Emergency Declarartion Triggers FAA Fishing Expedition

[Clark1961]

I think there is some truth to that. I think you are less likely to treat people disrespectfully that you have met or know in person.

But, how do you explain Ed? He claims to have been to more POA fly-ins than anyone.

Even Ed can't 'splain Ed...

 

[flyingron]

I posted some while ago about a precautionary landing I made in upstate NY due to what proved to be a temporary (and irreproducible) fuel gauge glitch. ATC rolled the trucks for me against my express wishes and reported the event to the Rochester FSDO.

Understand that in order for the the fire crews to be effective in a case, the response time from the time the aircraft is on the ground to flowing foam on it is like 30 seconds. I do not begrudge ATC and the CFR guys attempting to shave the time by jumping the gun. I've had them rolled twice on me (and I staved them off a third time).

In one case, I had smelled smoke in the cockpit, so it was more than justified.
The second time was my ignition developed a miss while IFR and I made a instrument approach to the nearest airport and found the trucks on the taxiway when I broke out. The third time was a pure lost comm event because the alternator crumped (I wasn't the pilot) and a dead hand held kept ATC from hearing us (though we could hear them) until we were right on the field. They announced on short final that they'd be rolling the equipment if they didn't hear from us. I was able to get the last dying gasp of the battery to transmit we didn't need that.


If they end up closing the field even temporarily because of the action it WILL be reported, emergency or not.

 

[nauga]

Do not ever equate a Marine with the run of the mill, pathetically unmotivated, counting the days till retirement government bureaucrat. That's an insult to every member of the military.

Did you mean 'government employee'? The terms are not interchangeable and that's what you said earlier:

I've known many wonderful government employees. Not one has ever cared about the overall mission of the organization they worked for.

You've been told where you can find some who care. You do realize the DOD is part of the executive branch of the federal government, don't you?

Sorry, apples and oranges. Do not ever equate military service with being a bureaucrat.

Again the switch from government employee to bureaucrat. Which do you mean? If the only government employees you have met (see the first quote above) are bureaucrats then maybe that's the heart of your issue. Maybe I've traveled a bit more or had a bit broader experience but I've met some very motivated and dedicated government employees, both civil service and military.

BTW: When I run across a motivated, effective, non-military bureaucrat in government "service", I will be the first to celebrate it. I'm almost 56 years old, and there's always hope that I will run across one of them.

The 'wonderful government employees' you've met are all unmotivated and ineffective? Head on up to Houston and see if you can meet some of the civilian astronaut corps.

Nauga,
following the moving goalposts

 

[flyingron]

It's a conference call with ATC & DEN. DEN decides whether to investigate it or not.

Actually it's more of a party line than a conference call.

 

[azure]

Understand that in order for the the fire crews to be effective in a case, the response time from the time the aircraft is on the ground to flowing foam on it is like 30 seconds. I do not begrudge ATC and the CFR guys attempting to shave the time by jumping the gun. I've had them rolled twice on me (and I staved them off a third time).

Roger that but once again, I told them it was NOT needed. I was fairly confident that the problem was with the gauge itself, or possibly a stuck float (the gauge went from over half scale to zero in less than a minute), but wanted to get on the ground to troubleshoot if possible (and just to make sure). The chances that it was a bona fide fuel leak were EXTREMELY small.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm assuming that ultimately, it's not up to the pilot to decide whether to roll the fire trucks.

 

[azure]

BTW: When I run across a motivated, effective, non-military bureaucrat in government "service", I will be the first to celebrate it. I'm almost 56 years old, and there's always hope that I will run across one of them.

Jay, at 56 you're old enough to have met my Dad if you were in the midwest*. He was EIC of the FCC Detroit office, back when there was a Detroit office (and back when they called their agents "engineers"). Very motivated and effective, if all of his commendations from Washington meant anything. Wish I could introduce you to him, but alas he's not with us anymore.

I'm sure there are bad FCC inspectors just as there are bad FAA inspectors. I've heard nightmare stories about witch hunts by FSDO operatives from my A&P/IA, and the guy who investigated my event certainly started out seeming overzealous, though nothing ever came of it. The broad brush is practically guaranteed to tar a lot of good people too though.

*Although being from Wisconsin, you probably would have dealt with Chicago and Ernie Galens if you had reason to deal with the FCC. Another FCC bureaucrat, whom I never met and can't comment on.

