legal question

Because it is the law? Really? If we all acted that way no one would have a license anymore.

Really?

At least to my knowledge, I've never violated a FAR. Well, I've needed 91.3(b) once, but that's not a violation if the exception applies.

Not all violations involve suspending or revoking certificates.

People disregarding licensing is kinda serious, and someone like that should not be flying.
 
Because it is the law? Really? If we all acted that way no one would have a license anymore. Everytime one of these threads pops up I get the urge to rat out my fellow pilots for every witnessed indiscretion because they might be rats themselves. I think I will throw a pilot under the FSDO bus this weekend if I get the chance.

I'm in the "it depends" camp

I'm willing to rat out the VFR guy who comes in IFR with passengers, but probably wouldn't call the Feds if you showed up with your wife in the plane 93 days after your last three landings.

A student pilot carrying passengers is a big deal, and this pilot needs to stop or face the music.
 
Oh yes you have, we all have. 'Because it is the law' is the new standard and next pilot I see make even a minor 'lawbreak' is getting tattled on. If you see a pilot with a gopro and notepad this weekend that is me playing skycop and keeping the skies and public safe. Because it is the law.
Really?

At least to my knowledge, I've never violated a FAR. Well, I've needed 91.3(b) once, but that's not a violation if the exception applies.

Not all violations involve suspending or revoking certificates.

People disregarding licensing is kinda serious, and someone like that should not be flying.
 
images
 
Oh yes you have, we all have. 'Because it is the law' is the new standard and next pilot I see make even a minor 'lawbreak' is getting tattled on. If you see a pilot with a gopro and notepad this weekend that is me playing skycop and keeping the skies and public safe. Because it is the law.

I won't argue there is a spectrum - few thoughtful people will. Being 800 feet above in class E and fixing it is a lot different than driving to the airport intent on conducting a flight that is completely illegal.

The question is, why do you see a student carrying passengers as a minor infraction?
 
Since when is "because it's the law" a "new standard?"

It has ALWAYS been that way. That's what "rule of law" means.

I'm curious what FAR you think I've violated with no knowledge of how, where, when or what I fly.
 
It boils down to " do you believe you have a obligation to protect the passenger from the illegal pilot"?

If the passenger knows the problem and goes anyway. I think it's time to mind our own business.
 
It boils down to " do you believe you have a obligation to protect the passenger from the illegal pilot"?

If the passenger knows the problem and goes anyway. I think it's time to mind our own business.
If the pilot loses control on takeoff and plows into your parked airplane, the refusal of the pilot's iinsurer to cover all your losses (and there are always losses your own insurance doesn't cover, starting with the deductible) makes it your business, too. And you can bet the Student Pilot/owner's insurer will refuse to cover if there's a passenger in the plane or his last 90-day endorsement was six years ago. There's also the negative reaction of nonflying airport neighbors when "Illegal Pilot Crashes" splashes in the headlines (worse if a passenger or someone on the ground his injured or killed), as well as the burden on us all when the FAA writes another rule in response even when the issue involves a pilot who refuses to follow the rules.
 
Last edited:
If kids crossed there regularly, you bet I would. The issue is safety. And in this case, if a Student Pilot really is taking passengers, then under our legal standards, the passengers require protection from the uncertainty of that pilot's skill/proficiency. Or were you one of those who closed his window and went back to watching TV when Kitty Genovese was calling for help?

I ask a series of rhetorical questions and you respond as if I were personally endorsing his actions. I am not. I am simply raising questions for the general audience.
Who is Kitty Genovese? I am an Iowa farmer.
 
Since when is "because it's the law" a "new standard?"

It has ALWAYS been that way. That's what "rule of law" means.

I'm curious what FAR you think I've violated with no knowledge of how, where, when or what I fly.
If you think you have flown without ever accidentally violating a FAR, your judgement is in question.
If this guy is flying his own airplane somewhere close to PP standards(and we have no info he isn't) then there is no harm being done. That plastic card does not change your ability to pilot an airplane. It has not always been that way victim less crimes didn't exist until a couple of decades ago.
 
