FAA Enforcement

docmirror said:
This brings up one of those interesting corner cases, or splitting of the hair if you will.

Situation: There you are, on your airport with your alleged 'UL aircraft'. The FAA comes up and wants to investigate. A ramp check, discussion, safety check, etc. Asks for your cert - you have none, don't need it. Then he wants to find out if your UL meets the definition under part 103. Which can't be done without an inspection of the engine, fuel quantity, and weight. He doesn't even know if you flew it or not, as he didn't observe any actual flight. As a non certificated person, with a non-certificated 'UL', you decide to not cooperate, load your 'UL' in the trailer and drive off, la-de-da.

Have you committed a violation?
Click to expand...

No.

But you could be subject to a letter of investigation.
 
bbchien said:
No it's not. You can still present the decomisioned document, say to a rental company and fly away their 182....
Click to expand...


I haven't rented from a place yet that demanded to see my pilot cert. Is it just that I know the people around here?
 
docmirror said:
This brings up one of those interesting corner cases, or splitting of the hair if you will.

Situation: There you are, on your airport with your alleged 'UL aircraft'. The FAA comes up and wants to investigate. A ramp check, discussion, safety check, etc. Asks for your cert - you have none, don't need it. Then he wants to find out if your UL meets the definition under part 103. Which can't be done without an inspection of the engine, fuel quantity, and weight. He doesn't even know if you flew it or not, as he didn't observe any actual flight. As a non certificated person, with a non-certificated 'UL', you decide to not cooperate, load your 'UL' in the trailer and drive off, la-de-da.

Have you committed a violation?
Click to expand...
Interesting legal question. Under the United States Code, the FAA has the power to investigate such things, and if you did refuse to cooperate and drove off, I suspect the Inspector would consider that suspicious enough to continue the investigation. The one thing of which I am reasonably sure is they would not drop the matter just because you refused to cooperate, and that eventually, they would complete their investigation, with a court order and law enforcement assistance if necessary.
 
Last edited:
ja_user said:
I haven't rented from a place yet that demanded to see my pilot cert. Is it just that I know the people around here?
Click to expand...
Must be. Everywhere I've ever rented wanted to see my pilot and medical certificates and logbook, and made copies of my certificates for their files.
 
Ron Levy said:
Interesting legal question. Under the United States Code, the FAA has the power to investigate such things, and if you did refuse to cooperate and drove off, I suspect the Inspector would consider that suspicious enough to continue the investigation. The one thing of which I am reasonably sure is they would not drop the matter just because you refused to cooperate, and that eventually, they would complete their investigation, with a court order and law enforcement assistance if necessary.
Click to expand...

I believe they would have to show probable cause to obtain a court order. If you were the investigator in the given scenario, what probable cause would you present to the judge for a warrant? I'm curious to know whether you believe refusal to cooperate is itself probable cause.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I believe they would have to show probable cause to obtain a court order. If you were the investigator in the given scenario, what probable cause would you present to the judge for a warrant? I'm curious to know whether you believe refusal to cooperate is itself probable cause.
Click to expand...

Remember, this is administrative law. The FAA can proceed with the investigation even if it's based on hearsay evidence.

And it wouldn't be the Inspector presenting anything to a judge, that would be handled through the Region Attorney's office.
 
Ron Levy said:
Must be. Everywhere I've ever rented wanted to see my pilot and medical certificates and logbook, and made copies of my certificates for their files.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
docmirror said:
This brings up one of those interesting corner cases, or splitting of the hair if you will.

Situation: There you are, on your airport with your alleged 'UL aircraft'. The FAA comes up and wants to investigate. A ramp check, discussion, safety check, etc. Asks for your cert - you have none, don't need it. Then he wants to find out if your UL meets the definition under part 103. Which can't be done without an inspection of the engine, fuel quantity, and weight. He doesn't even know if you flew it or not, as he didn't observe any actual flight. As a non certificated person, with a non-certificated 'UL', you decide to not cooperate, load your 'UL' in the trailer and drive off, la-de-da.

