Wing walking flights in Sequim draw lawsuit and FAA investigation

Domenick

Domenick

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 11, 2019
Messages
1,838
Display Name
Display name:
Domenick
www.seattletimes.com

Wing walking flights in Sequim draw lawsuit and FAA investigation

Mason Wing Walking is facing FAA investigation after a lawsuit that forced the Sequim business to move its home-based operations.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com

I was at Sequim Airport's (W28) 2022 Olympic Peninsula Air Affaire & Sequim Valley Fly-In.
(The 'e' in Sequim is silent-->"squim")

2022 Olympic Peninsula Air Affaire & Sequim Valley Fly-In

Located at Sequim Valley Airport
olympicpeninsulaairaffaire.com

Great little aviation festival. Was looking forward to going back this year, but unfortunately, they cancelled 2023 due to some scheduling issue.

Mason Wing Walking was there last year and I was not tempted, but others went up. Beautiful Stearman. Wonderful, throaty radial. https://masonwingwalking.com/

Mike Mason flies out of a residential airpark. 48° 7.768'N 123° 12.338'W
Sequim Valley (W28) 48° 5.867'N 123° 11.243'W

Sequim lies in "The Blue Hole." In the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, it enjoys 300 days of sunshine a year compared to Seattle's 156 days of rain and 226 overcast days. I'm guessing after Mason's 13 years in business, some a-hole, newbie, Seattle bluebird transplant is ****ing on Mike Mason's fire. Mason lives on a residential airpark. There's noise--I'm shocked.
 
The Masons claim that the wing walking flights are “non-commercial” because customers are billed only for the ground training and, as their website puts it, they provide the flight that follows “free of charge.”

Yeah, right.

"Mason said the claim that the wing walking flights are free and therefore “non-commercial” was not an argument ever made to the FAA.
“I put that there to satisfy our homeowners association,” he said. “We weren’t trying to skirt any regulations.”

No?

According to FAA regulations, during aerobatic flights “each occupant of the aircraft” except the flight crew must have a parachute. His customers don’t wear parachutes.
Yet Mason insists that’s another issue he sorted out with the FAA years ago. He said he had specifically asked for a waiver on this rule but was told he didn’t need one.
He said an FAA official assured him that since his customers step out onto the wing before the aerobatic maneuvers begin, they are no longer “occupants” of the aircraft and so the parachute rule doesn’t apply.
“It’s not a showstopper,” Mason said. “I don’t think the FAA has much of a leg to stand on.”

Good luck with that one.
 
What? There is a wing-walking school?
Lots of ppl have parachuted, many have base-jumped.
How many people out there can say, "yeah I walked on the wing of an airplane in flight"
 
He seemed to have a legit argument for no parachute. Uses a safety harness and if parachute opened accidentally, the whole mess goes down.

Having said that, the "it's not commercial" argument is a stretch. Guess I could charge people to ride in my car to the airport and then take them for a ride in my plane for "free".
 
Lindberg said:
And allegedly FAR violations.

The court didn't grant an injunction just because some transplant complained about noise. There's likely more to the story.
Click to expand...

"Mason said the initial FAA investigation resulted earlier this year in a finding of no violation and the case was closed.

But he subsequently received a second letter of investigation, reopening the question of whether the operation was properly authorized and raising a new concern: “the parachute thing,” as he put it."

There's other text that when he started this 13 years ago, he confirmed his commercial status with the FAA. They've investigated him earlier this year and concluded no violation. Apparently there's a second investigation over the wearing of parachutes due to this being acrobatic.
 
So the airpark got an injunction against him because commercial operations are prohibited. I know we can argue about anything here, but is anyone here really going to say this isn't a commercial operation?
 
Looks like he’s charging $1000 for ground school. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I guess an upstart wannabe “shadow” 135 operator could charge only for baggage handling and the flight is free?
 
If he brought in over $400,000 a year, I bet it's y mostly green envy.
 