 

[azure]

I'm assuming that ultimately, it's not up to the pilot to decide whether to roll the fire trucks.

That's probably true, and is one of the reasons why I share information with ATC on a need-to-know basis since that little incident.

 

[Velocity173]

I'm assuming that ultimately, it's not up to the pilot to decide whether to roll the fire trucks.

I think Azure's situation is rare. She (I believe?) didn't declare and specifically said she required no assistance but yet emergency vehicles were rolled. There might be a local procedure in place there but its definitely not universal. When I declared with JAX center they asked if I wanted emergency vehicles standing by on arrival. I would say 90 % of facilities operate in that manner. As I said, I've encountered only one area that had to roll the trucks when a pilot had a PL (except a weather or low fuel PL).

 

[Palmpilot]

What's a "PL"? Precautionary landing?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yes, but you could always go somewhere else, if you found the motel owner to be incompetent.

I've tried that with government, and it just doesn't work. From Wisconsin, to Iowa, to Texas, over three decades, it's been the same level of mediocrity, from the same type of unmotivated workers. It's like dealing with the walking dead, and it's really sad.

Funny thing is, you CAN go somewhere else when it comes to FSDO's. If your local FSDO is a pain in the ass, you fly to a nicer neighboring FSDO and get your whatsit installed.

What Nate is asking for - Absolute consistency between FSDO's - Will result in this no longer being the case, AND in the most conservative interpretation being applied across the board. NOT what we really want.

Yes, it sucks that we can't get one answer sometimes. I'm glad we still have the ability to go ask someone else if we don't like the first answer we get. It's imperfect, but it beats being perfectly over-regulated.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I didn't "take him to task" prior to him making irrational excuses of "diversity" of his customers causing his employer's problems. He didn't have to go there.

He tried to explain why things are the way they are. It's not like he's in a position to fix them, and again, I'm sure the last thing he wants to do with his free time is argue about his employer. I'm sure the FAA frustrates him a lot more than it frustrates you, having to deal directly with their policies every day.

I'm understanding in that he's apparently soft-hearted about it, but the reality is, it's broken. I didn't attack him personally other than to say the excuse he gave, simply wasn't true.

Maybe it actually is and you misunderstood what he was trying to say, as he said before giving up?

He didn't have to explain. He didn't have to defend. He CHOSE to.

You didn't have to attack. You chose to. And it is the nature of message boards that when you do, the other person will defend if they feel what you're saying it out of line or untrue.

Either there's one set of consistent, available, Federal regs or there's not.

There is one set of federal regs. There's enough wiggle room in them that inspectors can have some situational flexibility and do what's right for each situation. Absolute consistency will bring the most stringent interpretation of every rule, and that would be quite a few more nails in GA's coffin.

If he didn't want to discuss company policy on an open forum, he shouldn't have.

He tried to give you an explanation. You misunderstood. He tried to clarify. You didn't accept it. He didn't want to bother spending non-work time discussing work, so he left.

So he's not an inspector, the front line rule interpreter and first stage of law enforcement for the entire Agency? And didn't present himself in public as such?

Yep, he's an inspector. He's not the Inspector General, Chief Inspector, Administrator, or anyone else. He doesn't have the power to change a damn thing, and he sure doesn't have to stick around and listen to you demand it.

ROFL. Y'all are adorable. Really. R&W with his one word responses that add no value are particularly cute.

And that's all we're going to get on FAA-related topics now that you ran off the guy who tried to give more in-depth responses.

He hasn't provided that list of inspectors and answers from the various FSDOs yet, I see.

Nor will he, that was a completely unreasonable request.

How about you give us a list of all those answers you were talking about writing earlier in the thread? I don't believe it really happened if you don't.

 

[Velocity173]

What's a "PL"? Precautionary landing?

Correct. It's a term used heavily in the military. Unfortunately it really doesn't mean much to a controller. If there's no MAYDAY / PAN-PAN or declaration, most facilities don't do anything special.

When I was in Afghanistan I heard an Apache tell tower he was returning to base or RTB for a PL. Tower responded with something like "I have no idea what a PL is. Are you declaring an emergency?" The response was "negative." He was probàbly a civilian who never worked ATC in the military. In military ATC (USMC) I heard PL on occasion. It still doesn't mean an emergency, afforded priority handling or trucks being rolled. That's why it's important for a controller to get it out of the pilot. "Blade11 understand PL. Are you declaring an emergency?" The vast majority of the time a PL results in no declaration.