Have you committed a violation?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. If the "UL" isn't so "L" and you did indeed fly it without a valid pilot's certificate, medical, BFR etc, I'd say you have "committed a violation" but in the scenario you described there's nothing official indicating said violation has occurred. But if the FAA can find evidence that you flew it in the past I suspect they might be able to require a weighing. But then they'd still have issues with the weight as flown in the past vs later. Which begs the question: Can the FAA confiscate an alleged overweight UL to verify it's weight?
 
gismo said:
Hard to say. If the "UL" isn't so "L" and you did indeed fly it without a valid pilot's certificate, medical, BFR etc, I'd say you have "committed a violation" but in the scenario you described there's nothing official indicating said violation has occurred. But if the FAA can find evidence that you flew it in the past I suspect they might be able to require a weighing. But then they'd still have issues with the weight as flown in the past vs later. Which begs the question: Can the FAA confiscate an alleged overweight UL to verify it's weight?
Click to expand...

Well, go back to my post. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I'm just standing there, on the airport, next to my lawn art. No one says I flew it, no one from the FAA has any idea what was going on before he walked up.

So, like I said, they want to weigh it, and I decide I'm not playing. They can investigate all they want, but the lawn art is now in my garage, and if there is some kind of court order to inspect or weigh it, I'm gonna want to know what the basis of that order is. Did you see it fly? Did you see the person who flew it? What ultralight are you talking about? Do you have a reg number? Serial number? did it look like lawn art or did it fly? If it flew do you have evidence of that flight? Radio conversation? radar track? video? Audio? Anything to base your investigation of my lawn art? If the answer is that there was a guy, and he was at an airport, and he was standing around some lawn art, I think it wouldn't take more than a few minutes for a decent attn to get that quashed.
 
gismo said:
Hard to say. If the "UL" isn't so "L" and you did indeed fly it without a valid pilot's certificate, medical, BFR etc, I'd say you have "committed a violation" but in the scenario you described there's nothing official indicating said violation has occurred. But if the FAA can find evidence that you flew it in the past I suspect they might be able to require a weighing. But then they'd still have issues with the weight as flown in the past vs later. Which begs the question: Can the FAA confiscate an alleged overweight UL to verify it's weight?
Click to expand...

No, but they can request that the owner provide documentation showing it actually meets the weight requirement.

Failure to provide that documentation will not and cannot stop an investigation and subsequent violation from occurring.
 
docmirror said:
Well, go back to my post. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I'm just standing there, on the airport, next to my lawn art. No one says I flew it, no one from the FAA has any idea what was going on before he walked up.

So, like I said, they want to weigh it, and I decide I'm not playing. They can investigate all they want, but the lawn art is now in my garage, and if there is some kind of court order to inspect or weigh it, I'm gonna want to know what the basis of that order is. Did you see it fly? Did you see the person who flew it? What ultralight are you talking about? Do you have a reg number? Serial number? did it look like lawn art or did it fly? If it flew do you have evidence of that flight? Radio conversation? radar track? video? Audio? Anything to base your investigation of my lawn art? If the answer is that there was a guy, and he was at an airport, and he was standing around some lawn art, I think it wouldn't take more than a few minutes for a decent attn to get that quashed.
Click to expand...

Here's the reality of how this would work:

The FAA wouldn't weigh it, they would ask for you to provide documentation showing it was in compliance. You could answer and tell them at no time has this UL flown and it was never intended for flight and the case would probably be closed.

Or you could tell them to pound sand and they send you a LOI and request documentation and answer to allege violations that you actually operated said aircraft. You ignore the LOI and they continue the investigation. If no other evidence is discovered the case is dropped.

IF there is some other evidence uncovered then the investigation continues and you could potentially be open for violations and civil penalties.
 
docmirror said:
Well, go back to my post. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I'm just standing there, on the airport, next to my lawn art. No one says I flew it, no one from the FAA has any idea what was going on before he walked up.

So, like I said, they want to weigh it, and I decide I'm not playing. They can investigate all they want, but the lawn art is now in my garage, and if there is some kind of court order to inspect or weigh it, I'm gonna want to know what the basis of that order is. Did you see it fly? Did you see the person who flew it? What ultralight are you talking about? Do you have a reg number? Serial number? did it look like lawn art or did it fly? If it flew do you have evidence of that flight? Radio conversation? radar track? video? Audio? Anything to base your investigation of my lawn art? If the answer is that there was a guy, and he was at an airport, and he was standing around some lawn art, I think it wouldn't take more than a few minutes for a decent attn to get that quashed.
Click to expand...

