FAA just turns a blind eye, or so I guess!

[nosehair]

Your whole logic and reasoning is hinged on the concept that you must climb to 1000' immediately because of 91.119, but you are overlooking the beginning sentence; "Except when necessary for take-off and landing..."

I routinely take-off and level off at 700' until, a) getting ifr clearance, b) getting outside of the magenta ring where class g goes to 1200'.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Your whole logic and reasoning is hinged on the concept that you must climb to 1000' immediately because of 91.119, but you are overlooking the beginning sentence; "Except when necessary for take-off and landing..."

I routinely take-off and level off at 700' until, a) getting ifr clearance, b) getting outside of the magenta ring where class g goes to 1200'.

Nosehair:

Everything you have said is true. While I realize and consider the "Except when necessary for take-off and landing..." part, but if the person is VFR only and considering that they can not be in the "Takeoff phase" for more than a few miles, then it is necessary to be in "cruise" soon after takeoff, where in this case the magenta 700 foot floor is a factor for quite a while out of MDW.

My question is this: Does anyone know of or even ever heard of anyone who has ever been busted for such as situation? I don't. So I guess that while there must be an infraction for too low over a congested area or too close to clouds, the FAA just chooses to turn a blind eye for whatever reason. And that is fine with me because it would be difficult to prove one way or the other regarding the part about being too close (500' below) to clouds or far enough below.

Comments..

 

[Princedietrich]

You have obviously not dealt with government authorities very often, especially the FAA where enforcement of minor discrepancies is just as important as it is for anything else.

If you had any idea just how wrong that statement is.... well, I'll leave it at that.

And my apologies for misreading your inital rant. I'd thought you said floor of class C, not floor of controlled. My mistake.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

If you had any idea just how wrong that statement is.... well, I'll leave it at that.

The IRS, DOJ, FAA and all government authorities have an obligation to pursue violations of regulations, major and minor. The minor violations may be processed by minimum action as they should be. But there is an action just the same. Some, such as failing to sign a certificate, are processed on the spot by having the airman sign it on site. All the same, that is an action.

"Praise the Administrator"

 

[Princedietrich]

I'm guessing that a fed spurned you or a close colleague at some point in the past?

Here's what happens in the majority of FAA "violations." Most of the time, the enforcing inspector is notified by way of an ATC deviation report which gets filled out if someone busts a clearance or clips some airspace or if the "snitch" goes off. The inspector reads the report, if the guy who filled it out has legible handwriting, and 9 times out of 10 will say something along the lines of "sheesh, I'm not violating him for something THAT stupid!" The inspector will the draw up a response to the deviation report and will in all probability do what they call "snapping it." Ever hear of that ticket program that AOPA and NBAA and everyone else decried as the worst idea ever? Well, actually it's a way to streamline the process and make it go quicker and easier for all involved. The inspector will check one of two boxes on the form, either for "no action" or for "warning notice," neither of which is going to be a dealbuster by anyone's standards. The form gets submitted and the computer does the rest.

Total elapsed time: about 30 minutes, depending on whether or not the guy knows how to type.

The point being, yes you're right that there will be action taken but it is because a deviation got put into the system and there is a REQUIREMENT to answer it in one way or another.

My source: I've got a few friends who are inspectors. Plus the POI for my former employer was very easy to work with and explained how the system "really works."

You also tagged on my remark about the "small stuff" being irrelevant. That was a direct quote from an FAA attourney who works for Eastern Region, one of my buddies heard this little gem during his training. I just wish I could get my hands on the actual legal term in latin.

Now, why don't we switch to debating over something that's REALLY important to a pilot: whether IPA or stout is a better beer.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

:beer:

I'm guessing that a fed spurned you or a close colleague at some point in the past?