Fast forward a few years to when I was flying in the Army. I flew out of one particular area, a PL declaration (other than wx / fuel) would get the trucks rolling. I also had to fill out an Army Aviation Accident Report on it. It was a ridiculous policy but it was out of our hands.

 

[denverpilot]

Kmox, along with some others, gave you an answer. You didn't like it and kept pushing.

Because it's either his job to address it directly by getting his company organized or voicing the disorganization concern to management with a direct connection to somewhere his customers can see results.

Or, admitting he actually has zero input to fix the process, and he's just making up excuses to feel better about it.

Again, I didn't press for any specific answer. The camera mount *example* was just that, an example to show that his excuse as to why answers don't match across FSDOs wasn't a very good excuse for what we pay for the service.

People think it's enough to be smart. It's not. Groups of smart people will solve the same problem over and over again if allowed. Inspectors like solving problems. Management needs to task folks to capture the results and publish so the problem isn't solved over and over again by otherwise bright people.

This is very true. Overall POA is a good place, but you will find the anti-authority sentiment very thick here.

Changing the clearly stated sentiments from me of "anti-waste", "anti-customer service", "anti-lack of respect of budget", "anti-poor leadership", etc... to "anti-authority" is a nice parlor trick, but is simply a lie. At least for me. I guess I can't speak for others but if that's directed at me, it's flat wrong.

I don't care if "authorities" exist, I care that they do their jobs correctly and efficiently and *consistently* with the country's money. Even a small win in efficiency is a massive change to the bottom line.

Calling those sentiments "anti-authority" is just a low-brow form of character assassination of anyone who questions how our employees do the jobs mandated by voters and paid for by voters.

I personally consider a multi-decade inability of an Agency tasked with both creating and enforcing rules, to give consistent answers across offices in the same enforcement department, let alone cross-department, a failure of leadership and organization.

It's not personal. It's just fact.

Other larger organizations accomplish it with aplomb. I've been on teams that handled it.

Ultimately, it's an attitude problem. Apathy. The overall idea that a) FAA can't do better, and b) it'll never change.

FAA whined and whined and whined that they had to operate under Continuing Resolutions and didn't have a real budget like all the other government cool kids. They got folks like myself to browbeat politicians hard to provide one. Done.

The reciprocation is the expectation that a better job would be done. Except...

Apathy. We can't do better. It's hard. It is the way it is. If you don't like it, talk to our Attorney.

 

[Everskyward]

Because it's either his job to address it directly by getting his company organized or voicing the disorganization concern to management with a direct connection to somewhere his customers can see results.

It is not his job to discuss it here on this board any more than it would be if we had a dissatisfied customer who complained to me here, since you brought up that subject earlier. People come here for entertainment and maybe to learn something. Ok, some come here to argue and troll but that's another question. This is not an FAA town meeting. No one is required to be here or respond to questions even if they have the authority to do so, which is not clear.

 

[JimNtexas]

Yesterday our club's C177RG declared an emergency at the Austin airport (KAUS) because they could not get a gear down indication. The gear appeared down in the mirrors.

The checklist was followed with no luck.

The tower requested and received a flyby, and the trucks rolled. The pilots landed safely and the gear did not collapse.

Sadly, there was a broken in the main gear, which looks to cost us on the order of $2k to replace .

I'm sure the FSDO will call. I'm betting on them saying 'good job' and closing the case. Time will tell.

 

[denverpilot]

He tried to explain why things are the way they are. It's not like he's in a position to fix them, and again, I'm sure the last thing he wants to do with his free time is argue about his employer. I'm sure the FAA frustrates him a lot more than it frustrates you, having to deal directly with their policies every day.

Umm.

So you're arguing that he liked his job enough to discuss the problems in public but I should be cautious discussing what he brought up because secretly he dislikes it???

LOL. That's logic for ya.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. If he didn't want to discuss it, he probably should not have posted it to a *discussion* board.

Maybe it actually is and you misunderstood what he was trying to say, as he said before giving up?

There ya go. He gave up. He gave up after one vague hand wave of "diversity" and another of "it's complicated". He could've just said, "I don't set policy" and pointed to who does.