I think I understood your post accurately. You asked if a violation had occurred and my response was that if it was overweight and you flew it with out the proper rating a violation did occur. Whether or not the FAA could successfully bring an enforcement action against you is a whole different cup of worms and I would agree that given the scenario you outlined it would be difficult for the FAA to prove that the violation occurred. That said it wouldn't surprise me if the examiner initiated an investigation and as R&W suggests the next step would likely be a request from you to provide data (e.g. the aircraft's empty weight, fuel capacity, etc). You could of course fib in your response but then you'd be committing a second violation, and one they might be better able to prove.

All that said, I stand by my statement that whether or not the FAA has any way to prove you violated a reg has no bearing one whether or not you did.
 
gismo said:
I think I understood your post accurately. You asked if a violation had occurred and my response was that if it was overweight and you flew it with out the proper rating a violation did occur. Whether or not the FAA could successfully bring an enforcement action against you is a whole different cup of worms and I would agree that given the scenario you outlined it would be difficult for the FAA to prove that the violation occurred. That said it wouldn't surprise me if the examiner initiated an investigation and as R&W suggests the next step would likely be a request from you to provide data (e.g. the aircraft's empty weight, fuel capacity, etc). You could of course fib in your response but then you'd be committing a second violation, and one they might be better able to prove.

All that said, I stand by my statement that whether or not the FAA has any way to prove you violated a reg has no bearing one whether or not you did.
Click to expand...

Once again, you said it was either overweight, or it flew. Neither of those are in evidence. It is just a collection of tubes, rag, and engine with prop that may, or may not fly. The FAA hasn't seen it fly, and any investigation will be met with the aforementioned 'pound sand' answer. Go ahead, violate me. I don't care if it's administrative or whatever, you still have to prove a violation occurred. The only thing the FAA has now is a guy standing on a ramp, with his lawn art. No reg, no SN, no flight, no nothing. If the FAA can successfully prosecute this kind of BS, I will gladly take it to the next level(and I will win).

You can't just make shyte up cause it sounds good. Evidence is evidence, everything else is BS and you will get to a judge at some point who will understand this. It likely will not be the administrative people cause they just have a hard on for anyone. Violate everyone, and hope no one appeals.
 
docmirror said:
Once again, you said it was either overweight, or it flew. Neither of those are in evidence. It is just a collection of tubes, rag, and engine with prop that may, or may not fly. The FAA hasn't seen it fly, and any investigation will be met with the aforementioned 'pound sand' answer. Go ahead, violate me. I don't care if it's administrative or whatever, you still have to prove a violation occurred. The only thing the FAA has now is a guy standing on a ramp, with his lawn art. No reg, no SN, no flight, no nothing. If the FAA can successfully prosecute this kind of BS, I will gladly take it to the next level(and I will win).

You can't just make shyte up cause it sounds good. Evidence is evidence, everything else is BS and you will get to a judge at some point who will understand this. It likely will not be the administrative people cause they just have a hard on for anyone. Violate everyone, and hope no one appeals.
Click to expand...
You fail to understand the difference between administrative and criminal law. In administrative proceedings like an FAA enforcement action, the rules of evidence are much looser and the standard of proof is much lower -- and the judges involved understand both points very well. The fact that you have flyable vehicle off the trailer at an airport might alone be enough to convince an Administrative Law Judge that it is "more likely than not" that you had flown it. You can certainly appeal all you want up the legal chain all the way to the US Court of Appeals (the US Supreme Court has never accepted an airman enforcement action case), and spend far more in legal costs than the civil penalty would be, but you'd still probably lose the case there.

Bluster all you want, but on this one, you are taking a losing position.
 
Ron Levy said:
Are you suggesting the standards for issuing a "court order" in an administrative case are the same as in a criminal case? I don't believe that's true.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Just that a "court" order is, by definition, issued by a court, not an administrative body. Beyond that, whether criminal or civil or in aid of arbitration or in aid of administrative proceedings, the standards are often tied more to the substance rather than the "criminal" or other generic label assigned to it. Criminal orders can issue on the barest information also.
 
