Violation??

U

Unregistered

Guest
I live on a private airpark. The powers that be have decided to close the runway twice a week so that residents can pull weeds etc near the runway. Kinda like police call in the army.

If I decide to hell with their police call, I'm gonna fly anyway, can I be violated for taking off and landing from a closed runway? You can bet that someone will call the FSDO

Remember this is a private runway.

Cheers:

anymouse
 
Unregistered said:
I live on a private airpark. The powers that be have decided to close the runway twice a week so that residents can pull weeds etc near the runway. Kinda like police call in the army.

If I decide to hell with their police call, I'm gonna fly anyway, can I be violated for taking off and landing from a closed runway? You can bet that someone will call the FSDO

Remember this is a private runway.

Cheers:

anymouse
Click to expand...

:rofl:
 
There is no requirement to land or takeoff from a runway. BUT.. if the runway is NOTAM'ed or marked closed by the managing body of the airport, and you willfully operate from a "closed" runway without permission of the managing body, then that sounds like a willful and intentional act that could be construed as reckless if someone had a hard on for you.

Thats my 2 cents.
 
Unregistered said:
I live on a private airpark. The powers that be have decided to close the runway twice a week so that residents can pull weeds etc near the runway. Kinda like police call in the army.

If I decide to hell with their police call, I'm gonna fly anyway, can I be violated for taking off and landing from a closed runway? You can bet that someone will call the FSDO

Remember this is a private runway.
Click to expand...

Why does the pulling of weeds near the runway require closing the runway?
 
Ron Levy said:
In addition to the NOTAM issue, there is also the potential for 91.119 "flight within 500 feet of people"
Click to expand...

How is that? 119 begins with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:'
 
How long a duration and what time of day? If it doesn't really impact your flying much, why get in a snit about it?
 
One more reason to avoid living on a private airport. Most of them are just one crock after another.
 
cherokeeflyboy said:
How is that? 119 begins with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:'
Click to expand...

It's too bad that Fergusen didn't raise that point in his appeal. I think the ALJ ignored the clear language of the regulation on that one. Of course they still had the careless and reckless and the NOTAM.

I really wish there were a reg prohibiting closing a runway without issuing a NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance, except in an emergency. This business of requiring ag pilots to get a new briefing every time they reload and/or refuel is just nuts, IMO.
 
wabower said:
One more reason to avoid living on a private airport. Most of them are just one crock after another.
Click to expand...

I fly out of an airpark near Denver. A week ago Sunday I was about 1/2 of the way through my takeoff roll, and a truck pulled onto the runway right at the departure end. Yeah, more than a little annoying. I went through a quick breakdown of go/no go and decided I had plenty of room to continue and be well above them.

Also, there are constantly people mowing, or walking, or riding ATVs within 500 feet of the runway. There are structures within 500 feet of the runway. How does one avoid violating the FARs in this case? Does the exception for takeoff and landing apply?
 
Palmpilot said:
It's too bad that Fergusen didn't raise that point in his appeal. I think the ALJ ignored the clear language of the regulation on that one.
Click to expand...
Interpretation of the regulations is not within the ALJ's authority. The Chief Counsel is the only one authorized to make that call, and he did. End of story.
 
COFlyBoy said:
Also, there are constantly people mowing, or walking, or riding ATVs within 500 feet of the runway. There are structures within 500 feet of the runway. How does one avoid violating the FARs in this case? Does the exception for takeoff and landing apply?
Click to expand...
It's different when there's a NOTAM establishing a specific restriction. If the airpark management arranges such a NOTAM and X's the runway, that's the end of the story -- any flight which violates the NOTAM restriction violates the regulation.
 
Come on guys, the answer is obvious.

Tape weed whacker string to the prop tips.

Problem solved!
 
Last edited:
There are two things to consider was the run way properly closed? as in the big Yellow "X"s and notamed out of service?


other wise the FAA is going to treat this as any other PIZZing contest and avoid it like the plague.

Unless a FAA agent see's this action, the FAA will not violate you on others word.
 
Tom-D said:
There are two things to consider was the run way properly closed? as in the big Yellow "X"s and notamed out of service?


other wise the FAA is going to treat this as any other PIZZing contest and avoid it like the plague.
Click to expand...
Concur.
Unless a FAA agent see's this action, the FAA will not violate you on others word.
Click to expand...
Case law suggests otherwise. The annals are full of successful enforcement actions for low-flying and similar violations based solely on the complaints and statements of non-FAA observers.
 
Ron Levy said:
Case law suggests otherwise. The annals are full of successful enforcement actions for low-flying and similar violations based solely on the complaints and statements of non-FAA observers.
Click to expand...