Again, sounds like a personal problem to me. If you can't do better than "diversity!" Oh no wait, "it's complicated!", I guess giving up is the correct option. His call.

You didn't have to attack. You chose to. And it is the nature of message boards that when you do, the other person will defend if they feel what you're saying it out of line or untrue.

Feel free to show where anything I said was untrue. I replied to his assertion posted first. On a *discussion* board. If stating the truth is "an attack"... Well, think real hard about that one.

Show me where I lied.

There is one set of federal regs. There's enough wiggle room in them that inspectors can have some situational flexibility and do what's right for each situation. Absolute consistency will bring the most stringent interpretation of every rule, and that would be quite a few more nails in GA's coffin.

Only if you believe the people writing the rules are anti-GA. Do you?

You're in the "Let's have different rules for everyone" camp too, instead of fixing it, eh? I'm surprised.

I like this brave new world. Let's let Police choose when to enforce murder laws, while we're at it.

He tried to give you an explanation. You misunderstood. He tried to clarify. You didn't accept it. He didn't want to bother spending non-work time discussing work, so he left.

Please show where he gave a reasoned answer better than the equivalent of "I don't know".

*HE* started discussing work on a *discussion* board on non-work time. I simply *responded*. Bad personal choice on his part, I guess.

Yep, he's an inspector. He's not the Inspector General, Chief Inspector, Administrator, or anyone else. He doesn't have the power to change a damn thing, and he sure doesn't have to stick around and listen to you demand it.

Fine by me. He shows up, says he has answers, gets offended the stock answers aren't received well, and leaves. His choices, all.

And that's all we're going to get on FAA-related topics now that you ran off the guy who tried to give more in-depth responses.

Hey check that out. You hit the root problem. The same one I brought up.

Lack of answers from his organization.

He provided none. Which "in-depth response" did you read? I didn't see one.

Nor will he, that was a completely unreasonable request.

Asking R&W to prove his demonstrably false assertion that there is no problem with inconsistency across FSDOs was not unreasonable.

He won't put his money where his mouth is on that one, of that, I'm 100% positive.

How about you give us a list of all those answers you were talking about writing earlier in the thread? I don't believe it really happened if you don't.

I never offered to write anything. What are you talking about?

Bottom line: a guy who didn't have to talk about his work as a law enforcement agent, did on a public discussion board, someone asked him a softball legal question, he ran away offended that someone expected consistency in answers.

Message board erupts in "Er mah gerrrrrd! You ran off the only guy who we might ever get answers from. The sky is falling!"

Seems like y'all have proven the original point. FAA fixes their consistency problem, the whole discussion never takes place. Funny how that works. Dude never claims to have them in a public forum, whole discussion also never takes place, either.

The only thing unreasonable so far, is expecting customers not to ask if you post and invite the question by trying to explain it away, poorly.

 

[denverpilot]

It is not his job to discuss it here on this board any more than it would be if we had a dissatisfied customer who complained to me here, since you brought up that subject earlier. People come here for entertainment and maybe to learn something. Ok, some come here to argue and troll but that's another question. This is not an FAA town meeting. No one is required to be here or respond to questions even if they have the authority to do so, which is not clear.

Then he shouldn't have brought it up. I'm fine with that.

 

[Everskyward]

Then he shouldn't have brought it up. I'm fine with that.

I guess that means that people shouldn't answer any questions, even innocent questions, about their job because that might open the door to anything.

As I remember it he chimed in to clarify something about the original topic which was how declared or undeclared emergencies are handled. I see that as being helpful. Then you or someone else asked the question about some inconsistencies in policy between FSDOs and inspectors. He answered that question too. In fact others chimed in with various reasons about why it would be so and why they would or would not want it to be different. You didn't like the answer. OK but that is one opinion among other opinions.

Then there are the people who rant about never having met a government employee who isn't mediocre and unmotivated. That's like saying all small airplane pilots are dangerous. We don't like to be stereotyped in that way and neither do government workers. Of course there are unmotivated government employees and dangerous pilots but not across the board. Unfortunately its the bad ones who give the others that reputation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So you're arguing that he liked his job enough to discuss the problems in public but I should be cautious discussing what he brought up because secretly he dislikes it???

LOL. That's logic for ya.