If the pilot loses control on takeoff and plows into your parked airplane, the refusal of the pilot's iinsurer to cover all your losses (and there are always losses your own insurance doesn't cover, starting with the deductible) makes it your business, too. And you can bet the Student Pilot/owner's insurer will refuse to cover if there's a passenger in the plane or his last 90-day endorsement was six years ago. There's also the negative reaction of nonflying airport neighbors when "Illegal Pilot Crashes" splashes in the headlines (worse if a passenger or someone on the ground his injured or killed), as well as the burden on us all when the FAA writes another rule in response even when the issue involves a pilot who refuses to follow the rules.
I'll take the risk, his chances of hitting my aircraft are pretty slim. or your for that matter. My insurance company would be on his estate quicker than a duck on a june bug.
 
If you think you have flown without ever accidentally violating a FAR, your judgement is in question.
If this guy is flying his own airplane somewhere close to PP standards(and we have no info he isn't) then there is no harm being done. That plastic card does not change your ability to pilot an airplane. It has not always been that way victim less crimes didn't exist until a couple of decades ago.
If we as pilots have no responsibility to our passengers, why do we have commercial pilot requirements?

the FAA thinks we do, so the rule.
 
91.103

It's not possible to comply with that regulation as written.

If you say so. It's possible to comply with several reasonable definitions of "available." It's also not hard to make up something unreasonable with anything expressed in written language, especially if that's your aim.

And yes, I do review available runway lengths and takeoff/landing performance data given conditions for every flight.
 
> It boils down to "do you believe you have a obligation to protect the
> passenger from the illegal pilot"?

Yes, I do. I consider non-certificated pax to be (trusting) innocents.

>> flying his own airplane somewhere close to PP standards
>> (and we have no info he isn't)

This is where we disagree.

Student Pilots hauling pax is something I am unwilling to tolerate. I do
not consider it "close to PP stds". I've intervened before in this exact
circumstance. I will intervene the next time I witness Student Pilots
hauling pax.

Case #1: The student pilot was a HS classmate. I knew he was only a
student pilot. His prospective pax were also HS classmates. I showed'm
my certificate, and suggested they ask to see his. If he shows you
a "medical/SP cert" and claims it is a temporary, he's lying. They asked,
he threw a tantrum. Nobody boarded. I did tell his CFI.

Case #2: A confirmed student pilot, years since his last CFI SEL solo
sign-off, had *just* purchased a Duke and was loading golf clubs the night
before, for an o'dark thirty departure for a golf resort with "buddies"
unknown to me. The forecast was for ground fog and marginal VFR. Yes, I
called the FSDO. Perhaps one of his buddies was a MEI/CFII. Perhaps,
not. I left the matter to the FSDO to sort out.

Case #3: Currently an Army Guard Blackhawk IP w/FAA ATP Rotorcraft &
CFII Rotorcraft. He's never progressed beyond student pilot for SEL. Owns
and flies a high perf single IFR. I've never seen or heard of him hauling
innocents. I've said nothing. I am comfortable with my decision.
 
Last edited:
If you say so. It's possible to comply with several reasonable definitions of "available." It's also not hard to make up something unreasonable with anything expressed in written language, especially if that's your aim.

And yes, I do review available runway lengths and takeoff/landing performance data given conditions for every flight.

The regulation says "all". What definition of "all" means less than all?

"Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. "

All available. Not most. Not some. Not a "reasonable" amount. Not just the list of things that follow in the regulations. All.

It can't be done.
 
Last edited:
Case #2: A confirmed student pilot, years since his last CFI SEL solo
sign-off, had *just* purchased a Duke and was loading golf clubs the night
before, for an o'dark thirty departure for a golf resort with "buddies"
unknown to me. The forecast was for ground fog and marginal VFR. Yes, I
called the FSDO. Perhaps one of his buddies was a MEI/CFII. Perhaps,
not. I left the matter to the FSDO to sort out.
That's about what it would take for me to call the FSDO, signs that someone was about to violate the regs in some blatantly reckless way and endanger innocents to boot, with no other way to handle the situation.

In this case, I'd tell his CFI (if he still has one) and his pax (assuming they care). I would also tell the airport manager (assuming he's not operating out of his own private strip).

Then I would MMOB, unless there were further developments.
 
all available most definitely means less than all. Quoting the regulation correctly will get some mileage here.

All available is all available. It is not some available. It is not reasonably availble. It is all available.

There, is that better?

Lets use an example.

Current (as in today) status of the fuel pumps at an airport you plan to refuel at. (Pumps running? Card reader reading? Enough in the tank to last until you get there? Have the last several samples been clean or have they had problems with contamination?)