Nothing to add on the commercial operation kerfuffle, I think the court decided it accurately. But this was the most striking thing for me
Mark Long, chair of the Blue Ribbon homeowners board, said only about 10 people out of the more than 130 residents continue to fly regularly out of the airstrip.
Click to expand...
Prime real estate, what enviable location and views, and the ladder pullers turn into a living mausoleum. gawd this hobby needs new blood. Main reason I hesitate to blow my entire load (sts) on airpark housing burdens in retirement.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Prime real estate, what enviable location and views, and the ladder pullers turn into a living mausoleum. gawd this hobby needs new blood. Main reason I hesitate to blow my entire load (sts) on airpark housing burdens in retirement.
Click to expand...

Air parks should mandate aircraft ownership for each household, otherwise you'll have Karens move into air parks complaining about noisy aircraft. Stupid as it sounds but it's happening. There can be exceptions for those who moved in owning and aircraft and due to age or medical reasons no longer can fly, they can stay as they most likely won't be complaining about aircraft noise.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Air parks should mandate aircraft ownership for each household, otherwise you'll have Karens move into air parks complaining about noisy aircraft. Stupid as it sounds but it's happening. There can be exceptions for those who moved in owning and aircraft and due to age or medical reasons no longer can fly, they can stay as they most likely won't be complaining about aircraft noise.
Click to expand...
I see the chronology of this dynamic a bit differently. Meaning, I'm comfortable in presuming the statistical majority of the 130 households were in fact aircraft owners at some point. Which is why I call them ladder-pullers instead of Karens. A Karen can be forgiven for being odious, but at least they're consistent. A ladder-puller is a rank hypocrite, and I hate that more than people who straight up admit to you their stated bigotry (Karen et al).

As a son to aging parents, and recognizing the old hold most of the wealth and enviable real estate on this planet, and they like to hoard it, I am still sympathetic to the desire to age and die in place. But society doesn't owe them to age and die along with them. Life is for the Living, and just like golf, it's all about rate of play. To delay someone is to deny someone. I'm sure you can guess my thoughts on age 67 lol. :D
 
Karen’s with questions
“just out of curiosity”

The show begins
 
hindsight2020 said:
gawd this hobby needs new blood.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I wish we had an organization to represent us and revive GA, instead of AOPA that just wastes loads of money on great marketing and PR. Really makes me sick knowing what AOPA could be doing vs. what they are actually accomplishing.
 
It's funny how actions by the FAA against someone who has safely operated for 13 years, ostensibly with that agency's prior blessing, are justifiable to some who have commented.

It's all about whose ox is being gored.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Air parks should mandate aircraft ownership for each household, otherwise you'll have Karens move into air parks complaining about noisy aircraft. Stupid as it sounds but it's happening. There can be exceptions for those who moved in owning and aircraft and due to age or medical reasons no longer can fly, they can stay as they most likely won't be complaining about aircraft noise.
Click to expand...
Look at the demographics. Without an influx of new blood into this hobby, there won't be enough recreational pilots left to fill the airparks. I fear a real estate bust in the airpark segment one of these days...
 
Lindberg said:
And allegedly FAR violations.

The court didn't grant an injunction just because some transplant complained about noise. There's likely more to the story.
Click to expand...
No, but after 13 years of running his business out in the open, that's how this kerfuffle started.

hindsight2020 said:
I see the chronology of this dynamic a bit differently. Meaning, I'm comfortable in presuming the statistical majority of the 130 households were in fact aircraft owners at some point. Which is why I call them ladder-pullers instead of Karens. A Karen can be forgiven for being odious, but at least they're consistent. A ladder-puller is a rank hypocrite, and I hate that more than people who straight up admit to you their stated bigotry (Karen et al).

As a son to aging parents, and recognizing the old hold most of the wealth and enviable real estate on this planet, and they like to hoard it, I am still sympathetic to the desire to age and die in place. But society doesn't owe them to age and die along with them. Life is for the Living, and just like golf, it's all about rate of play. To delay someone is to deny someone. I'm sure you can guess my thoughts on age 67 lol. :D
Click to expand...
Ouch!
So, just hurry up and die?
I suppose your folks were just handed what they have. Almost sounds like that's what you're waiting for.
 
Initial Fix said:
Looks like he’s charging $1000 for ground school. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I guess an upstart wannabe “shadow” 135 operator could charge only for baggage handling and the flight is free?
Click to expand...
People find ways to skirt the rules and get away with it for a long time.