Nate,

I just went back and read every post kmox made on this thread. He never attacked you, but you've really gone after him. He even said "I'm not trying to justify anything, just providing some reasons why this happens." AKA, insight.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. If he didn't want to discuss it, he probably should not have posted it to a *discussion* board.

He wasn't the OP - He was just trying to answer questions brought up in the thread.

There ya go. He gave up. He gave up after one vague hand wave of "diversity" and another of "it's complicated". He could've just said, "I don't set policy" and pointed to who does.

And why is it his duty to you to justify everything the FAA does? He's not the administrator. He came here for fun. I bet he doesn't even know who sets those policies, and if it irks you so much, you should be talking to your congressman, not a pawn who's here voluntarily.

Again, sounds like a personal problem to me. If you can't do better than "diversity!" Oh no wait, "it's complicated!", I guess giving up is the correct option. His call.

And letting it stand there vs. making an issue of it and attacking him was your call. And that was a bad call for our community.

Feel free to show where anything I said was untrue. I replied to his assertion posted first. On a *discussion* board. If stating the truth is "an attack"... Well, think real hard about that one.

Show me where I lied.

I never said you did.

Only if you believe the people writing the rules are anti-GA. Do you?

Yes! Maybe not directly, but the FAA answers to the president and congress and they answer to us, and by us I do not mean pilots, I mean everyone - Including all of the people who HATE GA. And there's more haters than pilots.

Plus, in this day and age of liability ruling all, the most conservative possible interpretation of every rule would be the only way they would standardize.

Finally... If you really want black and white, we can do things the way the rest of the world does. The way the FAA works, everything is allowed until they say it isn't. The way the rest of the world works, NOTHING is allowed until they say it is. Can you imagine trying to get a FAR rewrite when you want to try something new?

You're in the "Let's have different rules for everyone" camp too, instead of fixing it, eh? I'm surprised.

The rules that are written should be enforced as uniformly as possible for situations that are identical. But there are few situations that are identical.

I like this brave new world. Let's let Police choose when to enforce murder laws, while we're at it.

This isn't murder. That's clearly always wrong. But when it comes to "is it OK to mount a camera on an airplane" there isn't nearly as clear of an answer. I'd much rather have the answer be given to me by an inspector with the leeway to say "It's OK as long as you only attach it via these means and don't fly over tons of people with it attached" vs. "Sorry, it sounds safe to me, but our new uniform no-camera policy won't allow it at all."

Please show where he gave a reasoned answer better than the equivalent of "I don't know".

My greatest fear is that someone won't declare an emergency because of what the FAA might do to them. While I can't speak for every single Inspector out there, I know how our office works and we DO NOT go on fishing trips.

I believe R&W answered this question a few posts after yours. You don't have to trust my word, if you don't care to. In fact, information learned from message boards and forums should ALWAYS be checked for accuracy in your local area.

Believe it or not, the FAA does actually try to have a standard operation. However, because we oversee diverse areas of the our country, this is not always possible.

*HE* started discussing work on a *discussion* board on non-work time. I simply *responded*. Bad personal choice on his part, I guess.

No, he tried to answer the OP's question and you jumped all over him.

Hey check that out. You hit the root problem. The same one I brought up.

Lack of answers from his organization.

He provided none. Which "in-depth response" did you read? I didn't see one.

Ummm...

Every situation is a little bit different. The ASI shouldn't "overlook" it and here's why: It could cost the ASI their job if it ever was reported back that they saw a violation such as AD non-compliance (a fairly significant safety issue) and did nothing about it.

Now, there are many tools that an ASI has, other than opening up an Enforcement Investigative Report. But it's going to depend on the ASI's office policy, the attitude of the airman, the nature of the AD non-compliance, etc. In fact, because there are so many variables, I generally refrain from commenting on hypothetical scenarios. It wouldn't be fair for me to tell you one thing, have the hypothetical event happen, and for you to experience another thing.

That's a heckuva lot more in-depth than I've seen on the subject before. It's not much, but again, the guy came here for FUN, not to get heckled.

Asking R&W to prove his demonstrably false assertion that there is no problem with inconsistency across FSDOs was not unreasonable.

He won't put his money where his mouth is on that one, of that, I'm 100% positive.

I wouldn't ask you to call all the offices of your company and ask them for answers and names either. I don't think that anyone would expect a reasonable person to do so based on the demands of someone they never met on an internet forum.