Is that information? Yes.

Is it available information? Yes. It's just a phone call away.

Is it information that is relevent to your flight? Yes.

Does it fall under "all available" information? Yes.

Did you get this available information from every airport you ever intended to buy gas at before you took off? What about potential alternates if the wind / weather changed along the way?

As writen, it can't be done.
 
If it is not your plane, your student or your son, stay out od it.
 

Levitt and Dubner have a very interesting piece on the Genovese case in chapter 3 of their book SuperFreakonomics. Basically they pull together evidence that the actual number of individuals who saw any of the crime was closer to 6 than 38 and most of those witnesses had no idea of the severity of the crime. For the many schooled in the orthodoxy of the NYT original it offers a well-researched counter-narrative.
 
Case #3: Currently an Army Guard Blackhawk IP w/FAA ATP Rotorcraft &
CFII Rotorcraft. He's never progressed beyond student pilot for SEL. Owns
and flies a high perf single IFR. I've never seen or heard of him hauling
innocents. I've said nothing. I am comfortable with my decision.
First up, I think the action you took (especially in situation #1) is commendable. What always amazes me in situations like #3 (and the OP situation, for that matter) is "why the hell don't you just go get the ticket?". If you can afford to operate your own HP single, you can afford the instruction. And you'll likely complete everything in minimums anyway.

One worrying aspect of these situations is that willful refusal to comply with a major and relatively easily-complied-with regulation suggests a serious 'anti-authority' hazardous attitude.
 
The OP asked about legality and that has been clearly answered.
Next, the OP seemed to ask for advice on what to do with the knowledge. The OP has an ethical or moral dilemma. If you google on the subject of resolving an ethical dilemma, you will see many treatises on it, with many discussions raising the very points that have been raised here.
Does anyone know if there is a LEGAL requirement to notify authorities if we believe an FAR has been violated? Part of the discussion here has been whether there is an ethical or moral responsibility to somehow get the subject of the OP message to change his behavior. I'm not asking about that.
I'm asking if the OP is breaking the law if he has reason to believe the student pilot is violating the FAR and does not notify some authority?
 
I dare say that a day does not pass that I do not break several laws before lunchtime. Flying is just one activity in which this occurs, but it happens all the time. 5mph over the speed limit is more or less standard. The california stop is practically necessary or someone behind you who expects it will smack into you. And these are just the most obvious.

With that said, I do think that the scenario described by the OP is one where the law should be enforced, because even competent pilots have accidents, and if he hurts someone doing it and his estate is small to nonexistent (and at least here we know pilots are not rich) then that other someone will be truly an innocent victim.
 
Since when is "because it's the law" a "new standard?"

It has ALWAYS been that way. That's what "rule of law" means.

I'm curious what FAR you think I've violated with no knowledge of how, where, when or what I fly.
Have you ever departed with a burned out lamp of some sort and hadn't performed the required maintenance items (e.g. marking it INOP, making a maint log entry, etc)? How about flying an airplane with fuel gauges that only "sort of" work? Flown after sunset but before dark without turning on the nav lights? Flying after performing a Part 43 Appendix A preventive maintenance tasks without making a log entry (e.g. replaced a position light, topped off brake fluid, lubricated a hinge)? Flying after changing a dome light bulb (yes it's legal for a pilot to change position and landing lights but not the dome light or any other lamps in the airplane)? Updated the DB in a panel mount GPS without making a maintenance log entry?

Or the fairly common cloud clearance issues: Flown closer than 500' below, 2000' beside, or 1000' above a cloud in class E airspace?

Virtually every pilot I know has violated those regs at least once and I know a lot of pilots. If you truly haven't, I applaud your lawfulness but IMO you are an extremely rare breed of pilot.
 
Last edited:
Or the fairly common cloud clearance issues: Flown closer than 500' below, 2000' beside, or 1000' above a cloud in class E airspace?

And of course, unless a pilot exclusively flies IFR when the weather is not CAVU, how would he even know whether he had violated that reg or not, since most airplanes don't have any way to measure cloud clearance?

I do think it's worth noting, however, that unlicensed flying is more serious than the above.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know if there is a LEGAL requirement to notify authorities if we believe an FAR has been violated?
There is no such requirement. Should the OP choose to do nothing, that matter is between him/herself and his/her conscience, not the FAA.
 
