全部
← Back to Squawk list
Pilot spots theft at own house while flying plane
Pilot flies over his house and spots burgler and tracts suspect until police arrive (www.heraldtribune.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Some people see what is our schedule ,we need too Have a selve defence to avoid that.
Too bad those planes don't have 20mm guns on them.LOL..
Ok everybody,relax. It's a JOKE
Ok everybody,relax. It's a JOKE
Interesting story, but the word is not "tracts," rather "tracks."
Sorry for the poor grammar. I was on my I-Pad and it auto-corrected the text and I didn't catch it. Modern technology makes us smarter doesn't it :-)
It "ain't" the grammar. It's the assumptions built into the predictive algorithms of the spell check subroutines in the ipad.
"To err is human, to really #!%}*+# things up take a computer"
(composed on an ipad2, not a Pickett N-500-ES)
"To err is human, to really #!%}*+# things up take a computer"
(composed on an ipad2, not a Pickett N-500-ES)
The sad thing is -- this guy will probably lose his license for a while..... (Or, if the stars align and the FSDO is kind and gentle, maybe the enforcement decision tool will yield a result like a little counseling and a slap on the wrist? Fingers are crossed.
Though to the lay man, everything he did seemed to be pretty reasonable for a homeowner watching someone stealing from his home, unless he can prove he was in the process of landing or taking off, which he pretty much publicly stated he wasn't (he admitted that he buzzed his house at 300 feet and there was no airport nearby), this poor guy admitted to the whole world he violated FAR 91.119, particularly sections (a) and either (b) or (c), Minimum Safe Altitudes. And, of course, don't forget the ubiquitous 91.13, Careless and Reckless.....
=====
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Though to the lay man, everything he did seemed to be pretty reasonable for a homeowner watching someone stealing from his home, unless he can prove he was in the process of landing or taking off, which he pretty much publicly stated he wasn't (he admitted that he buzzed his house at 300 feet and there was no airport nearby), this poor guy admitted to the whole world he violated FAR 91.119, particularly sections (a) and either (b) or (c), Minimum Safe Altitudes. And, of course, don't forget the ubiquitous 91.13, Careless and Reckless.....
=====
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Yup, probably was a slow day at the local FSDO until they caught wind of this. Minimum altitudes, not in the vicinity of an airport, while not landing or taking off, 1000' minimum over any structures within a 2000' radius, etc., etc.
I can understand the thrill of the chase. I can fully understand a property owner catching someone in the act against their 'stuff'. However, rules are rules.
Now, presuming he was actually 300' AGL, and **if** the FAA decided to investigate/prosecute, it is up to them to determine what altitude the pilot was at and what FARs were broken.
What this pilot could have done, if he was really smart, if there was a low altitude bust he should have filed an ASRS and claimed that in the 'excitement of the chase', he might have descended below minimum altitudes, but as soon as the error was realized, he resumed correct altitudes. It was inadvertent, not planned, and corrected. So he could escape certificate actions if there were any in the works, although I suspect what would really happen is the FSDO will let this drop after a nice chat with a GA inspector.
I can understand the thrill of the chase. I can fully understand a property owner catching someone in the act against their 'stuff'. However, rules are rules.
Now, presuming he was actually 300' AGL, and **if** the FAA decided to investigate/prosecute, it is up to them to determine what altitude the pilot was at and what FARs were broken.
What this pilot could have done, if he was really smart, if there was a low altitude bust he should have filed an ASRS and claimed that in the 'excitement of the chase', he might have descended below minimum altitudes, but as soon as the error was realized, he resumed correct altitudes. It was inadvertent, not planned, and corrected. So he could escape certificate actions if there were any in the works, although I suspect what would really happen is the FSDO will let this drop after a nice chat with a GA inspector.
Great thinking! Just in case he wasn't aware (and he wasn't!), I just called Mr. Zehntner and told him about the ASRS program. He'll be filing a form. We also chatted all about FAR 91.119 and reviewed his feelings that he was at all times in compliance with it. Reviewing a map of the area, he's got a pretty decent case.... We were glad to have chatted and he'll be glad to have the form in his back pocket, just in case....
Someone's thinking! The article indicate the infraction occurred on the 30th. He has 10 days.