There's a banner towing company here locally. 20 years ago, the owner would let non-commercial pilots fly the banners. They weren't paid, and the FAA knew this was going on, not just here, but across the country. You flew the plane, you didn't get paid, but you built hours.

Then the FAA decided building hours was compensation. They discussed allowing private pilots to fly banners if they weren't making money, weren't building hours for for commercial, and paid a fair hourly amount for the airplane, but they knew the banner-tow business owners wouldn't really charge the pilots. I remember this because as a Private Pilot, I honestly just wanted to fly the Bird Dog around for free and had no need to build hours.

The other big example of skirting the rules was in ultralights. You were only supposed to use the two-seat ultralights for training flights, but the FAA knew people were just giving their friends rides and calling it instruction. One of the reasons LSA was created and two-seat ultralights are no longer a thing.
 
Lowflynjack said:
There's a banner towing company here locally. 20 years ago, the owner would let non-commercial pilots fly the banners. They weren't paid, and the FAA knew this was going on, not just here, but across the country. You flew the plane, you didn't get paid, but you built hours.

Then the FAA decided building hours was compensation. They discussed allowing private pilots to fly banners if they weren't making money, weren't building hours for for commercial, and paid a fair hourly amount for the airplane, but they knew the banner-tow business owners wouldn't really charge the pilots. I remember this because as a Private Pilot, I honestly just wanted to fly the Bird Dog around for free and had no need to build hours.
Click to expand...
To get on my company's banner tow waiver, I had to demonstrate a pickup for the FAA. Each pilot (and aircraft) is specifically listed on the waiver, and the FAA carefully inspected my certificates before the demo. When I tow for another company, it has to be in one of our planes bc I'm not listed on their waiver so can't tow in their planes. Is it possible to get an open waiver that lets any pilot fly? Or maybe it wasn't so controlled 20 years ago.
 
Lindberg said:
To get on my company's banner tow waiver, I had to demonstrate a pickup for the FAA. Each pilot (and aircraft) is specifically listed on the waiver, and the FAA carefully inspected my certificates before the demo. Is it possible to get an open waiver that lets any pilot fly? Or maybe it was different 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I'm sure it wasn't very regulated 20 years ago. Honestly it worked out great for me as I found out later the owner of business didn't keep his planes in annual or very well maintained, and would tell his pilots to fly way too low over congested areas. If there was a rule, I'm sure he wasn't following it!
 
Lowflynjack said:
I don't know, but I'm sure it wasn't very regulated 20 years ago. Honestly it worked out great for me as I found out later the owner of business didn't keep his planes in annual or very well maintained, and would tell his pilots to fly way too low over congested areas. If there was a rule, I'm sure he wasn't following it!
Click to expand...
Sketchy all around. Good thing you avoided it! Our waiver expressly states that 91.119 must be complied with. Probably because of guys like that.
 
Domenick said:
Ouch!
So, just hurry up and die?
I suppose your folks were just handed what they have. Almost sounds like that's what you're waiting for.
Click to expand...
Nice strawman. The age 67 comment was tongue in cheek btw. I don't care for airline work and if I find myself doing it to tide me over to full retirement it will be for a heck of lot less than age 67, heck age 60 is too long for me in any occupation.

As to my actual point, and in response to your imprudent personal accusation in the bolded, the answer is my parents don't get in the way of my ability to thrive, but they are paying a price in life for it. Namely, they don't get to enjoy their only grandson with the regularity they would otherwise prefer, because I got gentrified out of my formative home. They have pensions in their work I don't have access to if I had done their jobs down there today. Nothing of it has to do with merit or earning anything. That's generational luck.

I am on the record with them stating I want them to draw down to nothing, and stick me with a bill for their funeral. PR inheritance laws are actually quite giving to children, putting them on par with the widow (spanish law). I've made a legal commitment already to cede my third in order to afford my surviving parent the full discretion of their remaining estate. I can't speak for my sister's conniving husband though, so can't say that third will be willing to play by the same legal charity.
BL, go take your gold-digging accusations and roll them up where the sun don't shine.

My comments on ladder-pullers stand as I've made them. The name of the game is velocity of money. If you're not contributing to it, you're part of the problem, regardless of age. The old just happen to be the plurality of the guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top