Here's what happens in the majority of FAA "violations." Most of the time, the enforcing inspector is notified by way of an ATC deviation report which gets filled out if someone busts a clearance or clips some airspace or if the "snitch" goes off. The inspector reads the report, if the guy who filled it out has legible handwriting, and 9 times out of 10 will say something along the lines of "sheesh, I'm not violating him for something THAT stupid!" The inspector will the draw up a response to the deviation report and will in all probability do what they call "snapping it." Ever hear of that ticket program that AOPA and NBAA and everyone else decried as the worst idea ever? Well, actually it's a way to streamline the process and make it go quicker and easier for all involved. The inspector will check one of two boxes on the form, either for "no action" or for "warning notice," neither of which is going to be a dealbuster by anyone's standards. The form gets submitted and the computer does the rest.

Total elapsed time: about 30 minutes, depending on whether or not the guy knows how to type.

The point being, yes you're right that there will be action taken but it is because a deviation got put into the system and there is a REQUIREMENT to answer it in one way or another.

My source: I've got a few friends who are inspectors. Plus the POI for my former employer was very easy to work with and explained how the system "really works."

You also tagged on my remark about the "small stuff" being irrelevant. That was a direct quote from an FAA attourney who works for Eastern Region, one of my buddies heard this little gem during his training. I just wish I could get my hands on the actual legal term in latin.

Now, why don't we switch to debating over something that's REALLY important to a pilot: whether IPA or stout is a better beer.

Thanks for your reply and explaination.

 

[de Pez]

De minimis non curat lex - The law does not concern itself with trifles

 

[Princedietrich]

De minimis non curat lex - The law does not concern itself with trifles

AH, that's it! Thanks!


Ok so which is it Undaunted? IPA or stout? Personally, I'm a stout drinker myself but I'm always open to new brew.
:beer:

 

[nosehair]

This is also why the FAA isn't in any hurry to correct such 'trifles' as 'logging PIC' when you're not the PIC, and exactly when a night landing is a night landing or how you re-do a student x/c sign-off when the student diverts to an unintended airport or...on and on and on. These are 'trifles' that would never, in and of themselves, become violations. They can become added violations when related to a more serious violation.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Everything we are all saying is true. But just the same, some small things are a big deal while others are not. Here, in the case of MDW, departing with 1000 & 3 is evidently not worth going after a pilot even though it is clear that the pilot was either too low or too close to clouds. Small things can be career ending while others are not.

I know of a you man who was 17 years old when he was stopped while driving and he said he had had one beer. In Illinois there is a zero tolerence rule for underage drinking and driving. He tested .03 which is so low it's still legal to fly an airplane. In any event he was arrested because he said he had had a beer. In the end he was given some kind of community service and told his record was clean, or so they thought.

A few years later he started taking flying lessons and got his Private Pilot certificate. On the medical application he answered the question about DUI's in a way that he though was correct and truthful since the state had said it wasn't really a DUI. However, when the FAA later saw an (unreported) alcohol related motor vehicle action (no matter the circumstances) that was all it took for the full force of the FAA to revoke his certificate and totally ruin any possibility of a career in aviation as a pilot.

This is a case of using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. And while they were at it, distroy the career of a nice young man who never did anything much different than most any of us may have in the same situation. In this case he misunerstood the importance of asking for a clarification of just what the situation was regarding his previous incident. He was also guilty of being too honest and truthful with the police who stopped him and too trusting of the authorities who processed his situation. His reward was a distroyed life if aviation was his interest.

I am also aware of a recent incident of a pilot who had reset a C/B on a Falcon (while on ground) to fix a problem, an unwanted transfer of fuel. The flight then departed. Next day the FAA was all over the pilot for this and said they were going to proceed with a violation that may result in certificate action. He later mentioned that he was an A&P too and that stopped the impending train wreck for this small incident. If he wasn't an A&P he would be in big trouble for something small that has probably been done by every pilot from time to time to fix an obvious problem, except in most peoples case it was worse because most pilots just reset the C/B in flight and that's the end of it. In this case, it was different because they landed enroute (as they should) because of the problem, the FAA was then aware and wanted answers as to how the airplane was fixed and returned to service (a serious item with the airworthiness group). Again, small things can be threating to a person's career depending on many varriables.