Landed on a Golf Course. Not an emergency.

On Mar 5, 6:44*pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:37 am, "Bob F." wrote:

This is what gives general aviation and bad name. *IMO anyone who pulls a
stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.

Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
since he was landing.

So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:37 am, "Bob F." wrote:

This is what gives general aviation and bad name. IMO anyone who pulls a
stunt like this should have their ticket revoked, permanently.

Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
since he was landing.

So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13: " (a) Aircraft
operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another."

That one covers a multitude of sins....


Dan

On Mar 5, 7:02*pm, Dan wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
since he was landing.

So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13:

Yup, I alluded to that one just above. Without knowing more detail,
though, I'm not sure if it was unsafe for him to land on an empty,
snow-covered fairway. If he'd phoned in advance and been given
permission by the owner, there might be no problem at all. He didn't,
but that's a tresspassing issue, not a FAR issue (unless I'm missing
something).

On Mar 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:02 pm, Dan wrote:



On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations (except
for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)? Obviously
the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't apply,
since he was landing.

So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13:

Yup, I alluded to that one just above. Without knowing more detail,
though, I'm not sure if it was unsafe for him to land on an empty,
snow-covered fairway. If he'd phoned in advance and been given
permission by the owner, there might be no problem at all. He didn't,
but that's a tresspassing issue, not a FAR issue (unless I'm missing
something).

Right.

Otherwise every bush plane should be scrapped.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 7:14 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:02 pm, Dan wrote:



On Mar 5, 6:55 pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:44 pm, Dan wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:37 pm, wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did he violate any aviation regulations
(except
for the recklessness catch-all, if the landing was unsafe)?
Obviously
the altitude and obstacle-clearance regulations in 91.119 don't
apply,
since he was landing.

So if he were quick witted enough, he would have said, "Gee, that
engine was running rough so I had to put it down..."

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.

You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13:

Yup, I alluded to that one just above. Without knowing more detail,
though, I'm not sure if it was unsafe for him to land on an empty,
snow-covered fairway. If he'd phoned in advance and been given
permission by the owner, there might be no problem at all. He didn't,
but that's a tresspassing issue, not a FAR issue (unless I'm missing
something).

Right.

Otherwise every bush plane should be scrapped.


I would think the even the owner is not the final authority. He may say ok,
but the city, township or county may also have some laws on the books about
operations within its boundaries.

--
BobF.

wrote in message
...

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.


As the story was reported no FAR was violated.

"Dan" wrote in message
...

You know the FAA is gonna slap him with 91.13: " (a) Aircraft
operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life
or property of another."


What other life or property was endangered?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...

Well sure, an emergency would have made the landing legal. But what I
was wondering is which FAR, if any, was violated by the landing given
the actual, non-emergency circumstances.


As the story was reported no FAR was violated.



Except, was he inside class D? Was he squawking 1200 mode C?

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

Except, was he inside class D? Was he squawking 1200 mode C?


The story didn't report those things.