I'd bet those cases were a chronic problem with one pilot, supported by many witnesses

Very seldom is the FAA going to site any pilot, in a case like this.

I also see people setting beside the runways watching traffic come and go, and no one gets a violation unless somebody complains, then the action is to the people on the ground to move away from the runway.
 
Ron Levy said:
Interpretation of the regulations is not within the ALJ's authority. The Chief Counsel is the only one authorized to make that call, and he did. End of story.
Click to expand...

In that case, I think the Chief Counsel ignored the clear language of the regulation.

Does anyone here think it demonstrates integrity on the FAA's part to publish a regulation that says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," and then act as if that exception didn't exist when they get before an ALJ?
 
Palmpilot said:
In that case, I think the Chief Counsel ignored the clear language of the regulation.

Does anyone here think it demonstrates integrity on the FAA's part to publish a regulation that says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," and then act as if that exception didn't exist when they get before an ALJ?
Click to expand...

Welcome to administrative law. :rolleyes:
 
Palmpilot said:
In that case, I think the Chief Counsel ignored the clear language of the regulation.
Click to expand...
Feel free to tell the US Court of Appeals you think their interpretation of 91.119 is "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law," but it's a case rarely decided in the appellant's favor.

Does anyone here think it demonstrates integrity on the FAA's part to publish a regulation that says "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," and then act as if that exception didn't exist when they get before an ALJ?
Click to expand...
It's not "act[ing] as if that exception didn't exist," it's how they interpret that phrase. The issue here is that the takeoff/landing isn't "necessary" if the runway is closed unless it's a bona fide emergency, and in that case, 91.3(b) overrules 91.119.
 
Last edited:
Unregistered said:
I live on a private airpark. The powers that be have decided to close the runway twice a week so that residents can pull weeds etc near the runway. Kinda like police call in the army.

If I decide to hell with their police call, I'm gonna fly anyway, can I be violated for taking off and landing from a closed runway? You can bet that someone will call the FSDO

Remember this is a private runway.

Cheers:

anymouse
Click to expand...

And all you're doing is proving you're not a good neighbor to the others in your airpark. The cleanup activity is to your benefit - keeping the area clear for possible overruns, ground loops, etc as well as minimizing places where small critters can hide.
 
Ron Levy said:
Keep your money in your pocket -- you'd lose it if you made that bet.
Click to expand...


You are probably right, it would be a rare case to find any subject that the FAA hasn't covered already.

generally the FAA will not get involved unless they can prove the public was endangered or the pilot had a lack of respect of the FARs.

when they do the interviews of the witness in cases like these the first question they bring up is

FAA "have you ever been close to the runway to wave to your friends good by?"

Witness,. "yes",

FAA "What is difference between that and this incident?"

Witness " he was supposed to be helping us", bla bla ...

FAA "Have a nice day, bye bye"
 
Ron Levy said:
Feel free to tell the US Court of Appeals you think their interpretation of 91.119 is "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law," but it's a case rarely decided in the appellant's favor.
Click to expand...

The fact that the judicial system lets them get away with it does not convert lack of integrity into integrity.

It's not "act[ing] as if that exception didn't exist," it's how they interpret that phrase. The issue here is that the takeoff/landing isn't "necessary" if the runway is closed unless it's a bona fide emergency, and in that case, 91.3(b) overrules 91.119.
Click to expand...

If they actually did make that argument, it would be worthy of Alice in Wonderland, especially when they had two other regulations whose application to the case didn't require Queen of Hearts logic to get the job done.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 2009_RoundupPNG_std.jpg
    2009_RoundupPNG_std.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 194
Anything you do with your airplane that endangers persons or property on the ground. Nope, your not supposed to do it.

If you don't like what the others in your airpark are doing, perhaps it's time to look for a more amiable airpark? Better yet, get a hanger with an apartment above at a regular airport. Or perhaps just move your plane to another "real" airport.

John
 
Ohhh, another idea! In my neighborhood, years ago it was predominately occupied by tuna fisherman. Officially it is Rosevill, unofficially, it is Tunaville. Anyway, they would pave all the grounds around their homes with concrete, then paint it green. They did this so that when they were off fishing, sometimes six months or more, their wives would not have to worry about doing yard work. Some of these old fisherman's homes still have their yards that way, although the fleet is long gone.

Just pour concrete and paint it green.

John
 
Weeds + used engine oil = problem begone. Alternatively, drop the belly tank on the offending flora. Blowing **** up is awesome. Make it night ops if you have to. I can't believe no one else mentioned this.
 
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