understanding, 500ft for PFL only applies for practicing without land owner permission and without landing intention (Thames Estuary with people hanging around and no land permission from HM)

PS: in France, one can go down to 150ft for PFL practices with an instructor on-board...training is probably a different topic than the backcountry fun?
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19