Has anyone noticed that ALL of these latest postings are on the Group Website ONLY from Captain Jim?
Jim is only REPLYING Publicly on this Group to Bruce's PRIVATE conversations with him, as the "Moderator"/CENSORS on this Group do NOT allow Bruce's postings to appear on the Website.
This message is also being sent DIRECTLY to "The Flying Wino" and BRUCE as Gary will Censor it to the group, as long as he's on the "Nutso pills".
CENSORSHIP is an egregious act...that's the TRUTH!
Barnaby
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Bair" <jimbair@...> wrote:
>
> The problem I see with looking at it your way is that many people would be
> afraid to declare an emergency when they should. That is exactly the
> opposite of the intent of FAR 91.3. It specifically says, "Don't worry
> about the normal rules, this rule trumps all those." It's not a moot and
> boring subject in my opinion, but a very important one. I was a new Private
> Pilot one day a long time ago, and I was terrified of towers, rules, etc. I'm
> sure many know what I mean. I had a guy tell me that when I called for a
> weather brief, I should use a fake N number. LOL. Now I realize that's my
> proof I received a briefing, as required by the rules. Why? Because it's a
> pretty good idea to get a weather brief if you're going somewhere. I may be
> wrong, but it just feels like you're making this harder than it needs to be.
> I don't see anywhere that it says you should wreck your airplane in power
> lines because that's the rule. You're reading too much into this stuff.
>
> Jim B.
>
> From: b d
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:20 PM
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: IFR Training and IFR
> Rating for Sport Pilots
>
> As my grand kids would say . . . What Everrrrrrrrrrrrrr . . . .
>
> You fly follow your rules and I'll fly my plane . . . . we'll all be happy
> that way.
>
> This has become a moot and boring subject . . . . It does explain why
> different pilots do different things under the same conditions. If you wish
> to ignore it then please do. I'm not trying to change your mind I'm just
> making my point. Take it or leave it.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Jim Bair <jimbair@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Rules are designed for
> normal operations. Any game is played better with rules. If you don't
> think so, compare driving in the US with some Latin American countries where
> it comes to a gridlock because no one follows simple rules. What this FAR
> is trying to tell you is, you are expected to have priority and cut in line.
> That's the rule once you have an emergency.
>
> You are focusing on the "upon the request of the Administrator, "send a
> written report of that deviation to the Administrator". while failing to
> note the "upon the request of" part. Yes, people may inquire as to why you
> asked to cut to the front of the line. Sometimes paperwork is requested to
> help build a database to highlight problems. We hit a bird on final the
> other day and didn't know it. Maintenance called us on the way to the hotel
> to ask about it. We did see the bird, but didn't realize it went through
> the number 3 engine at the time. So, some paperwork was filled out. Big
> deal. If you are in the pattern at some class D field and say, "Hey tower,
> my engine just started running rough. I need to land now. I am declaring
> an emergency." Those are the magic words that clear everyone out of your
> way. In that case, I would be surprised if you even had to send a letter to
> the administrator. On the other hand, if the emergency was of your own
> making, and let's say the airfield was closed to other traffic for even 15
> minutes while you're getting talked out of the cloud you inadvertently found
> yourself in just a few minutes after dark, and a 747 was holding at the IAF
> burning 20,000# per hour, yeah, someone might question why you cut to the
> front of the line.
>
> Your example using Sully as your poster child of a rule breaker and the
> whole honorable rule breaker thing is just plain wrong. Turn it around and
> realize that Sully followed the rules perfectly. Rule 1 being, an emergency
> makes all other rules null and void. Yes, normal procedures dictate we land
> on runways, and if you said, haha, he landed on water, therefore, he broke
> the rules, then the rest of the world would say, "Don't be an idiot. He had
> no engines. Normal procedures no longer apply, because this is no longer a
> normal situation."
>
> Jim B.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You answered your own question. In an emergency, rules may be broken. Get
> it? You may have to break some rules in an emergency and if so but you have
> broken the rules. Sully undoubtedly broke some rules . . . no big deal . . .
>
> (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b)
> of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, "send a
> written report of that deviation to the Administrator".
>
> After the emergency is over, after you have broken the rules, you may (c)
> . . . "send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator".
>
> What it does not go on to say is what happens next . . . there will
> probably be an investigation to determine what happened (you are still
> admittedly guilty of breaking the rules . . you admitted you did by filing a
> report and you asked for forgiveness from the administrator. He may forgive
> you or he may not. If he does forgive you, you have still broken the rules
> but have been forgiven . . .follow it so far? If he doesn't forgive you,
> you have still broken the rules and may have to pay a penalty. Either way,
> with no exceptions . . . you still broke the rules ! Get it? In this case
> Sully broke the rules and was forgiven and was even deemed a hero for
> "BREAKING THE RULES". He still broke the rules. Breaking the rules does not
> make a person a bad person. In this case Sully was a better person just
> because he broke the rules . . .
>
> Said yet another way: Had Sully not broken the rules he would have been
> an honorable rule follower as is the fellow who landed on the power lines
> because he could not deviate from the damned rules! Now he was an idiot
> with a wrecked plane but he was an honorable rule following idiot with a
> wrecked plane . . . The question is, which do you want to be?
