Doing time for flying without a license

I heard reports, many years ago at a nearby airfield, that a man would land there with his Luscombe. Most believed he had no certificate and the plane hadn't been inspected for ages. The tip off, according to witnesses, was the fact that he was usually enjoying an adult beverage while flying ... :cheerswine:
 
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/04/outlaw-aviation-jailbird-sent-back-to.html?m=1

Guy for 14 months for taking a quick joyride. Was a habitual offender though. Didn’t realize the FAA looked to Jail these guys
Yeah, after the FAA suspends, revokes, perhaps levies civil penalties, and still can't get someone to stop, the process of referral to the Inspector General for investigation and ultimately to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution (there is a federal statute requiring a pilot certificate, not just an FAR) begins. I see maybe a half dozen of these a year.
 
From the article:

He told another witness that he’d flown Tomahawk and a Beechcraft Bonanza, the latter of which required special qualifications on top of a license to fly.

What ''special qualifications'' are needed to fly a Bonanza.??
 
My point was that people seem to believe that flying without a license is somewhat harmless. I’ve heard “So what’s the FAA gonna do, take away something they don’t have?”

As mentioned above, pilot licensing falls under 49 USC, and is a law. Break the law and it triggers possible prosecution by the US Attorneys.

At that point the FAA is the least of your problems. :eek:
 
My point was that people seem to believe that flying without a license is somewhat harmless. I’ve heard “So what’s the FAA gonna do, take away something they don’t have?”

As mentioned above, pilot licensing falls under 49 USC, and is a law. Break the law and it triggers possible prosecution by the US Attorneys.

At that point the FAA is the least of your problems. :eek:

Define harm.
The rest, yeah.
 
Well ... if they can't take away a certificate they don't have then they'll see to it that a US attorney takes away something that they they do have ... their freedom!
 
Well ... if they can't take away a certificate they don't have then they'll see to it that a US attorney takes away something that they they do have ... their freedom!

Since he was sentenced to over 12 months in prison, I assume he was convicted of a felony. If so, that means he also loses his firearms rights forever. Maybe important to the guy, maybe not.

Tim
 
Define “breaking a federal law”.

Let’s see, shall not be infringed, vs SBR is “illegal.” Safe queen AR-15 with a 10’ barrel and a stock and no tax stamp while another that is NOT a safe queen is in weekly use at a ranch and actually propels a bullet faster. It may be against a “Federal Law” but is actually not against the Constitution / Bill of Rights and no one is “harmed” by a safe queen.

Some “Federal laws” are just flat out silly, useless, and bad with no moral justification, nor adequate Constitutional jurisdiction.
 
Nobody said YOU have to follow the federal law. Have at it. :rolleyes:

Freedom of speech is hoping that others will see the folly and arbitrary nature of certain things and that positive change will occur in the future. It wouldn’t need to be enumerated if everything was always going to be in agreement.

Discretion is choosing to play by the arbitrary rules of the game for longevity sake even when one thinks something is quite illogical and even a bit tyrannical.

The two are not exclusive, but sometimes I think the FAA takes the anti-authority hazardous attitude to the point where free speech and logical criticism is looked at as bordering on treason and casts suspicion on those willing to say something.
 
Or cutting a tag off a pillow

j3sxJxe.jpg
 
Throwing a light bulb into a trash can.

some laws are pretty petty.

So some laws, when judged "petty" by the perpetrator, are OK to break? o_O

BTW, in case you missed it, this thread is not about lightbulbs or mattresses. ;)
 
So some laws, when judged "petty" by the perpetrator, are OK to break? o_O

BTW, in case you missed it, this thread is not about lightbulbs or mattresses. ;)

We know that you know that that wasn’t the point.

There’s a difference between saying it’s OK to break the law and saying that the law is arbitrary, bad, and should be removed.
 
As a former member of this board once said: "What's safe is not always legal, and what's legal is not always safe".

Remember that the administrative state is based on regulations which are broad-based and are (in many cases) designed to allow easy enforcement for "administrative convenience". They don't look at specific situations - it's not "have you had flight training", it's "did you fly without a license": a binary choice that makes it easy to administer the regulations. Like the speed limit for cars: it's not "is the 68 MPH you drove safe", it's "did you exceed the posted 65 MPH speed limit". Period. (Also noted that some speed limits were established in the old days for cars that had inferior performance to the ones today - radial tires, for example, make a huge difference compared to the old bias-ply).
 
I heard reports, many years ago at a nearby airfield, that a man would land there with his Luscombe. Most believed he had no certificate and the plane hadn't been inspected for ages. The tip off, according to witnesses, was the fact that he was usually enjoying an adult beverage while flying ... :cheerswine:

I guess Luscombe's are not that difficult to fly after all.
 
