|
DNova posted:Will ADS-B In depict active TFRs along with weather and traffic? Yes, but again, there is case law arguing that the FAA doesn't regard ADS-B distributed TFR information as complete or accurate, either.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
AWSEFT posted:What a joke. Christ that is so Kafkaesque it isn't funny. "Josef K?" "Yes?" "I am Agent Franz. I am informing you of the Agency's decision to hold you accountable for violating a TFR." "But Agent Franz, I looked up your current TFRs before my flight, and kept up-to-date with the real-time TFR information in flight, provided by your agency." "K, the information we provide you is not meant to be used for flight planning purposes. Please report to the court on Sunday for your tribunal."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Yes, but again, there is case law arguing that the FAA doesn't regard ADS-B distributed TFR information as complete or accurate, either. Is there case law or just the FAA citing the pilot and the pilot not contesting it because it would cost a lot to get it in front of a judge?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Is there case law or just the FAA citing the pilot and the pilot not contesting it because it would cost a lot to get it in front of a judge? Typically the FAA violates the pilot and enforces some sort of certificate action. Then the pilot appeals. This goes to a judge (of sorts, I think?) called the Chief Counsel. Chief Counsel decisions are binding for that specific case and future occurrences of the infraction. Which means that the FARs aren't really the only thing you need to pay attention to as a conscientious pilot. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/ One pertinent chief counsel decision that comes up a lot, is the requirement to establish 2-way communications with the proper ATC facility before entering Class C or D airspace. The violation occurred because a pilot entered the airspace of a tower, which was under an approach control for a different major airport, but was still talking to the center over that approach control. The enforcement action was upheld because the pilot failed to establish 2-way communications with the appropriate facility (either the tower or the approach control) before entering that tower's airspace. It's ridiculous in a way, because pilots associate communication with ATC in that instance, as assurance that their travel through associated controlled airspace is coordinated (controllers call each other and pass this information along, but it goes unheard by the pilot).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Typically the FAA violates the pilot and enforces some sort of certificate action. Then the pilot appeals. This goes to a judge (of sorts, I think?) called the Chief Counsel.  What??Is this real life?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
DNova posted:
This is why AOPA says to file the NASA report and then call a lawyer when a controller gives you a phone number. Unfortunately its really expensive to get an article iii judge to look at this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
DNova posted:
100%. In my example, the Center forgot to hand the pilot off to the Approach control, and it was the Approach control's job to coordinate their transition through that Tower's airspace. Had the pilot been talking to Approach, it would have been an ATC error. But since they were still on Center's frequency while transition through Approach airspace, then Tower airspace, it was deemed negligence by the pilot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Wow, that sucks. I could easily imagine myself doing that. As it is, I do plenty of flying in the local delta airspace while talking to the local charlie approach guys. They only hand me off to tower at the delta if I want to land there. According to that interpretation, I could be busting the delta airspace constantly and not even know it...
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
DNova posted:Wow, that sucks. I could easily imagine myself doing that. As it is, I do plenty of flying in the local delta airspace while talking to the local charlie approach guys. They only hand me off to tower at the delta if I want to land there. According to that interpretation, I could be busting the delta airspace constantly and not even know it... Unlikely, because that approach control has jurisdiction over the Class Delta tower's airspace. They delegate a portion of it for the tower to use, but they'd be responsible for coordinating your transition. The issue is when you're talking to LA Center, but you're cruising through SoCal Approach's area of jurisdiction, and you go through Ontario's Class C. You shouldn't be talking to LA Center still and it could (will) be found that you did not establish 2-way comms with the ATC facility having jurisdiction of that airspace. Because LA Center doesn't have jurisdiction there, SoCal Approach does. You can't be talking to Waco Approach, go through Austin Bergstrom's Class C and be considered "ok."