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Jim Bair <jimbair@...> wrote:
>
> Good grief people,
> This has gotten totally out of control. I asked earlier exactly what
> rule Sully broke, and did not get one response. Then more posts came along
> stating in different words that Sully broke the rules. Let's take a look at
> the following link and READ IT CLOSELY. I don't type in caps much.
> Personally, I find it offensive, but this is no kidding an important concept
> that everyone should understand and all of you have given me some new stuff
> to include in my oral. Thank you for that. Seriously, I had no idea how
> many people have this misperception about emergency authority.
>
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFar.nsf/FARSBySectLookup/91.3
>
> Sec. 91.3
>
> Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
>
> (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and
> is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
> (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in
> command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to
> meet that emergency.
> (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b)
> of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written
> report of that deviation to the Administrator.
>
>
> Has everyone read it? Now, having read it, please tell me what rule
> Sully broke? "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the
> pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent
> required to meet that emergency." That is 91.3, the second FAR of part
> 91, and 91.1 is admin crap, making this practically the first FAR on
> operating rules, just to give a feel for it's importance! Given that, is it
> even possible for Sully to break a rule? I'm trying to figure out how he
> could. He would have to work damned hard at it. There is NO FINE to pay.
> He was a hero for doing exactly what he was supposed to do! (Fly the plane
> to the best landing possible.) When you have an emergency, everyone,
> including the FAA, expects you to use common sense and do whatever it takes
> to survive and to keep others alive as well. If you have an emergency, just
> about anything flying has to get out of your way, if it can. If you have an
> engine out at Kennedy Space Center and the shuttle is on final, you might
> want to give serious thought as to who you are competing with for the
> runway, but by and large, in most cases, you get the right of way. That's
> how the rules are written. So everyone who has made a post on this thread
> stating outright or implying that Sully broke rules, drop that thought. He
> did not. The reason it's important to drop that thought is if you ever have
> an emergency, you as the PIC have every right to do what it takes to
> survive. Does this mean you're allowed to be stupid? No. If the emergency
> was totally of your own making, you might want to make note of line c above.
> If you, as a Sport Pilot come spiraling out of the clouds over a Class D
> airport and land with no radio because you "had an emergency", you might be
> asked how this emergency developed. But if you have an engine showing low
> oil pressure, you can land at a Class D field even if you don't have a BCD
> endorsement and no one will fine you. I understand your paranoia. As a new
> Private Pilot, I would have been terrified to declare an emergency. It was
> later I realized that the controllers are actually on your side.
> Saving/helping people is what they live for. Yes, I know there are some
> crusty old assholes out there who are bored and tired of watching some
> trike, and a C-150, and some light sport experimental whatchmacallit beat
> around the pattern all afternoon and they bitch because your radio sucks,
> but the moment you say, "I have an emergency", I guarantee you are his
> number one priority.
>
> Jim B.
>
>
> From: b d
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:59 PM
> To: Jim Bair
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group IFR Training and IFR
> Rating for Sport Pilots
>
>
> Rule 1: It's illegal to kill ducks out of season or without an
> appropriate license and duck stamp.
> Rule 2: NEVER LAND A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER WITHOUT FLOATS, FULL OF
> PASSENGERS ON A RIVER WITHOUT THEIR WRITTEN APPROVAL.
> Rule 3: He busted his own flight plan.
> Rule 4: I'm sure there were many maritime rules, regulations and laws
> and codes that were busted.
>
> I'm not Sully was wrong in any shape or form. He was exactly right. He
> is my hero for being able to ignore the danged rules and do what he had to
> do which if "FLY THE PLANE AT ALL COSTS, IGNORE THE RULES and pay the fine
> later".
>
> The fellow that hit the power lines in the LSA broke the rules but still
> crashed. He should have broke the rules and landed safely.
> What rules did he break? It's illegal to hit power lines and/or disrupt
> power . . yahta yahta . . .
>
> Must we go on . . .?
>
> I think you folks are being way over sensitive to rules. Anytime one has
> an emergency, all rules become invalid and survival becomes paramount.
>
> OK these are just my rules, you guys should follow the rules to keep the
> rest of us safe from you. LOL
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Jim Bair <jimbair@...> wrote:
>
>
> 61.65 first paragraph says Private Pilot is minimum rating. Knowledge
> of an IFR rating, absolutely. Just can't take the checkride.
>
> What rule did Sully break? I don't know of any? What are you
> referring to?
>
> Jim B.
>
> From: b d
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group IFR Training and IFR
> Rating for Sport Pilots
>
>
>
> What would prevent any Sport Pilot from gaining a IFR Rating or the
> knowledge of an IFR rating? Yes that would certainly help anyone. I don't
> see anything preventing a person from doing that if he has the money, the
> time, and the ability. Does anyone know something I don't know here? There
> is no one keeping me from doing it that I know of. I myself have IFR
> knowledge just in case although I prefer nice sunny days. One does not need
> to be certified to have knowledge and certainly certification shouldn't
> limit one either from using that knowledge. I'm always amazed at how certain
> people can always be so rule bound. It's good Sully wasn't.
>
> Bruce
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment