Other than FAA regs affect pilots

[Doggtyred]

The ultralight pilot in question was fined for violating a State wildlife protection statute, not a FAR. The fact that an aircraft was involved is incidental. He would have accrued the same fine if he used a ladder to get close to the nest.

And he was fined for "disturbing wildlife". The law itself does not spell out specific distances or altitudes to maintain from the nests in question. This is a judgment call by the officer that will play out in court, not a clear cut violation of a specific rule. This very well isn't over if the pilot chooses to fight it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If I had a dollar for every one of these threads...

... you'd be a lawyer!

 

[tdager]

Ignorance of the law is no defense before the bar of justice.

And given the current amount of laws of the books and the tens of thousands passed and amended every year....this phrase is idiotic and should not longer be valid.

 

[bobmrg]

Interesting. I've come across a bunch of pilots who think that the only rules that affect aviation are from the FAA (can you find the FAR that requires a radiotelephone permit?).

Maybe I need to add a fifth to my short list of "Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths?"

Aviation Regulation Fallacies and Half-Truths

1. The AIM is not regulatory.
2. A Safety Pilot is only a lookout.
3. The Pilot In Command is the only person with responsibility for the safety of a flight.
4. It's your logbook.
5. The FAA is the only legal body that controls what we do in aircraft.

An ops inspector once gave me a list of 22 federal agencies with regulations affecting pilots...right now the only one I can remember is the Bureau of Land Management...but I'm sure that the departments of Interior and Commerce have some regs that pilots are unaware of.

Bob Gardner

 

[NBPD336]

Reading this thread made me think of a question this may be way out there but maybe someone can answer this for me. If you were flying your airplane minding your own business, all of a sudden you have a bird strike, and it turns out to be a Bald Eagle. Would you be in deep or would it be ruled as any other bird strike?

 

[alaskaflyer]

An ops inspector once gave me a list of 22 federal agencies with regulations affecting pilots...right now the only one I can remember is the Bureau of Land Management...but I'm sure that the departments of Interior and Commerce have some regs that pilots are unaware of.

Bob Gardner

The National Park Service has a regulation that reads in pertinent part:

"The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are hereby adopted as part of these regulations."

If an activity occurs within our territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction contrary to the FARs, we have the authority to investigate concurrent with the FAA and even though most FARs carry a civil penalty only (or alternative agency corrective action) our incorporation by adoption turns them into class B misdemeanors for our purposes.
The presiding US District Court judge has assigned a "usual" bail or fine of $300 but maximum of 6 mo. or $5000 is possible - though for the sake of practicality I don't think a criminal case would be normally pursued but rather the matter would be referred to the FAA. Powers need to be prudently applied.

The key to this regulation is not necessarily the language by which the FARs are adopted for agency purpose but rather the extent and limits of the agency's jurisdiction, which is specified by Congress. And as the lawyers in this joint can tell you, that is one of the first things that must be "proven" in a criminal case.

How hard is it to shoehorn an aviation activity into jurisdiction to "regulate... by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations"?

 

[midlifeflyer]

And given the current amount of laws of the books and the tens of thousands passed and amended every year....this phrase is idiotic and should not longer be valid.

I'm not sure that's practical.

If we're talking criminal as well as civil, do you really want to require a prosecutor to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that [fill in the blank] was against the law?

Aside from that extreme and bringing it back to aviation, I think it's still impractical. If we choose to engage in a regulated activity, we voluntarily subject ourselves to regulation. Are you saying that "I never read the FARs and keep away from anything that might tell me the rules that apply to my activity" should be a valid defense to, say, an airspace bust?

 

[Sac Arrow]

And he was fined for "disturbing wildlife". The law itself does not spell out specific distances or altitudes to maintain from the nests in question. This is a judgment call by the officer that will play out in court, not a clear cut violation of a specific rule. This very well isn't over if the pilot chooses to fight it.

Yes, I agree, my point is this is not a case of a State agency exercising authority over aircraft operations. He can contest that (I would), but he would be contesting it as an individual, not as a pilot.