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Unlikely, because that approach control has jurisdiction over the Class Delta tower's airspace. They delegate a portion of it for the tower to use, but they'd be responsible for coordinating your transition. That's a scenario that comes up much less for me but this is something I am going to keep very much in mind for whenever I'm talking to center in the future, and I am glad to be made aware of the issue. I had absolutely no idea that I should be watching out for something like that. Also very glad to know that my flying around in the local delta airspace was kosher (as I fully expected it was until you scared me!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
DNova posted:That's a scenario that comes up much less for me but this is something I am going to keep very much in mind for whenever I'm talking to center in the future, and I am glad to be made aware of the issue. I had absolutely no idea that I should be watching out for something like that. Also very glad to know that my flying around in the local delta airspace was kosher (as I fully expected it was until you scared me!). I only heard of this situation because of my religious reading of the AOPA forums. But yes, normally when you are in radar contact, receiving flight following, you are not expected to coordinate your own transition through C and D airspace. You still need specific Class B clearances to enter Bravo airspace. This is a "gotcha" that's not intuitive. Surely the pilot that got violated feels the same way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Is there case law or just the FAA citing the pilot and the pilot not contesting it because it would cost a lot to get it in front of a judge? http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/Pilot/pe_na quote:the FAA admitted the ADS-B broadcast was “incomplete.” The FAA regional administrator wrote that “the FAA attempts to issue a graphical depiction of restricted airspace for the convenience of pilots, the FAA is not required to do so, and the absence of a graphical depiction does not render a published flight restriction invalid.” To make matters worse: quote:My use of the EFB to obtain my DUATS briefing was also ruled a violation of FAR 91.103(a) because it was “not an FAA-approved source of preflight and safety of flight information.” Apparently the FAA’s QICP certification of the “reliability, accessibility, and security” of the EFB’s network infrastructure somehow did not apply to retrieving and delivering the FAA-approved DUATS briefings. I do this daily at work. So between fltplan.com that I sometimes use on my iPad for lack of time, its link to the FAA TFR page (that I always look at), and my onboard ADS-B display, I could still violate a TFR and it'd be my fault. AWSEFT fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/Pilot/pe_na The best part is that there are people in the regulatory parts of the FAA that look at this situation, AND SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
They should just fly barrage balloons over the Presidential convoy. Easier that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Speaking of terrible things: Airline pilots, why is your ALPA coming out in opposition to 3rd class medical reform?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
This is another reason that James Inhofe is a savior and not a villain to be detested. I thought everybody in this thread understood that the judges that adjudicate the FAR's are in the back pocket of the FAA. There is no jury of your peers for this poo poo. It's unconscionable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:This is another reason that James Inhofe is a savior and not a villain to be detested. I thought everybody in this thread understood that the judges that adjudicate the FAR's are in the back pocket of the FAA. There is no jury of your peers for this poo poo. It's unconscionable. I appreciate the work Inhofe has done for the aviation community, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he's a reckless psychopath. He could have killed those people on that runway and he didn't give two shits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
And how do you know that exactly? The internet loves to vilify ANYBODY if they can, especially a climate change goof. Link me to the interview where he said he didn't care about the construction workers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
DNova posted:Will ADS-B In depict active TFRs along with weather and traffic? Yes but that's not to be considered accurate either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:And how do you know that exactly? The internet loves to vilify ANYBODY if they can, especially a climate change goof. quote:AVweb quote:He said he landed "well off to the side" of the workers. He showed complete lack of ownership for his gently caress up during his interviews with the media following the incident. My facility's Quality Assurance representative interviewed him personally as part of the FAA investigation. He's a tool. You don't need to be on record saying "I don't care about the safety of certain people" when you have already displayed your complete disregard for safety and prudent flight planning by your actions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Would you tell the media that you hosed up Mr ATC? I would deny deny deny deny - why? Because of the previous discussion on how the FAA operates. But I also wouldn't give an interview either....
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Ironic, given the discussion of how pilots are ultimately responsible for everything even when the FAA fucks up. Or are TFRs different from NOTAMs in the States? If there's a temporary airspace change in Canada, I think it's just issued as a NOTAM, so you best check that poo poo before your flight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Ironic, given the discussion of how pilots are ultimately responsible for everything even when the FAA fucks up. Or are TFRs different from NOTAMs in the States? If there's a temporary airspace change in Canada, I think it's just issued as a NOTAM, so you best check that poo poo before your flight. TFR's are issued textually by FDC NOTAM, which are NOTAMs under a given Center's file, not under a specific airport. You need to check FDC NOTAMs in addition to relevant Departure/Arrival airport NOTAMs to get the full picture. Here's an example of one that goes "hot" multiple times daily within my airspace: quote:!FDC 5/0389 ZHU PART 1 OF 3 TX..AIRSPACE CORPUS CHRISTI, TX..