• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
10:00PM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesFAA: Stop That, It's Legal!

Back to Squawk list

FAA: Stop That, It's Legal!

Submitted
When feds bow to public opinion over the regs, something's wrong. (www.flyingmag.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


rwb2112
rwb2112 11
Ah the 'concerned citizen', LOL. I get that a lot when taking pictures of aircraft.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 10
That's kind of like having a cop stop you and tell you that you were almost speeding!
lahtiji
lahtiji 10
If either or both planes had been towing banners advertising bar specials or club acts, no one would have complained.
preacher1
preacher1 12
It has been evident from all the Flt 370 coverage, just how little the general public knows about aviation in general.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 5
True, but then why would they?
carlsonj
James Carlson 8
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.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
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.
num1tailhooker
Lucio DiLoreto 10
Stupid is not curable.
mariescreations
Jerry Rader 4
Maybe this article should be published in the local newspaper so that the public can be made aware of the fact that airplanes can be flown legally in a manner that is unfamiliar with what the public conceives. You can feel sorry for the FAA inspector who has to field complaints from so many people who are ignorant of the rules. Maybe the FAA inspectors should add a statement to their answering machines to the fact that calls will only be returned if the complaint is legitimate and illegal.
yr2012
matt jensen 3
South Beach people are just not that aware of their ground surroundings, so this doesn't surprise me.
KW10001
Kylan Walters 5
Who are these people that are calling the FAA to report that two airplanes are flying well above and away from the beach??? I have a feeling these are the same people that call late night talk radio to report "significant chemtrail spraying activity" over their trailer.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Nope just highrise apartment dwellers looking out their windows - happens a lot in South Beach
outward
Jimmy Robinson -1
It was somebody who thought it was "one of them flying saucers" coming to take them away from their mobile home (no offense intended to those with mobile homes).
Bernie20910
Bernie Behling 2
A better answer would have been, "Why yes, I will continue to operate my aircraft in full compliance with all laws and regulations governing such operation." Let the inspector take that any way they want to take it.
DaytonFlightDept
Louis Leet 2
On the other hand, we, the "informed public" of Pilots are asking the FAA to listen to our Public Opinion and undo the need for Medical Examinations? Seems that's what the rule-making process is about...getting many facets of opinion.

Too much public "push-back" on the issue of flight near populated areas, and the FAA might reassess the present rule.
KennyFlys
Ken Lane 2
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.
egad
James Hodges 2
What about the cooperative " good neighbor" take off and landing patterns we use to ovoid noise sensitive areas??? I think the FAA guy was being nice in trying to get general aviation to protect our small minority from more restrictions. Don't be a T Head. Dr. Jim. CFI 40+ years.
khaiduk
Kevin Haiduk 1
I guess we will hear about this flight on Coast to Coast!
CaptJohn1
CaptJohn1 1
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.
1rocky1
Walt Leuci 0
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.
chriswclrk
Ya gotta keep in mind the 'type of citizen' hanging around this area. Too much tanning oil in the eyes.
stevemondral
steve mondral 0
That is beyond crazy, and this is coming from a non-pilot.
adpfalcon
Lone Falcon -1
can you imagine those peoples face if you were really flying the deck!!! most people can't tell 500ft from 100ft
preacher1
preacher1 2
Every day, UAL brings a 767 over my house HOU-ORD. On a clear day you can see the plane very well and it doesn't look high at all, but you take a look at it on FA and see he's at FL350. Don't seem possible, even with experienced eyes.
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 1
That would be IAH. 67s out of Hobby would be a feat.
preacher1
preacher1 1
My bad, forgot about Hobby, but 7600 on a 67 wouldn't be too bad unless loaded bad heavy.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The Dreamlifter crew(s) had less, both in and out that time. They didn't even bother offloading any cargo.