Bottom line: a guy who didn't have to talk about his work as a law enforcement agent, did on a public discussion board, someone asked him a softball legal question, he ran away offended that someone expected consistency in answers.

No, he decided it wasn't worth wasting his free time on someone who posted a snarky response to his attempts to give answers.

Message board erupts in "Er mah gerrrrrd! You ran off the only guy who we might ever get answers from. The sky is falling!"

The sky's not falling, but the quality of this message board sure is. We used to be the front porch of aviation. I'd send people here all the time. I wouldn't any more.

Seems like y'all have proven the original point. FAA fixes their consistency problem, the whole discussion never takes place. Funny how that works. Dude never claims to have them in a public forum, whole discussion also never takes place, either.

Again, the fix in this case would be far worse than the problem.

 

[Velocity173]

Yep. + 1 to everything Mooniac said.

All this is, is a couple of posters posting broad stroke, stereotype comments about organizations that they have no clue in how they operate. Even the comments on the military. I spent 20 yrs in the military and I assure you, there is plenty of red tape involved...even in the Marines.

As far as mounting a camera externally, common sense would dictate that until the FAA gets around to publishing policy, that it's going to be left up to each FSDO to decide. I have no problem with that. Each one would interpret an "external load" in different ways. If some pilot walks up to the FSDO and wants field approval on a GoPro strapped to a strut, I'm sure the FSDO would either have no problem doing a field approval or even letting his A&P just sign it off in the records. Now if some dude rolls up with some kind of IMAX monstrosity strapped to the top of the wing, we're looking at an STC. In the absence if clear guidance from higher, it's left to each individual FSDO to use best judgment in the interest of safety. I think that's what Knox was implying by the use of the word "diverse."

 

[Jaybird180]

The fix for the FAA:

Ya'll ready.....?





Mandatory Job Rotation.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yep. + 1 to everything Mooniac said.

All this is, is a couple of posters posting broad stroke, stereotype comments about organizations that they have no clue in how they operate. Even the comments on the military. I spent 20 yrs in the military and I assure you, there is plenty of red tape involved...even in the Marines.

As far as mounting a camera externally, common sense would dictate that until the FAA gets around to publishing policy, that it's going to be left up to each FSDO to decide. I have no problem with that. Each one would interpret an "external load" in different ways. If some pilot walks up to the FSDO and wants field approval on a GoPro strapped to a strut, I'm sure the FSDO would either have no problem doing a field approval or even letting his A&P just sign it off in the records. Now if some dude rolls up with some kind of IMAX monstrosity strapped to the top of the wing, we're looking at an STC. In the absence if clear guidance from higher, it's left to each individual FSDO to use best judgment in the interest of safety. I think that's what Knox was implying by the use of the word "diverse."

Good post!

 

[azure]

Fast forward a few years to when I was flying in the Army. I flew out of one particular area, a PL declaration (other than wx / fuel) would get the trucks rolling. I also had to fill out an Army Aviation Accident Report on it. It was a ridiculous policy but it was out of our hands.

FWIW, "precautionary landing" is exactly what I declared to ATC. Maybe that is the policy there, though I suspect it had more to do with mentioning the fuel gauge and ATC thinking worst case scenario, however unlikely.

 

[N801BH]

Yep. + 1 to everything Mooniac said.

All this is, is a couple of posters posting broad stroke, stereotype comments about organizations that they have no clue in how they operate. Even the comments on the military. I spent 20 yrs in the military and I assure you, there is plenty of red tape involved...even in the Marines.

As far as mounting a camera externally, common sense would dictate that until the FAA gets around to publishing policy, that it's going to be left up to each FSDO to decide. I have no problem with that. Each one would interpret an "external load" in different ways. If some pilot walks up to the FSDO and wants field approval on a GoPro strapped to a strut, I'm sure the FSDO would either have no problem doing a field approval or even letting his A&P just sign it off in the records. Now if some dude rolls up with some kind of IMAX monstrosity strapped to the top of the wing, we're looking at an STC. In the absence if clear guidance from higher, it's left to each individual FSDO to use best judgment in the interest of safety. I think that's what Knox was implying by the use of the word "diverse."

Hmmmmmm..

So a legal pilot in a certified plane straps a Go Pro on his Cessna 172 in Podunk Alaska and the local FSDO says... it looks good to go...

