Help From The EAA to Save FAR Part 103

[rwanttaja]

How about a strongly worded letter to the USHPA or the SHGA to get them to do their duty to correct these blatant, dangerous violations?

Have you written, and sent such a letter? Why in the world should EAA get involved in a ****** contest with other aviation groups? The groups should be beholden to their members, not other aviation entities.

EAA doesn't interject into these organizations membership, like EAA is not shoving its way between the FAA and Boeing regarding the 737 Max. Even though yes, it's all about SAFETY....

Your examples were more like parking tickets. Were any lives put at risk in your assertion of violations?

Certainly. One was operating without a transponder in airspace where a transponder was nominally required for his aircraft. The Cerritos crash LED to that requirement. The diabetic pilot was flying a 1,600-pound aircraft at ~150 MPH around a major metropolitan area.

The 103.23 violations, I assert, were dangerous to an un-calculable measure, to people, property and Part 103.

And they were documented, on video, in the pilot's own words and deeds.
See the difference?

Certainly, you got it right on the head: un-calculatable. There was a theoretical risk (like the friends I mentioned), but no actual accident or even near-accident. You can't tell me how likely an accident of this sort will be, and, given the circumstances, the actuality of a collision is extremely low.

Had this instance occurred in Class B airspace, the FAA might take notice... the public would be in danger. But the risk of mid-air collisions, ESPECIALLY AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT, is incredibly low.

I'm not surprised the FAA doesn't care.

I presume you informed the FAA about the video, yourself.

That's classified information at this time.

In other words, no. If doing so is a moral course you're pushing us to take, you should be proud to admit you've taken action.

Ironically, you could have lied and just said that you had. The fact that you equivocated, rather than state yes or no, is a pretty good sign that you didn't file your own complaint with the FAA.

What would be added by me giving them the same information?

The power of numbers.

Now THAT'S a real thigh-slapper.

This ain't "American Idol." A bunch of people (none of them actually WITNESSING the alleged violation) sending identical complaints based on the same Youtube video aren't going to affect what the FAA does here.

The first step to the FAA process will be to establish what penalties might be assessed. The FAA can suspend or cancel airman certificates relatively easily.

Not going to be the case, with a hang-glider operation. The FAA enforcement folks will need to go for the monetary fines. But that will trigger an increased level of due process. Just proving who "Vicarious Icarus" is likely to be expensive (note I said, PROVING, not knowing). The FAA is going to need to quantify the additional safety achieved through prosecution...and, as you say, the safety impact is "un-calculatable." Without a known near-miss, without an physical witness, without a quantifiable increase of safety to justify the expenditure, the FAA isn't going to care.

The FAA is used to going after specific N-Numbers, with aircraft logbooks and traceable ownership, and pilots with valuable certificates that can be held hostage to their own actions. The FAA enforcement process is less "American Idol" than "The Batchelorette" ... a bunch of whiny men, a bunch of exaggerated claims, and at the end, someone gets s***wed.

Ron Wanttaja