Throwing a light bulb into a trash can.

some laws are pretty petty.
Out of curiosity, is that a state law or a federal law? And how do they want light bulbs to be disposed of?
 
Freedom of speech is hoping that others will see the folly and arbitrary nature of certain things and that positive change will occur in the future.
That same freedom also gives hope to those who don’t believe there is folly and arbitrary nature to certain things and that no change is necessary. Correct?
I think the FAA takes the anti-authority hazardous attitude to the point where free speech and logical criticism is looked at as bordering on treason and casts suspicion on those willing to say something.
How so? For example, the FAA routinely leaves itself open to criticism from anyone every time they propose a change to a rule. Yet rarely does anyone criticize them via the established methods. Have you participated in this process? I have on a number of occasions with zero hints of treason or suspicions in return.
 
Out of curiosity, is that a state law or a federal law? And how do they want light bulbs to be disposed of?

Both. They are to be treated as hazardous waste on most cases.

Federal law for all bulbs that contain any trace mercury (fluorescent bulbs, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps and neon light bulbs for example)

Additionally, some states actually require recycling by law, including:
  • California,
  • Maine,
  • Massachusetts,
  • Minnesota,
  • New Hampshire,
  • Vermont, and
  • Washington.
There is a good book called "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" Harvey Silverglate (here) that all the "zero tolerance" people should read.
 
I guess Luscombe's are not that difficult to fly after all.

I’d never say that! An old friend at a nearby grass field would come and do a flyby where I’m at but he wouldn’t land because it was pavement and he said it was too squirrelly on the pavement for him.

Others have told me if the plane is set up correctly it is easy to land. I’ve never landed a Luscombe but I have flown them and they fly wonderful!
 
That same freedom also gives hope to those who don’t believe there is folly and arbitrary nature to certain things and that no change is necessary. Correct?
I mean, they have the right to defend their illogical positions, with free speech, sure.
How so? For example, the FAA routinely leaves itself open to criticism from anyone every time they propose a change to a rule. Yet rarely does anyone criticize them via the established methods. Have you participated in this process? I have on a number of occasions with zero hints of treason or suspicions in return.
It's still not an truly representative process. Yes, I've left public comments, but most of the ones we're discussing aren't and haven't been up for public comment anytime recently. Also, your mileage may differ, but I've had pretty close to direct threats from FAA inspectors over simply asking questions, as have others I've known.

It isn't limited to the FAA, by any means. Corporate interests have totally bought the agricultural side as well against small farmers who want to directly market their food. There's a pretty good read by regenerative farmer Joel Salatin called "Everything I Want to Do is Illegal" - Amazon link here: https://amzn.to/3xAOwrU where he details much of it. Unlike the debatable "systemic R@" issue, this is pretty much not disputable to anyone with an open mind.

Also, lest we forget, there ARE pilots flying who don't have a license - under ultralight rules. It seems quite arbitrary that some ultralight guy who theoretically has 1000 hours in something like Quicksilver, would necessarily be unsafe flying a similar LSA with a 100lb higher weight limit and a bigger gas tank.

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/learn-to-fly/comparing-pilot-types/how-to-become-an-ultralight-pilot

Another example: I sold my first BC-12D because I was intending to use it for light sport training. I bought it from a guy who was flying as a sport pilot and was assured it was legal. Found out after a lot of digging in the logbooks after I bought it that someone had put a Beech Roby prop on it waaaay back in the late 40s or early 50s. Of course, that didn't mean anything to me the first time I read it, until later someone pointed out that that meant the aircraft was no longer LSA qualified...

"As defined in FAR 1.1, a light-sport aircraft is an aircraft other than a helicopter or powered-lift that since its original certification has continued to meet the following:

- A fixed or auto-feathering propeller system, if a powered glider."

The Beech-Roby, it turns out, is manually adjustable in flight: https://www.notplanejane.com/beechcraft.htm

so even though it had a TCDS-approved fixed pitch prop currently installed, because someone put a Beech Roby prop on it in the past (TCDS legal) it was a strike, despite their being no difference in it's current configuration than an LSA-legal BC-12D.

Because I do my best to play by the rules, I sold the plane, but it seemed a crying shame that the rules weren't a tiny bit more reasonable.
 
Last edited:

Both. They are to be treated as hazardous waste on most cases.

Federal law for all bulbs that contain any trace mercury (fluorescent bulbs, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps and neon light bulbs for example)

Additionally, some states actually require recycling by law, including:
  • California,
  • Maine,
  • Massachusetts,
  • Minnesota,
  • New Hampshire,
  • Vermont, and
  • Washington.
Thanks. Sounds like most incandescent bulbs are not included in that.