Nice, we've now escalated this to criminal actions. So - if I get this right, driving away from the FAA with my lawn art in tow is now a crime.

What a great country!
 
I was talking to the owner of a rather large RC airpark. They had a guy who was into RC heli's. Kept building bigger and bigger and he was very good at building them and flying them.

Finally he built one big enough to hold and lift a human and he was just the human to occupy it. He flew the thing at the ex-RC now heli port with zero formal training and no certs.

Several other people at the airpark expressed concern over this and some of them were commercial pilots on their 'on' time. They didn't like being a part (even in the vicinity) of something they knew was busting FARs. They felt like it put their cert on the line just observing him fly.

The owner didn't ban it and allowed him to fly onboard his 'RC' heli believing no FAA rep would ever venture out to a remote field in the middle of saw grass to investigate. Why would they? Unless someone reported him and why would they? And even if they did, what are the odds of the FAA showing up the same day as this guy is flying. And who's getting hurt here anyway? So he let it go...
 
Captain said:
I was talking to the owner of a rather large RC airpark. They had a guy who was into RC heli's. Kept building bigger and bigger and he was very good at building them and flying them.

Finally he built one big enough to hold and lift a human and he was just the human to occupy it. He flew the thing at the ex-RC now heli port with zero formal training and no certs.

Several other people at the airpark expressed concern over this and some of them were commercial pilots on their 'on' time. They didn't like being a part (even in the vicinity) of something they knew was busting FARs. They felt like it put their cert on the line just observing him fly.

The owner didn't ban it and allowed him to fly onboard his 'RC' heli believing no FAA rep would ever venture out to a remote field in the middle of saw grass to investigate. Why would they? Unless someone reported him and why would they? And even if they did, what are the odds of the FAA showing up the same day as this guy is flying. And who's getting hurt here anyway? So he let it go...
Click to expand...

Sounds like a problem that may well solve itself...
 
Captain said:
I was talking to the owner of a rather large RC airpark. They had a guy who was into RC heli's. Kept building bigger and bigger and he was very good at building them and flying them.

Finally he built one big enough to hold and lift a human and he was just the human to occupy it. He flew the thing at the ex-RC now heli port with zero formal training and no certs.

Several other people at the airpark expressed concern over this and some of them were commercial pilots on their 'on' time. They didn't like being a part (even in the vicinity) of something they knew was busting FARs. They felt like it put their cert on the line just observing him fly.

The owner didn't ban it and allowed him to fly onboard his 'RC' heli believing no FAA rep would ever venture out to a remote field in the middle of saw grass to investigate. Why would they? Unless someone reported him and why would they? And even if they did, what are the odds of the FAA showing up the same day as this guy is flying. And who's getting hurt here anyway? So he let it go...
Click to expand...

Do we know, or have reason to know that it did not fit part 103? You said it was big, but in ref to RC standards it could still potentially be under 254Lbs, and have less than 5 gal onboard. As long as it doesn't go faster than 63MPH, he's golden and doesn't need a cert, or medical or anything.

Once again, we have an unregulated(by regulation) activity that we want to bring the FAA in on? Why did the comm pilots "know" he was busting the FARs? Did they weight it? Inspect the fuel onboard? Test it's top speed? Observe it being used over a congested area? What's the beef here?
 
docmirror said:
The only thing the FAA has now is a guy standing on a ramp, with his lawn art.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to call it lawn art. There are plenty of potentially flyable aircraft that are never flown, both in and out of museums.

cfiles36570.jpg
 
docmirror said:
Well, go back to my post. You are assuming facts not in evidence. I'm just standing there, on the airport, next to my lawn art. No one says I flew it, no one from the FAA has any idea what was going on before he walked up.

So, like I said, they want to weigh it, and I decide I'm not playing. They can investigate all they want, but the lawn art is now in my garage, and if there is some kind of court order to inspect or weigh it, I'm gonna want to know what the basis of that order is. Did you see it fly? Did you see the person who flew it? What ultralight are you talking about? Do you have a reg number? Serial number? did it look like lawn art or did it fly? If it flew do you have evidence of that flight? Radio conversation? radar track? video? Audio? Anything to base your investigation of my lawn art? If the answer is that there was a guy, and he was at an airport, and he was standing around some lawn art, I think it wouldn't take more than a few minutes for a decent attn to get that quashed.
Click to expand...

docmirror said:
Nice, we've now escalated this to criminal actions. So - if I get this right, driving away from the FAA with my lawn art in tow is now a crime.

