全部
← Back to Squawk list
FAA: Stop That, It's Legal!
When feds bow to public opinion over the regs, something's wrong. (www.flyingmag.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The nuts are in charge these days. Things that are important get no attention, those that are not important get attention. Afraid we have to wait them out.
maybe next time the F.A.A can be notified in advance of the photo shoot so when they do get phone calls they already are cognizant of what's going on. Sounds like some ones pride was hurt. I think the phone calls were justified. I had an incident a month ago where a Cessna rg flew well below 500' over a populated area very close to a school heading south @ a high rate of speed then did a 60% banked turn east then another 60% banked turn back to the south which was in the direction of Centennial airport that I fly out of. I called the tower manager & expressed my concerns to him & he said he would check the radar & get back to me which he did. When he called me back he said the pilot was doing pipeline inspections & was 300 feet agl. To me it looked like he was showing off, hence the phone calls. So when a pilot is doing pipeline inspections does that allow him the privilege of breaking altitude restrictions. My point is this...I had no idea what this guy was doing so I made a phone call. The general public has the right to inquire about what they observe whether it be a suspicious vehicle or what appears to them to be suspicious acft activity. How do they know the pilots of those acft weren't practicing for something more sinister.
Ya gotta keep in mind the 'type of citizen' hanging around this area. Too much tanning oil in the eyes.
There are some great folks at some FSDOs. Then there are some... well, idiots.
Getting three different answers from three different inspectors at the same FSDO is a government response that only be exceeded by the IRS. I've dealt with that one.
Getting three different answers from three different inspectors at the same FSDO is a government response that only be exceeded by the IRS. I've dealt with that one.
Remember the "scary" photo shoot over Manhattan?
I understand that what they were doing was perfectly legal. And as a pilot, I'm certainly not interested in losing any of my remaining rights. But it seems to me that a part that's missing from the story told here is the attitudes of the actual people involved -- we're hearing the story second-hand: FAA inspector calls Wayman, Wayman tells Goyer, Goyer gets "mad" and writes a blog entry.
If an inspector called me and said, "hey, I'm sorry to bother you, and I know you weren't breaking any laws, but we had a 'concerned citizen' call and report your flight as frightening," I certainly wouldn't be "mad" about it. I'd thank him, explain what I was doing, and if what I was doing wasn't for any really good reason (yes, a nice photo would be a "good reason"), I'd avoid doing it again.
From my point of view, there's certainly no good to come of alarming the public -- even allegedly stupid members of it -- by flying in some manner that's seen as provocative, especially if it wasn't necessary.
I wouldn't get on my high horse and tell him that I'm legal, dammit, and I'm angry he even said anything. That's just absurd and counter-productive.
Obviously, if the inspector had an attitude about it -- if he actually demanded right off the bat that I stop doing something that's perfectly legal, rather than just notifying me and asking questions -- then I could see getting upset. But the article as written just doesn't contain enough information to tell how the principals in that conversation actually behaved.
So, I have a hard time getting upset about it.
I understand that what they were doing was perfectly legal. And as a pilot, I'm certainly not interested in losing any of my remaining rights. But it seems to me that a part that's missing from the story told here is the attitudes of the actual people involved -- we're hearing the story second-hand: FAA inspector calls Wayman, Wayman tells Goyer, Goyer gets "mad" and writes a blog entry.
If an inspector called me and said, "hey, I'm sorry to bother you, and I know you weren't breaking any laws, but we had a 'concerned citizen' call and report your flight as frightening," I certainly wouldn't be "mad" about it. I'd thank him, explain what I was doing, and if what I was doing wasn't for any really good reason (yes, a nice photo would be a "good reason"), I'd avoid doing it again.
From my point of view, there's certainly no good to come of alarming the public -- even allegedly stupid members of it -- by flying in some manner that's seen as provocative, especially if it wasn't necessary.
I wouldn't get on my high horse and tell him that I'm legal, dammit, and I'm angry he even said anything. That's just absurd and counter-productive.
Obviously, if the inspector had an attitude about it -- if he actually demanded right off the bat that I stop doing something that's perfectly legal, rather than just notifying me and asking questions -- then I could see getting upset. But the article as written just doesn't contain enough information to tell how the principals in that conversation actually behaved.
So, I have a hard time getting upset about it.
Flying is formation in close proximity with experienced pilots at scenic locations is an essential element to some great aerial photography. I can't imagine how that should be changed.
Maybe leaking info about the photoshoot in advance to local news outlets both informs the general public about the unusual flying they may witness AND ALSO creates an opportunity to bring the client's airplane some media attention and showcases aerial photography.
Maybe leaking info about the photoshoot in advance to local news outlets both informs the general public about the unusual flying they may witness AND ALSO creates an opportunity to bring the client's airplane some media attention and showcases aerial photography.