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. JULY 30, 2015 LOCAL. PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40103(B), THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CLASSIFIES THE AIRSPACE DEFINED IN THIS NOTAM AS 'NATIONAL DEFENSE AIRSPACE'. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY VIOLATES THE RULES CONCERNING OPERATIONS IN THIS AIRSPACE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES UNDER 49 USC 46307. PILOTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MAY BE INTERCEPTED, DETAINED AND INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/SECURITY PERSONNEL. PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, ALL AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS 273437N0970631W (NGP117011.9) TO 272805N0965740W (NGP120022.1) TO 271920N0970300W (NGP143025.4) TO 272045N0970520W (NGP146023.1) TO 272621N0971113W (NGP153015.9) TO THE POINT OF ORIGIN 2500FT MSL-FL180 EFFECTIVE 1507300800 UTC (0300 LOCAL 07/30/15) UNTIL 1507301200 UTC (0700 LOCAL 07/30/15). WITHIN AN AREA DEFINED AS 273819N0971032W TO 273437N0970631W TO 1507300800-1507301200 END PART 1 OF 3 It has 3 separate segments so it's a tad wordy. Good luck figuring this poo poo out. Also this is the first of SEVERAL FDC NOTAMs for ZHU. And you pull them all up together. So you need to identify this particular one as relevant to your flight if you're going to be near Corpus Christi. NOTAMs for airports that have been in effect long enough are incorporated into a NOTAM publication and are then removed from the NOTAM file and no longer made a part of briefings. You can actually check NOTAMs, call Flight Service for a briefing, and still miss something. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Yeah, that's basically what I expected. So given the context of someone making a mistake about a TFR, why is this Inhofe guy (who I gather is a senator and a pilot) saying "most pilots just don't check NOTAMs! It's impractical!" That sounds either incorrect or very hosed up. Keep in mind I have no idea who this guy is or what he did or didn't do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, that's basically what I expected. So given the context of someone making a mistake about a TFR, why is this Inhofe guy (who I gather is a senator and a pilot) saying "most pilots just don't check NOTAMs! It's impractical!" He's trying to justify himself landing on a closed runway, over barricades and The article I quoted explains much of his situation: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/inhofe_senator_closed_runway_texas_faa_investigate_203537-1.html The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:He's trying to justify himself landing on a closed runway, over barricades and Holy poo poo really? I've seen fellow students who had their booking cancelled because they didn't check the NOTAMs properly (Not me  I check all my poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
I've gone flying with other pilots before, where I'm not going to be PIC, but I still check the NOTAMs. I have, rarely, caught my pilot off guard by catching a closure because they didn't read NOTAMs. It shouldn't happen. But of course humans are going to cut corners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:He's trying to justify himself landing on a closed runway, over barricades and lighted Yellow Xs, over men and equipment, then departing later from that airport on a Taxiway. Ohhhhhhh. That's what that X meant. I thought it was for a spot landing contest; closest to the X wins. And I'm sure there are lots of pilots who don't check NOTAMs. Most of them aren't in Congress and stupid enough to admit it to a newspaper reporter. I'm guessing he figured he'd get a pass from the agency he helps control funding for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Perhaps the FAA should consider a notam system that isn't entirely loving outdated and a human factors nightmare waiting to happen. "You didn't read the 34 lines of text in caps we wrote. What's wrong?" I need to see things like TFRs, runway closures, in a clear, easy readable fashion, and perhaps color coded to pop out more and not get buried below 100 notes about an unmarked light 5 miles south of the airport at 152' AGL.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
New letter from ALPA discussing their opposition to the 3rd class medical changes: July 27, 2015 As you may know, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) filed a petition for exemption with the FAA that would give pilots the option of conducting certain operations without having to hold an FAA medical certificate. The FAA has not yet acted on this request. Currently, legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress that would implement the request made by AOPA/EAA through legislative mandate. Late last week, there was an attempt to attach this legislation, referred to as the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2," to the surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Complex aviation safety issues have no place on a highway bill—period. ALPA's sole responsibility is to advocate for its members in their capacity as professional airline pilots. ALPA's long-standing policy as adopted by its Board of Directors is to maintain the highest level of safety within the national airspace system. As such, ALPA has weighed in on the proposed amendment due to its obligation to the safety of our members in their capacity as airline pilots. The proposed amendment introduces risk that takes a step backwards from maintaining the highest levels of safety. If not for how this legislation impacts the safety of the airspace in which our members fly, ALPA would not weigh in on this matter. On July 23, ALPA president, Capt. Tim Canoll, sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote "no" on an amendment by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to the highway bill. In his letter, he outlined ALPA's opposition to this amendment: This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo. It would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an aviation medical examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft. It may reduce some medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment. This has been ALPA's position since 2012 when ALPA submitted comments to the FAA in opposition to the AOPA/EAA petition for exemption (Docket No. FAA-2012-0350) from the third-class medical requirement. ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a third-class medical certificate and believes that a compromise position can be developed to ensure that added risk to the airspace we operate in is mitigated and the highest levels of safety are maintained. In fact, there are other provisions in the Pilot's Bill of Rights that ALPA supports, and we intend to continue collaboration with our Hill and aviation partners. Again, ALPA believes that a common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace that we cannot support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
