Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by NorthEast Ohio, Mar 11, 2021.
Did you take a swing at him?
I heard from an impeccable source that The Administrator has determined that Kelleys Island is in the ADIZ and has requested the Ohio Air Guard intercept the next pizza flight.
I'm sorry, but I've got to say it -- "an FAA safety inspector" is not "The FAA", and his opinion is exactly that. Not everyone employed by the FAA is correct in their interpretation of the regulations.
The late Randy Sohn was fond of pointing out "the myth of one FAA."
The Administrator should learn hisself some Geography. Kelly's Island is part of the CONUS. Pelee Island is Canada.
And you may want learn yourself some humor, because there is no ADIZ between the US and Canada - unless you go ALLLLLL the way north to the NE part of AK where the ALASKA ADIZ abuts the Canada ADIZ out over the Beaufort Sea.
edit: also adiz abutments over the atlantic and pacific, but not along the border.
All this debate between "experts" is ridiculous. Read the article! This guy is flying back and forth without any regard to the food he is bringing his friend and neighbors on the island. If the FAA wants to pursue this, they will. If I were him, I'd continue doing this just as he is and fight any sort of enforcement action that the FAA may decide to pursue. By some of your logic in these responses, if a guy flies somewhere and eats lunch he'd be in violation because if he hadn't flown there the restaurant would not have made the sale. Get a grip on reality people!
When hall monitors grow up, they have to find something to do.
Interesting. He works at the FSDO in Irving, Texas.
Aviation Safety Inspector, Unit C
North Texas Flight Standards District Office
8700 Freeport Parkway, Suite 225
Irving, TX 75063
And he has an FAA.GOV email address.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Most seem to join the board of local Homeowners Associations.
And the Memphis FSDO said you can't use GPS to id an NDB. The FSDO is not the final decision maker, nor is one guy at a FSDO.
The FAA has more than 50,000 employees. I guess each and every one of them is "the FAA."
They are. I have my ATP so I’m not about to risk all my certs unless an activity is well within bounds. If there is any question, then it’s just not worth it. I worked too hard to get where I’m at.
And if this “pizza flyer” is crossing international waters to make the delivery, he needs to ensure he is in compliance with the entry requirements for both the US and Canada. I’m not 100% but if there are any issues there, the FAA can suspend or revoke, even if the underlying activity is permitted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So let’s say I find an airman who has the same attitude as you, and I have reasonable basis to request a 709 ride. I ask you to ID a Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) for an approach, and you use GPS and the approach does not have an associated GPS overlay, guess what. You failed the re exam and lose your cert. The FAA has quite a bit of authority there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Except that's incorrect. So you're now the perfect example of an FAA inspector going rogue.
"Effective July 16, 1998, pilots may substitute IFR-certified ... in lieu of DME and ADF on all localizer-type approaches as well as VOR/DME approaches, including when charted NDB or DME transmitters are temporarily out of service."
That's from the top, and after that was issued the Memphis FSDO went against the FAA directive/guidance.
I also cross Canada, and there is no "entry requirements" to do so.
Keep batting 1.000 dude, keep batting 1.000.
I certainly don't fault anyone for taking a conservative approach in their own operations, but when it comes to accusing others of a violation, I think we need to be on firmer ground than relying on one inspector's opinion out of many.
Sent from my HP ENVY using Firefox.
AC 90-108 - Change 1 allows an IFR GPS (and other types of suitable RNAV systems) to be substituted for an NDB on an approach as long as the NDB is not the navaid that provides lateral guidance on the final approach segment.
Young Eagle pilots aren't operating for compensation or hire, so the advertising is not "holding out".
Everyone in this thread who is saying to skirt or otherwise ignore the rules, because they're stupid... You are the whole reason that there are stupid rules to begin with.
There are SO many instances of people trying to get compensation for a flight that they weren't qualified to operate for compensation, and then getting in an accident and sometimes killing someone... That is why the rules have gotten stupid.
Don't be stupid. Learn the stupid rules, and abide by them, even if they're stupid, because they're the rules. If you don't like the rules, work with your congresscritter to get them changed, and then don't turn a blind eye to those who still can't abide by them.
I'm every bit about safety over legality, and intent vs black-and-white legalese of the rules, but I try to avoid getting in situations where those distinctions matter in the first place.
The point was that if "logging hours" is actually considered "compensation" in all cases, then we (YE pilots) would indeed be getting compensated. The very idea is patently ridiculous. Let's see... I fly my own airplane, I pay 100% of the cost of the flight, I log the time exactly the same as if I had flown without the passenger who we (the chapter and the EAA) publicly invited to go along. Nobody is compensating me for anything in any way.