What a great country!
Click to expand...


RotorAndWing said:
Here's the reality of how this would work:

The FAA wouldn't weigh it, they would ask for you to provide documentation showing it was in compliance. You could answer and tell them at no time has this UL flown and it was never intended for flight and the case would probably be closed.

Or you could tell them to pound sand and they send you a LOI and request documentation and answer to allege violations that you actually operated said aircraft. You ignore the LOI and they continue the investigation. If no other evidence is discovered the case is dropped.

IF there is some other evidence uncovered then the investigation continues and you could potentially be open for violations and civil penalties.
Click to expand...

Now for the reality. Something like this will probably never see the light of day to begin with. As I stated above the likely scenario would be the Inspector ask you about the aircraft, you explain it was never intended for flight and it gets dropped right there.

The FAA doesn't have the resources to be chasing after nonsense like this. Even if the Inspector wanted to elevate this and open an investigation he would have to get approval from his FLM (front line manager) who is not going to be impressed and will probably think this Inspector has a bit too much free time on his hands.

And to open an EIR (enforcement investigation report) on something like this will be even harder to do. To pursue an EIR there has to be facts presented and evidence documented. The RA (Regional Attorney) will not accept an EIR without evidence and facts, nor will the FSDO Office Manager embarrass himself by allowing an EIR to leave the office with a weak or non existent case.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Now for the reality. Something like this will probably never see the light of day to begin with. As I stated above the likely scenario would be the Inspector ask you about the aircraft, you explain it was never intended for flight and it gets dropped right there.

The FAA doesn't have the resources to be chasing after nonsense like this. Even if the Inspector wanted to elevate this and open an investigation he would have to get approval from his FLM (front line manager) who is not going to be impressed and will probably think this Inspector has a bit too much free time on his hands.

And to open an EIR (enforcement investigation report) on something like this will be even harder to do. To pursue an EIR there has to be facts presented and evidence documented. The RA (Regional Attorney) will not accept an EIR without evidence and facts, nor will the FSDO Office Manager embarrass himself by allowing an EIR to leave the office with a weak or non existent case.
Click to expand...
...as long as nobody gets hurt and nobody else's property gets damaged.
 
docmirror said:
Do we know, or have reason to know that it did not fit part 103? You said it was big, but in ref to RC standards it could still potentially be under 254Lbs, and have less than 5 gal onboard. As long as it doesn't go faster than 63MPH, he's golden and doesn't need a cert, or medical or anything.

Once again, we have an unregulated(by regulation) activity that we want to bring the FAA in on? Why did the comm pilots "know" he was busting the FARs? Did they weight it? Inspect the fuel onboard? Test it's top speed? Observe it being used over a congested area? What's the beef here?
Click to expand...

I suppose they, like I, assumed you needed a pilot license to fly an aircraft that carries people.

No testing was performed that I was made aware of and I have no idea what the top speed or fuel onboard was.
 
docmirror said:
Once again, you said it was either overweight, or it flew. Neither of those are in evidence. It is just a collection of tubes, rag, and engine with prop that may, or may not fly. The FAA hasn't seen it fly, and any investigation will be met with the aforementioned 'pound sand' answer. Go ahead, violate me. I don't care if it's administrative or whatever, you still have to prove a violation occurred. The only thing the FAA has now is a guy standing on a ramp, with his lawn art. No reg, no SN, no flight, no nothing. If the FAA can successfully prosecute this kind of BS, I will gladly take it to the next level(and I will win).