It would only void coverage if the owner knew what was happening (and the insurance company could prove it). Otherwise, it isn't any different for the insurance company than if the plane was stolen by a non-pilot.
Actually, generally, the standard is if the owner knew, or ought to have known...and the burden is often shifted to the owner if the company can show that someone exercising reasonable diligence would have known. "Willful blindness" is rarely a defense strategy.
 
Case #2: A confirmed student pilot, years since his last CFI SEL solo
sign-off, had *just* purchased a Duke and was loading golf clubs the night
before, for an o'dark thirty departure for a golf resort with "buddies"
unknown to me. The forecast was for ground fog and marginal VFR. Yes, I
called the FSDO. Perhaps one of his buddies was a MEI/CFII. Perhaps,
not. I left the matter to the FSDO to sort out.
I'm sure he looked cool in the duke.
 
If the unlicensed student solo pilot of this overly-long and becoming longer thread could fly to PTS standards, he could go take a check ride and there'd be nothing to talk about. My guess is that he isn't flying anywhere near PTS standards, and the work required to get him there is sufficiently onerous that he doesn't want to do it. As such, the guy is a hazard to himself, his pax, and anyone anywhere near his flight path.

With luck I don't know him and won't interact with his shenanigans. But I have to draw from the same pool of insurers and live with the same regulatory agency. We don't need clowns like this. I don't give a rat's six how nice he is and how many babies he'd rescued from burning buildings. I'd drop dime fast before anyone gets hurt. I don't and someone does get hurt, their blood is on my soul.
 
I’m observing something on a frequent basis that I wonder if it is legal.

A student pilot with another student pilot as passenger. When questioned he states that both are solo students and each could take the plane up alone.
The same student with a pilot rated passenger who has no medical and therefore cannot be PIC. ( The plane in non sport pilot qualified)

He’s a nice guy and does a lot of good work around the airpark but I think he’s sticking his neck out unless what he’s doing is legal.

I logged out because if someone does burn him I don't want to get blamed. I consider him a friend who has helped me many times.

No go, same situation turned into a fatality in Lantana not too long ago. Two students flying together, one jumped out early so they wouldn't get caught, walked into the prop.:nonod:
 
I would bet I've blown a FAR or two just like a traffic law or two. The point is so what. If you get stopped for speeding, pay the fine or appeal the ticket.
In this case, some guy not yet rated is flying about endangering everyone. Like the guy who passed my house at 70 last night if I knew who he was, I'd call on him.
Just think, the life you save could be yours.
And I hope we all fly better than PTS.
 
If the pilot loses control on takeoff and plows into your parked airplane, the refusal of the pilot's iinsurer to cover all your losses (and there are always losses your own insurance doesn't cover, starting with the deductible) makes it your business, too. And you can bet the Student Pilot/owner's insurer will refuse to cover if there's a passenger in the plane or his last 90-day endorsement was six years ago. There's also the negative reaction of nonflying airport neighbors when "Illegal Pilot Crashes" splashes in the headlines (worse if a passenger or someone on the ground his injured or killed), as well as the burden on us all when the FAA writes another rule in response even when the issue involves a pilot who refuses to follow the rules.

no such thing would happen.
 
I would bet I've blown a FAR or two just like a traffic law or two. The point is so what. If you get stopped for speeding, pay the fine or appeal the ticket.
In this case, some guy not yet rated is flying about endangering everyone. Like the guy who passed my house at 70 last night if I knew who he was, I'd call on him.
Just think, the life you save could be yours.
And I hope we all fly better than PTS.

The false logic everyone is applying is that a plastic card has any relevance to safety or competence. Everyone wants to believe they are better cause the gov't said so, not necessarily. Has the PP checkride ever stopped a bad pilot? Plastic cards mean you can fill out a 8710 correctly, that is all.
 
And you're betting on an unknown quantity. The insurance company has a right to deny any claims from an unlicensed pilot. Good luck on getting anything from the dead pilot's estate.
 
And you're betting on an unknown quantity. The insurance company has a right to deny any claims from an unlicensed pilot. Good luck on getting anything from the dead pilot's estate.

Won't your insurance company cover damage by the uninsured?

What would your insurance company do if you went to the airport only to find your aircraft was damaged by some one unknown. ?
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top