And he flys that same plane down to Seattle and the local FSDO inspector sees it and doesn't know what to do, but lets them take off......

So, the 172 then takes off and lands in California and the local FSDO inspector sees it and instantly red tags the plane...

Now, the question is...

Who is the ****ole

Who is legal..

Who gets his/her plane impounded.....

And the 50,000 dollar question is......... Which FSDO is correct and which one is full of crap................

 

[Everskyward]

FWIW, "precautionary landing" is exactly what I declared to ATC. Maybe that is the policy there, though I suspect it had more to do with mentioning the fuel gauge and ATC thinking worst case scenario, however unlikely.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but keep in mind that ATC controllers are not necessarily pilots, and even if they are they might not have knowledge of the systems in your airplane. So when you say X is wrong they might have a completely different interpretation of the seriousness of the situation.

 

[Palmpilot]

Hmmmmmm..

So a legal pilot in a certified plane straps a Go Pro on his Cessna 172 in Podunk Alaska and the local FSDO says... it looks good to go...

And he flys that same plane down to Seattle and the local FSDO inspector sees it and doesn't know what to do, but lets them take off......

So, the 172 then takes off and lands in California and the local FSDO inspector sees it and instantly red tags the plane...

Now, the question is...

Who is the ****ole

Who is legal..

Who gets his/her plane impounded.....

And the 50,000 dollar question is......... Which FSDO is correct and which one is full of crap................

Perhaps get it in writing?

 

[MarkZ]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but keep in mind that ATC controllers are not necessarily pilots, and even if they are they might not have knowledge of the systems in your airplane. So when you say X is wrong they might have a completely different interpretation of the seriousness of the situation.

To add on to this, there are things I can do, like move other traffic out of the way, by declaring for a pilot. We can always resume normal ops once things calm down.

 

[azure]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but keep in mind that ATC controllers are not necessarily pilots, and even if they are they might not have knowledge of the systems in your airplane. So when you say X is wrong they might have a completely different interpretation of the seriousness of the situation.

Understood, but in this case, they asked me if I required assistance and I specifically said NO.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Well, I see this thread has devolved into the typical (for 2014) dichotomy between the half who love (and likely are supported by) government, and the rest of us who must carry the water.

To which I say "See y'all later". There's nothing constructive that can fix any of this.

 

[azure]

Well, I see this thread has devolved into the typical (for 2014) dichotomy between the half who love (and likely are supported by) government, and the rest of us who must carry the water.

Well, don't put me in that category. I don't care for the over-regulation we live with as pilots and I'm pretty suspicious of any strangers from the govt saying "we're here to help you". Doesn't mean I think they're all the enemy though.

And frankly, I don't think there are many pilots who DO "love the govt".

 

[Velocity173]

Hmmmmmm..

So a legal pilot in a certified plane straps a Go Pro on his Cessna 172 in Podunk Alaska and the local FSDO says... it looks good to go...

And he flys that same plane down to Seattle and the local FSDO inspector sees it and doesn't know what to do, but lets them take off......

So, the 172 then takes off and lands in California and the local FSDO inspector sees it and instantly red tags the plane...

Now, the question is...

Who is the ****ole



Who is legal..

Who gets his/her plane impounded.....

And the 50,000 dollar question is......... Which FSDO is correct and which one is full of crap................

So this actually happened?

 

[N801BH]

So this actually happened?

....................


Is mounting an external camera on a certified aircraft legal without any paperwork ??......

It is really a very SIMPLE question....

 

[Velocity173]

....................


Is mounting an external camera on a certified aircraft legal without any paperwork ??......

It is really a very SIMPLE question....

I thought I already covered it. THERE IS NO GUIDANCE ON THIS. Alaska does have a hands off policy on the issue or at least they used to. What works for one region doesn't work for all regions.

So, based on the fact there isn't guidance or anything regulatory that leaves it up to individual FSDOs to determine if it just requires a log entry, a field approval or a whole separate STC. It's all subjective based on the type camera, type aircraft, where it's mounted, type of mount, etc. Leave it up to the judgment of individual FSDOs to determine that stuff until something regulatory comes out. If I'm a pilot and I want to mount something to the outside of the aircraft, what's so hard about calling the local FSDO and getting approval?