You can't just make shyte up cause it sounds good. Evidence is evidence, everything else is BS and you will get to a judge at some point who will understand this. It likely will not be the administrative people cause they just have a hard on for anyone. Violate everyone, and hope no one appeals.
Click to expand...
I fail to see where I made anything up. I don't know why but it seems we're having a disagreement over the meaning of the word "if". I never stated that the aircraft was overweight or that you flew it. Nor do I have an opinion regarding the weight of your aircraft or whether or not you flew it (legally or illegally). I did say that IF it was overweight and IF you flew it without the required certificate(s) THEN a violation occurred. By the same interpretation, IF it wasn't overweight or you didn't fly it then no violation happened, at least not WRT flying a not so ultralight without being a certified pilot.

The core point I was trying to make is that whether or not the FAA witnessed anything and/or can provide evidence supporting a violation has NO bearing on whether or not a violation occurred, that just affects how likely they are to pursue enforcement and how successful they might be in such a pursuit. And I will readily admit that this point is neither important nor the answer to the question I suspect you were attempting to ask, it's just the answer to the one you did ask.

So let's get back to the more interesting point your question raised, that of what can/will the FAA do if they suspect someone has flown an "ultralight" that they also suspect doesn't meet the weight (or other non-obvious limitations of that category). I don't know the answer to that question but would like to know more. R&W has provided some clues but it's still not clear to me if an inspector has any authority to impound or otherwise preserve the aircraft until an accurate assessment of weight can be made. Sounds like the answer is no but if that's true it would seem that you could fly a non-conforming (weight wise) ultralight with impunity as long as you were willing to lie about it's weight.

Let's push this a bit further from your example and say that the FAA not only witnessed your flight but also have several videos of it and that the inspector happened to be very familiar with the very make and model of ultralight you were flying making him/her somewhat of an expert at guessing it's weight which he's estimated at something like 350lbs.

Can said inspector do anything more than begin an investigation leaving you with the option of taking the craft home and converting it into "lawn art" in a way that precludes any reliable determination of it's weight when he saw you fly it?
 
gismo said:
So let's get back to the more interesting point your question raised, that of what can/will the FAA do if they suspect someone has flown an "ultralight" that they also suspect doesn't meet the weight (or other non-obvious limitations of that category). I don't know the answer to that question but would like to know more. R&W has provided some clues but it's still not clear to me if an inspector has any authority to impound or otherwise preserve the aircraft until an accurate assessment of weight can be made. Sounds like the answer is no but if that's true it would seem that you could fly a non-conforming (weight wise) ultralight with impunity as long as you were willing to lie about it's weight.
Click to expand...
The FAA does not have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt," only that it is "more likely than not" that the aircraft observed flying was over the limit, and they are not legally required to show a weighing of the aircraft to achieve that standard of proof. The observations of experts can be sufficient to that end. Further, the self-serving statements of the respondent are usually given low credibility before the ALJ, while the statements of FAA experts are generally given high credibility, and the ALJ's findings of credibility are generally not subject to appeal.
 
gismo said:
So let's get back to the more interesting point your question raised, that of what can/will the FAA do if they suspect someone has flown an "ultralight" that they also suspect doesn't meet the weight (or other non-obvious limitations of that category). I don't know the answer to that question but would like to know more. R&W has provided some clues but it's still not clear to me if an inspector has any authority to impound or otherwise preserve the aircraft until an accurate assessment of weight can be made. Sounds like the answer is no but if that's true it would seem that you could fly a non-conforming (weight wise) ultralight with impunity as long as you were willing to lie about it's weight.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the Inspector cannot impound the aircraft.



gismo said:
Let's push this a bit further from your example and say that the FAA not only witnessed your flight but also have several videos of it and that the inspector happened to be very familiar with the very make and model of ultralight you were flying making him/her somewhat of an expert at guessing it's weight which he's estimated at something like 350lbs.

Can said inspector do anything more than begin an investigation leaving you with the option of taking the craft home and converting it into "lawn art" in a way that precludes any reliable determination of it's weight when he saw you fly it?
Click to expand...

That's why it's called an "investigation". If the investigation can provide facts, the "who,what when,where and why" then it proceeds into an enforcement.


Too many variables here to give a concise answer.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA does not have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt," only that it is "more likely than not" that the aircraft observed flying was over the limit, and they are not legally required to show a weighing of the aircraft to achieve that standard of proof. The observations of experts can be sufficient to that end. Further, the self-serving statements of the respondent are usually given low credibility before the ALJ, while the statements of FAA experts are generally given high credibility, and the ALJ's findings of credibility are generally not subject to appeal.
Click to expand...

