הכול
← Back to Squawk list
FAA: Stop That, It's Legal!
When feds bow to public opinion over the regs, something's wrong. (www.flyingmag.com) עוד...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
If either or both planes had been towing banners advertising bar specials or club acts, no one would have complained.
That's kind of like having a cop stop you and tell you that you were almost speeding!
LOL
It has been evident from all the Flt 370 coverage, just how little the general public knows about aviation in general.
True, but then why would they?
Remember the "scary" photo shoot over Manhattan?
I understand that what they were doing was perfectly legal. And as a pilot, I'm certainly not interested in losing any of my remaining rights. But it seems to me that a part that's missing from the story told here is the attitudes of the actual people involved -- we're hearing the story second-hand: FAA inspector calls Wayman, Wayman tells Goyer, Goyer gets "mad" and writes a blog entry.
If an inspector called me and said, "hey, I'm sorry to bother you, and I know you weren't breaking any laws, but we had a 'concerned citizen' call and report your flight as frightening," I certainly wouldn't be "mad" about it. I'd thank him, explain what I was doing, and if what I was doing wasn't for any really good reason (yes, a nice photo would be a "good reason"), I'd avoid doing it again.
From my point of view, there's certainly no good to come of alarming the public -- even allegedly stupid members of it -- by flying in some manner that's seen as provocative, especially if it wasn't necessary.
I wouldn't get on my high horse and tell him that I'm legal, dammit, and I'm angry he even said anything. That's just absurd and counter-productive.
Obviously, if the inspector had an attitude about it -- if he actually demanded right off the bat that I stop doing something that's perfectly legal, rather than just notifying me and asking questions -- then I could see getting upset. But the article as written just doesn't contain enough information to tell how the principals in that conversation actually behaved.
So, I have a hard time getting upset about it.
I understand that what they were doing was perfectly legal. And as a pilot, I'm certainly not interested in losing any of my remaining rights. But it seems to me that a part that's missing from the story told here is the attitudes of the actual people involved -- we're hearing the story second-hand: FAA inspector calls Wayman, Wayman tells Goyer, Goyer gets "mad" and writes a blog entry.
If an inspector called me and said, "hey, I'm sorry to bother you, and I know you weren't breaking any laws, but we had a 'concerned citizen' call and report your flight as frightening," I certainly wouldn't be "mad" about it. I'd thank him, explain what I was doing, and if what I was doing wasn't for any really good reason (yes, a nice photo would be a "good reason"), I'd avoid doing it again.
From my point of view, there's certainly no good to come of alarming the public -- even allegedly stupid members of it -- by flying in some manner that's seen as provocative, especially if it wasn't necessary.
I wouldn't get on my high horse and tell him that I'm legal, dammit, and I'm angry he even said anything. That's just absurd and counter-productive.
Obviously, if the inspector had an attitude about it -- if he actually demanded right off the bat that I stop doing something that's perfectly legal, rather than just notifying me and asking questions -- then I could see getting upset. But the article as written just doesn't contain enough information to tell how the principals in that conversation actually behaved.
So, I have a hard time getting upset about it.