The only gripe we could have is how long it takes the FAA to implement that policy. As I brought up earlier, our HEMS Part 135 regulatory changes have taken years. Personally I was thinking why the heck does it take this long to implement increased safety regulations for HEMS? That's because the FAA is dealing with far more challenges than I ever realized. I've read their report and they actually had HEMS operators weighing in on the FAA recommendations. You know what? Hardly any of them could agree on anything! That's because you have operators with differing opinions on what's safe and operators with differing budgets on how to implement these changes. Because of all this resistance from HEMS operators, the FAA decided to delay the new regulations for another year. We all know that right now they're trying to please all parties by trying to pass some sort of UAV regs as well. They're being pulled left and right by people who hate drones (privacy issues) and those operators who are looking to make money on this new wave of aviation ingenuity.

So what an I getting at? These things take time. It's a large organization that's trying to evaluate all possible avenues prior to issuing any regulatory measures. We don't need some knee jerk reaction and some regulation banning any external camera mounts. In the interim, they feel its best to let FSDOs decide what best.

 

[N801BH]

I thought I already covered it. THERE IS NO GUIDANCE ON THIS. Alaska does have a hands off policy on the issue or at least they used to. That's got a particular region. What works for one region doesn't work got others.

So, based on the fact there isn't guidance or anything regulatory that leaves it up to individual FSDOs to determine if it just requires a log entry, a field approval or a whole separate STC. It's all subjective based on the type camera, type aircraft, where it's mounted, type of mount, etc. Leave it up to the judgment of individual FSDOs to determine that stuff until something regulatory comes out. If I'm a pilot and I want to mount something to the outside of the aircraft, what's so hard about calling the local FSDO and getting approval?

The only gripe we could have is how long it takes the FAA to implement that policy. As I brought up earlier, our HEMS Part 135 regulatory changes have taken years. Personally I was thinking why the heck does it take this long to implement increased safety regulations for HEMS? That's because the FAA is dealing with far more challenges than I ever realized. I've read their report and they actually had HEMS operators weighing in on the FAA recommendations. You know what? Hardly any of them could agree on anything! That's because you have operators with differing opinions on what's safe and operators with differing budgets on how to implement these changes. Because of all this resistance from HEMS operators, the FAA decided to delay the new regulations for another year. We all know that right now they're trying to please all parties by trying to pass some sort of UAV regs as well. They're being pulled left and right by people who hate drones (privacy issues) and those operators who are looking to make money on this new wave of aviation ingenuity.

So what an I getting at? These things take time. It's a large organization that's trying to that's trying to evaluate all possible avenues prior to issuing any regulatory measures. We don't need some knee jerk reaction and some regulation banning any external camera mounts. In the interim, they feel its best to let FSDOs decide what best.

Oh boy.......

 

[Velocity173]

Oh boy.......

??? My grammar? I was typing on my phone and trying to watch tv. Sorry.

 

[Jaybird180]

....................


Is mounting an external camera on a certified aircraft legal without any paperwork ??......

It is really a very SIMPLE question....

Short answer: NO PAPERWORK REQUIRED
Here's the test:
1. Its not permanently mounted
2. It does not require complex assembly
3. It does not meet the definition of a major or minor alteration to the airframe

This is akin to "installing" a seat cushion under a short pilots derriere so they can see over the panel.
There, you have it.
I have spoken. Speak of this controversy no more.

 

[Captain]

Well, I see this thread has devolved into the typical (for 2014) dichotomy between the half who love (and likely are supported by) government, and the rest of us who must carry the water.

To which I say "See y'all later". There's nothing constructive that can fix any of this.

So anyone who doesn't hate the government (not the Marines) as much as you are likely supported by the government and definitely don't carry water.

Bet you don't like skateboarders either. Better go check if there's any kids on your lawn. Go get 'em gramps!

 

[bluerooster]

Probably been said but I'll repeat it. When the pilot eludes to an emergency but does not declare, and ATC does it for him/her, FAA will raise an eyebrow. (what's this person tryin' ta hide?) Shoot, I would.
That said, I would think that declaring an emergency would have less impact, (non-event) than not declaring, but eluding to, and ATC declaring for you (full blown investigation).

 

[Velocity173]

So anyone who doesn't hate the government (not the Marines) as much as you are likely supported by the government and definitely don't carry water.

Bet you don't like skateboarders either. Better go check if there's any kids on your lawn. Go get 'em gramps!

You're allowed to hate the Navy though...just not the Marines.