I was involved in an investigation while on the GA side of the FAA that involved an issue with an aircraft that was alleged to be operating over weight routinely (commercial operation). The complaint was made by a former employee who documented several instances of the overweight operation. We went on site, talked with company representatives and maintenance personnel, company officials, pilots, etc. We went through maintenance records, flight records, etc.

Bottom line was after all the investigation and the "expert" testimony we could not put an enforcement together and get it by Region.

The RA's are covered up in case load and will not go chasing enforcements unless they have a solid case, period.
 
Captain said:
I suppose they, like I, assumed you needed a pilot license to fly an aircraft that carries people.

No testing was performed that I was made aware of and I have no idea what the top speed or fuel onboard was.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
A pretty good assumption.
Click to expand...

And yet -- completely wrong.:mad2:

Assumptions and law don't mix well.
 
gismo said:
I fail to see where I made anything up. I don't know why but it seems we're having a disagreement over the meaning of the word "if". I never stated that the aircraft was overweight or that you flew it. Nor do I have an opinion regarding the weight of your aircraft or whether or not you flew it (legally or illegally). I did say that IF it was overweight and IF you flew it without the required certificate(s) THEN a violation occurred. By the same interpretation, IF it wasn't overweight or you didn't fly it then no violation happened, at least not WRT flying a not so ultralight without being a certified pilot.

The core point I was trying to make is that whether or not the FAA witnessed anything and/or can provide evidence supporting a violation has NO bearing on whether or not a violation occurred, that just affects how likely they are to pursue enforcement and how successful they might be in such a pursuit. And I will readily admit that this point is neither important nor the answer to the question I suspect you were attempting to ask, it's just the answer to the one you did ask.

So let's get back to the more interesting point your question raised, that of what can/will the FAA do if they suspect someone has flown an "ultralight" that they also suspect doesn't meet the weight (or other non-obvious limitations of that category). I don't know the answer to that question but would like to know more. R&W has provided some clues but it's still not clear to me if an inspector has any authority to impound or otherwise preserve the aircraft until an accurate assessment of weight can be made. Sounds like the answer is no but if that's true it would seem that you could fly a non-conforming (weight wise) ultralight with impunity as long as you were willing to lie about it's weight.

Let's push this a bit further from your example and say that the FAA not only witnessed your flight but also have several videos of it and that the inspector happened to be very familiar with the very make and model of ultralight you were flying making him/her somewhat of an expert at guessing it's weight which he's estimated at something like 350lbs.

Can said inspector do anything more than begin an investigation leaving you with the option of taking the craft home and converting it into "lawn art" in a way that precludes any reliable determination of it's weight when he saw you fly it?
Click to expand...

Ok, I got your if-then-else statement, and I guess we're on track.

As for the lie about it, I'm not going to do shyte. I don't tell the truth, I don't lie, I don't say anything except maybe 'have a nice day'. It's not up to me to provide the FAA with anything. I can't even be sure the lawn art(UL) in parlance, is overweight. Surely I'm not going to have a discussion with someone in authority and admit to wrongdoing, even if I knew for a fact it was non-compliant. That's the worst thing someone could do:

FAA: "Hey Mr pilot, how much does your plane weigh?"

Me: (best Taxi driver impression) "Are YOU talking to me?"

FAA: "Yes, you Mr pilot."

Me: "What pilot? What plane? Have a nice day, bye."
 
I showed up at my rural airport in a full dark colored suit one day for a training flight as I was coming directly from work. The next day the airport staff said I scared everyone on the ramp thinking the FAA just showed up. They knew me and thought it was hilarious.
 
docmirror said:
Nice, we've now escalated this to criminal actions. So - if I get this right, driving away from the FAA with my lawn art in tow is now a crime.

What a great country!
Click to expand...
Not sure about the lawn art but as I said a number of post back, the federal criminal statutes have provisions making operation of an aircraft without a license (the original question in this thread) a criminal offense. My guess it that it's rarely used.
 
It's interesting that he previously (in 2004) pled guilty to the same offense, among others. Apparently whatever punishment he received did not have the desired effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top