Wasn't really sure where to post this, we need a legal section on the forum, anyways....
Everyone always talks about "careless or reckless," even though FAR doesn't specifically say something is illegal if it violates careless or reckless a pilot can lose his certificate.
Realistically does the FAA ever use §91.13 (careless or reckless) for enforcement purposes? If so, how often? and does anyone know of any specific case where someone's certificate was suspended or revoked due to violating §91.13?
From FAA Order 2150.3B
Appendix E. Examples
1. Elements of Regulations. A frequently-cited regulation is 14 C.F.R. § 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation. This seemingly simple regulation has numerous elements. The actual wording is:
CARELESS OR RECKLESS OPERATION
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
a. Subparagraphs of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. The regulation has two subparagraphs. Subparagraph (a) covers "Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation". Subparagraph (b) covers "Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation". Because the two subparagraphs cover two different conditions, i.e., for the purpose of air navigation vs. other than for the purpose of air navigation, there must be an item of proof (IOP) that provides evidence to identify one or the other as appropriate. If evidence shows that an aircraft was being taxied from the hanger to the line, subparagraph (b) would be appropriate. But if evidence shows an aircraft to have been on a take-off roll, then subparagraph (a) would be appropriate. There must be evidence to support the choice. Assume, for example, that the operation was for the purpose of air navigation and sub-paragraph (a) applies. The elements that must be included as an IOP are:
(1)A person.
(2)Operate (for purpose of air navigation).
(3)An aircraft.
(4)Careless or reckless.
(5)Endangerment.
(6)Life or property of another.
b. First Element. The first element is identifying the person, putting them in the aircraft, and proving that this person was an operator of the aircraft. Identifying the person and showing his or her operation of the aircraft may be done through witness statements, a response to the letter of investigation, documents such as logbooks, or training records, or Air Traffic reports. The form of the evidence can vary, but who the person is must be documented. For certificated airman, such as pilots and mechanics, ISIS data on qualifications will be an additional IOP.
c. Second Element. The second element to prove is that the aircraft was being operated for purposes of air navigation. For an aircraft that is airborne, or taxiing in from a flight, this is easy. For an aircraft that is on the ramp, or a taxiway, you will need some evidence to establish whether subparagraph (a) or (b) is the appropriate choice.
d. Third Element. The third element to prove is that an aircraft was involved. A definition of aircraft is found in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1, General Definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. The specific form of the evidence can vary, but a specific aircraft must be identified through IOPs. A supporting IOP will be a copy of aircraft registration data from the Integrated Safety Information System (ISIS). [Note: Ultralights are not aircraft, they are vehicles, with their own definition under 14 CFR part 103.]
e. Fourth Element. The fourth element is selecting between careless or reckless and providing evidence to support the decision. Careless indicates a lack of care, an act a reasonably prudent person would not commit if mindful of the potential consequences. Reckless can be alleged when there is evidence that a person intended to do what they did. It is not necessary to prove, or even allege, that they knew that their action was a violation of any regulation. For either choice, the careless/reckless element must be supported by evidence in one or more IOPs.
(1) Example of reckless IOP. For example, during the investigation of a gear-up landing incident, the evidence may include a statement from the aircraft owner who had personally advised the pilot the gear system was inoperative or a statement from a passenger who was told by the pilot that the normal gear system was inoperative. This evidence may indicate that a charge of reckless is appropriate.
(2) Example of careless IOP. On the other hand, the evidence may include a picture of the aircraft on the runway with the gear-handle up, a statement from a mechanic saying the gear operated normally when tested, or a statement from the pilot saying he was preoccupied with other traffic. This evidence may indicate that a charge of careless is appropriate.
(3) Evidence indicating no violation. If the evidence included a mechanic’s statement and repair order stating that the gear malfunctioned because of a broken part, then there may be no violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13.
f. Fifth Element. The fifth element in this regulation is endanger . An IOP in a gear-up landing might consist of evidence documenting the aircraft damage that endangered the property of another. It is not necessary to show actual endangerment, evidence of potential endangerment is sufficient. Appropriate evidence in a low flying case might include pictures of a school playground that was flown over, statements from teachers describing children in the playground at the time, and the altitude of the aircraft relative to terrain features. Potential endangerment can often be best explained in the section B analysis.
g. Sixth Element. The sixth and final element in this example requires evidence that the endangerment was to the life or property of another. If the above gear-up landing example is in a rented aircraft, the evidence to prove this element could be an ISIS report showing that the owner is another. Evidence of a passenger in the aircraft would also support this element, as the passenger is another. If an aircraft flown solo was entirely owned by the violator, and if there is no nearby property or persons to be endangered, there very well may be no violation.
2. Summary. To summarize, all enforceable regulations include some number of elements and evidence to support each of the elements must be included in an EIR to support a violation.