I'll admit, I have a significant amount of trouble understanding why any pilots should be able to exercise the privileges of their license without a medical of some sort. If the standards are unnecessarily strict for private pilots, then change the standards, but don't eliminate the medical altogether. What good can that bring?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
RAH is going to be cutting flying commitments through the first half of 2016: http://www.skywriteraviation.aero/2015/07/27/the-us-pilot-shortages-first-victim-republic-airways/ Sounds like Republic was expecting Delta to give up the ERJ flying next year, only to have DL extend them through 2021. Seph posted:Here's a video posted on airliners.net of a 777 landing in AMS during a storm: I paused it and it looks like they were using 36R (based upon a blurry runway sign visible at the very end of the video). So, let's see, a 60 degree crosswind at 55 knots if memory serves gives a crosswind component of gently caress That poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
The only reason that medicals exist is because licenses were issued through the military (which gave medicals). People that are opposed to a 3rd class medical exemption typically mention safety, but they never bring up the fact that the sport pilot license that requires no medical has EVER had a medical related accident / crash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'll admit, I have a significant amount of trouble understanding why any pilots should be able to exercise the privileges of their license without a medical of some sort. If the standards are unnecessarily strict for private pilots, then change the standards, but don't eliminate the medical altogether. What good can that bring? The gently caress? Have you read ANY of this thread? The FAA is a bureaucracy that is stagnant, and resistant to change, incredibly inconsistent, and uncaring about its population. This 3rd class medical exemption dates back to at least the 1980s. My own father isn't able to fly anymore because he was in a car wreck which caused him to have a stroke. He never could get his medical back after spending 10,000 dollars to do so. Atop rated multi engine pilot with no career because of an FAA doctor. Can't even fly a single engine piston, which are the ULTIMATE death traps Amirite? No offense pt6a, but we're so close to some common sense regulations. Obviously I am personally affected. The Colonel can't fly his mooney either because of controlled atrial fibrillation. He won't take the medicine he needs because the FAA doesn't allow it, but it's an industry standard medication that will completely control his condition. I want to say when I hang up my flying goggles, not some loving fed doctor. Doctors are the naturally enemies of pilots. Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:The gently caress? Have you read ANY of this thread? The FAA is a bureaucracy that is stagnant, and resistant to change, incredibly inconsistent, and uncaring about its population. So, you agree that the problem is with unnecessarily rigid standards, and not the very concept of a medical examination itself? Good! Me too! If the problem is that aviation medical examination standards are excluding people who are actually medically fit to fly, the problem is with the standards, not with the fact that we require medical clearance for pilots. I agree that people with conditions that are well-controlled with medication, where the medication does not create its own issues interfering with one's fitness as a pilot, should be able to hold a medical. Possibly even a class 1. That doesn't render the very concept of a medical clearance nonsensical, it just means that the current standards are hosed. Maybe we're talking past each other since I'm only familiar with Canadian laws, and not very familiar at that. Perhaps the standards and exemptions are quite different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Sorry dude I don't need a doctor every 5 years telling me I'm good to fly I make that decision every day and I know myself and present condition better than the doctor Why didn't you address the light sport license I just brought up? Not a single medical related crash. Medical a can go away now thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
“This amendment will help ensure the future sustainability of our industry and its valuable contributions to the nation’s economy and transportation system,” said the letter, which was signed by representatives from AOPA, Allied Pilots Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, Flying Dentists Association, Flying Physicians Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Helicopter Association International, National Agricultural Aviation Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Air Transportation Association, National Business Aviation Association, and Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, you agree that the problem is with unnecessarily rigid standards, and not the very concept of a medical examination itself? Good! Me too! Yes you are "talking past each other" because Apollo is informed and personally affected by the regulations and you are in a different country with a lack of familiarity of your own regulations to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo. That's a fun little dance ALPA's making to avoid mentioning the sport pilot certificate which has allowed "medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace" for over a decade with no meaningful difference in the accident rate. Just the sport pilot can only fly up to 10k feet with a 2-seat plane at 120 knots. I'm sure the result of any midair between an Airbus 319 and an Ercoupe will be significantly different than with a Cherokee Six. fordan fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:RAH is going to be cutting flying commitments through the first half of 2016: http://www.skywriteraviation.aero/2015/07/27/the-us-pilot-shortages-first-victim-republic-airways/ Delta has an amusing policy of doing what everybody doesn't expect. Everybody is buying new 737s/A320s to replace "gas guzzling" DC-9 variants? We'll buy every last one! A bunch of airlines are getting rid of not that old 777s? Why the hell would we want those old pieces of crap, brand new A350s for every role! Start transitioning away from 40-50 seat CRJs/ERJs? Why would we ever want to finish that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 07:45
|
|