Just like if, for example, I were going to fly from point A to point B, in my own plane, on my own dime, and offered to carry a pizza along for the ride. Except the pizza doesn't giggle and take pictures.
So what is the fellow flying pizzas doing that's unsafe?
You aren't being compensated then, you are covering the cost of the flight. Now if someone else is paying the cost of fuel, rental, etc., and you are getting the hours in return, then you are being compensated.
Well pizzas aren't exactly health food so I suppose a case could be made for putting the public in danger that way but lucky for him, the FAA's reach doesn't cover enabling the poor dietary choices of people that aren't the pilot.
Correct, BECAUSE YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE COST OF THE FLIGHT.
Flight time is only compensation if you're not paying for it, or paying less than you otherwise would.
Except, if there was a delivery charge paid for the pizza. The pilot doesn't have to be the one compensated to make it illegal, it's the fact that *somebody* is being compensated for air transport.
Likewise, if Young Eagles had to pay for their flights, that would make it illegal even if you were still paying the cost of the airplane.
I don't know since I haven't flown with him... But we do know that he doesn't know the FARs as well as he probably should.
Except...this isn't an example of someone getting compensation. He pays for the flying himself and he would make (or not make) the flight even if there were no pizzas involved.
If the pilot is being unsafe, then that's unrelated to the presence or absence of food on board. It's a guy doing good for his community.
My hope is that the FSDO talks to him to clarify the line and tells him that he's on the correct side of it.
An assumption with no basis in fact.
Precisely my point. It would seem that we're in violent agreement.
No kidding; see above.
We know nothing of the sort. But if we're going to make assumptions out of thin air, then my money is on there not being a delivery charge for the pizzas, since the pizza joint isn't delivering them. The kid is picking them up and flying them home, isn't he?
Pizza joints don't deliver to people, they deliver to addresses. If a pizza was ordered to be delivered to the pilot at the airport and a delivery fee was charged, that fee was for ground transport to the pilot. The pizza joint is out of the equation at that point and they do not know nor care if the person who actually placed the order ever gets the pizza. The pizza joint did not charge anyone for air transport and no one paid for air transport. They charged for delivery to the airport, they delivered to the airport, they're done. What happens with the pizza after that and what someone may or may not charge what for what happens after that has nothing to do with the pizza joint.
I am still amazed at this conversation. Do people really have that much time on their hands to think of ways rules could be interpreted to get people into trouble? No one is saying it is unsafe that he has pizzas in his back seat vs flying pizza less, which is what he'd be doing anyway. No one is accusing him of flying in unsafe conditions, taking risks for a medium cheese and pepperoni emergency delivery. It all seems to be about finding a creative and well around the barn reason why people are in violation of rules somehow.
so, the private pilot in question could deliver pizzas/air cargo to Kelly’s island residences just as long as the final address wasn’t on the package. Just the airport address.
What is the restaurants responsibility in engaging in illegal air cargo? Can the owner of the restaurant plead ignorance: “I just handed the boxes of food to some dude at the airport. How they got to Kelly’s island, it’s none of my business.”
What makes it even more pathetic is the vehemence in some replies, as if the "offender" is an imminent threat that needs to be neutralized immediately. These posters apparently believe all options for accomplishing that are in play, including the use of a JDAM GBU-38 on the restaurants or a shootdown of the aircraft with an AIM-9 Sidewinder hung on the wing of an ANG F-16.
I still say that the way the regs and advisories are written it’s illegal to pay for your kids or spouses training because it’s “compensation”.
What makes you think we know that?
In the case of a spouse, wouldn't that depend on whether you lived in a community-property state?
I guess aviation scholarships would be "illegal" too.
If the pilot in question is going to be making the flight anyway and isn't charging anyone anything, sure. Why not?
If I'm flying to visit family for the weekend and one of my in-laws asks me to pick up a case or two of Bell's Two Hearted for them and bring it with me in the plane for them, am I in violation? They're ordering the beer, they're paying for it. I'm just bringing it to them on a flight I'm already going to be making anyway. So am I in violation? Let's make it even better, let's say I don't have time to run and pick it up, so I text my retired neighbor and tell him that I'll give him $10 to go pick up two cases of Two Hearted for me. Now money has been paid for delivery. Am I in violation?
So you want to prosecute the restaurant as well now?
It’s an assumption. It may or may not be based in fact. None of us know
Compensation requires a pro quo for the quid.
Yes. That's what makes it different from a gift.
So this pilot is making a gift of pizza delivery. Hence legal.