Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19
#1909667
Rob L wrote:
A similar case was prosecuted by the UK CAA many decades ago at a strip in the Midlands. The accuser? A former RAF pilot fishing in his pond, apparently :( .

Seems to me the FAA is not too different to the CAA. From what's presented it's a ridiculous finding made by someone with too little aviation knowledge.

The appeal has to succeed. :thumright:
#1909676
Indeed, Misc.

The rule (minimum 500' above the ground at all times) is of course ICAO-based.
UK CAA filed a difference (500' from) . The FAA have a similar filing (500' above, other than over open water or sparsely populated areas) [Don't take my words as legalese from ANO or FARs!]

The issue in this case is about (both here in the UK and in FAA-land) a go-around or a precautionary safety preview of a legal landing site.
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909683
Hmmm. Seems to me that the FAA are trying to work out whether this was a case of someone buzzing their mate's back yard, (in which said mate flew radio controlled model ac).

In order to determine the purpose of the low flying they probably need to evaluate the nature of the piece of ground that purportedly may have been suitable for landing a Skyranger on. If it would have been apparent during flight planning that the area was not suitable there would be no need for an off-airport fly-over, would there?

Does our Youtuber not have GoPro (other cameras may be available) footage from all his flights...? Including this one??
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910116
NDB_hold wrote:
> Surely in most cases (except maybe bad weather) the precautionary landing
> inspection can be done from 500ft anyway?

There's a lot you couldn't see from 167 yards away.

But this isn't the point. The point is whether, if you go around from a strip somewhere, having been closer than 500' to a person, vehicle, vessel, or structure, the approach retrospectively ceased to be "for the purpose of take off or landing".

If so, you've broken the law, in which case, the law is an ass.

Assuming Trent Palmer is telling the truth, this is a dreadful abuse.
Sooty25, lobstaboy liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910119
NDB_hold wrote:
> Surely in most cases (except maybe bad weather) the precautionary landing
> inspection can be done from 500ft anyway?

I dont know what others were taught, but I was taught that for a precautionary landing at an unknown location, if at all possible, you make a pass at 500ft, one at 300ft and one at 100ft to thoroughly inspect the area, then you land...

Regards, SD..
lobstaboy liked this
#1910140
TopCat wrote:
> NDB_hold wrote:
> ... The point is whether, if you go around from a strip
> somewhere, having been closer than 500' to a person, vehicle, vessel, or structure,
> the approach retrospectively ceased to be "for the purpose of take off or
> landing".
>
> If so, you've broken the law, in which case, the law is an ass.
> ..

ISTR from my (passed many years/decades ago :oops: .. it may have changed, unnoted by me ) Air Law exam, there was a further gloss of ".. in accordance with established aviation practice" (or similar wording). If such low passes (at strips where this is a sensible precaution) are so 'established', then there may be (IANAL) a 'reasonable defence' in law.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910144
kanga wrote:
> If such low passes (at
> strips where this is a sensible precaution) are so 'established', then there may be
> (IANAL) a 'reasonable defence' in law.

But there's the rub. What appears reasonable, and to whom, tends to be decided by the depth of the relevant pockets, or so might those that have a more jaundiced view of things than I, might say.

And when the accusers are also judge, jury and executioner, what then?
#1910193
We'd now need to see the video, to see if the passes were slow and stable, indicating an observation pass, or whether he was just "beating up" the place.

Personally, if I was based in Reno and was going to visit a mate with a previously unused and challenging strip as described, I'd drive over first.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910218
Question: In the UK, is there any difference (in the context of the Rules of the Air) between an unlicenced airfield like Popham, and a strip on someone's private property?

This business about the propane cylinder in that FAA notice, for instance. You could go around at Popham from less than 100 feet, and be 80m from the fuel pumps. I know 80m is a lot more than 50 feet, but they're both a lot less than 500'.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910257
skydriller wrote:
> Its pretty clear to me that the guy either **** somebody off or sombody has
> an axe to grind with the guy. Could be a neighbour, could be anybody with
> enough time and spite to make a complaint.

This is irrelevant. The law is the law. Absent a video, we don't have enough info to know, but if Trent is telling the truth, a go-around not followed by a landing is being treated as illegal.

This is important, and it could happen here just as easily.

Of course if he's not telling the truth, he's bloody fool for making a big song and dance about it all on YouTube.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 19