Personally, I don't mind disposing of things however they want it done, as long as reasonable means are made available to do so. My city has a provision for curbside pickup of CFLs, and nearby places where straight florescent tubes can be taken.

There is a good book called "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" Harvey Silverglate (here) that all the "zero tolerance" people should read.

I have that book in my Kindle library. Maybe I'll get around to reading it someday.
 
My point was that people seem to believe that flying without a license is somewhat harmless. I’ve heard “So what’s the FAA gonna do, take away something they don’t have?”
That's basically people thinking the FAR is all there is and certificate suspension and revocation the only penalties for violations. Pretty common knowledge gap.
 
they have the right to defend their illogical positions
Ha. And here I thought you were handling the illogical side to the debate.;)
It's still not an truly representative process.
And it's not meant to be. The representative side ends with congress which pass the framework for the administrative side. So if you have an issue with the admin side the direct path to cause change in that is through your representative path as only they have the power to change the framework.
but most of the ones we're discussing aren't and haven't been up for public comment anytime recently.
But there is a path to change the older ones as well which has been done in the past. Unfortunately, the majority of your fellow pilots and owners don't care to change it.
but I've had pretty close to direct threats from FAA inspectors over simply asking questions,
If actual threats there is a method to address that as well. Myself and others have taken several ASIs to task over various "threats" to include requesting they issue an LOI which is the initial requirement to pursue action against a person. But while you believe it to be "elitist" to have a knowledge of the FAA system it is that knowledge that allows me to address the same issues you complain about. And it's that lack of system knowledge that also takes away some of the validity of your argument.
but it seemed a crying shame that the rules weren't a tiny bit more reasonable.
So where would the "reasonable" part stop and who would you suggest to make that determination? But considering all current rules had the opportunity for people like yourself to comment on, 99% of owners/pilots don't bother to comment. Why? The Piper fuel selector decal AD is a prime example. Instead of every Piper owner commenting (10,000+) to make it a pilot function, only handful did at something like 105 people. So the problem about which rules are reasonable is not as much an issue caused by the FAA but rather the lack of input and time spent by the very people the rule will affect the most.
 
Ha. And here I thought you were handling the illogical side to the debate.;)

And it's not meant to be. The representative side ends with congress which pass the framework for the administrative side. So if you have an issue with the admin side the direct path to cause change in that is through your representative path as only they have the power to change the framework.

But there is a path to change the older ones as well which has been done in the past. Unfortunately, the majority of your fellow pilots and owners don't care to change it.

If actual threats there is a method to address that as well. Myself and others have taken several ASIs to task over various "threats" to include requesting they issue an LOI which is the initial requirement to pursue action against a person. But while you believe it to be "elitist" to have a knowledge of the FAA system it is that knowledge that allows me to address the same issues you complain about. And it's that lack of system knowledge that also takes away some of the validity of your argument.

So where would the "reasonable" part stop and who would you suggest to make that determination? But considering all current rules had the opportunity for people like yourself to comment on, 99% of owners/pilots don't bother to comment. Why? The Piper fuel selector decal AD is a prime example. Instead of every Piper owner commenting (10,000+) to make it a pilot function, only handful did at something like 105 people. So the problem about which rules are reasonable is not as much an issue caused by the FAA but rather the lack of input and time spent by the very people the rule will affect the most.

First off, I and others have frequently commented on stuff, like ADS-B for instance, and the new remote ID drone requirements where a person’s right to privacy is denied, which seems like a clear contradiction of the spirit of the fourth amendment - including being secure in “effects” for instance, if one made a living of being a barnstormer and camping out of their plane.
I actually don’t blame the FAA as much as Congress for allowing that to happen. We definitely don’t protect the minority opinion in the country...
I *have* actually spent time looking up dealing with the LSA issue and was coming up to dead ends online. If you know the process, give me a few pointers on where to go to affect change... and I’d bet more owners and pilots would help. That said, even those who wrote the Declaration of Independence knew this and it bears repeating:
“and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves”
Pilots are no exception. They may know something is wrong but they don’t want to rock the boat, or prioritize other quality of life issues for them rather than challenging bad laws, and thus bureaucracy often marches along its own merry way until it gets too intolerable and conflict arises.
Like I said, it’s actually quite hard to find out how to address an inspector’s bullying. There’s precious little guidance online, and I don’t get your “elitist” comment, so much as I find the lack of transparency if there is such a process to be self-serving of the agency.
Reasonable? An appeals process and it would have been quite easy to say that the LSA must *currently* conform to the rules. I even tried contacting a congressperson about it but the path seemed to lead nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top