Pilot broke rules when he buzzed Downtown

[Stearmann4]

Why in the hell would people be panicked about the sound of a jet over the city? He wasn't at 100' AGL, and the last time I checked, even the common mouth breather hasn't heard on CNN about a rash of Hajii-crewed Sukois' swooping over America's population centers. They make it sound like the equivelant of Japanese mini-subs in Coronado Bay for Pete's sake!

I agree the LT Gov. should profusely apologize for his citizen's conduct. However, I'm sure behinmd closed doors his retort went something like this; "I I specifically told him his excessive speed and low altitude would alarm the citizens of this great state. He then proceeded with vigor the break the regulations the FAA has emplaced to protect human life and property."

 

[Gatordev]

Can the FAA really do anything to the F-16 pilot if they tried? If he had civilian certificates, could they revoke them? Could they fine him? How does this play into military pilots overall?

Don't know about the AF, but for the Navy, the only guy who can violate you is the CNO, so the FAA would have to petition the Navy for the violation. HOWEVER, if you do hold FAA certificates, I believe they can still go after you. Not necessarily for a violation, but as far as pulling said paperwork if the act warranted it.

 

[Brett327]

I just reread the story and it seems clear that the only reason that this "incident" made the news is because a politician was aboard. Here we are (as usual) trying to draw conclusions based on the typically horrendous aviation media coverage we constantly lament here on AW. :sleep_125

Brett

 

[nittany03]

Don't know about the AF, but for the Navy, the only guy who can violate you is the CNO, so the FAA would have to petition the Navy for the violation. HOWEVER, if you do hold FAA certificates, I believe they can still go after you. Not necessarily for a violation, but as far as pulling said paperwork if the act warranted it.

I remember getting a brief on this at a safety standaround in Primary, but those of you in TRACOM IP land might have a better handle on it. The gist, apparently, was that this is one reason why we don't give out names or personal phone numbers when filing with an FSS away from the Navy Base Ops system. In other words, the FAA then does not have an official record of who the PIC is and thus cannot go after civilian certificates.

If I remember what the FAA guy said (this was a couple years ago), it was that this in effect keeps both the FAA and Big Navy from being able to fry a guy over the same incident. And the reason the FAA allows it is because they delegate authority to the military to discipline its own.

 

[Recovering LSO]

While these rules apply specifically to Naval Aviators (OPNAV 3710.T), I'm sure there is a comparable Air Force Pub.​

5.1.3 Unusual Maneuvers Within Class B, C, or
D Airspace. Pilots shall not perform or request
clearance to perform unusual maneuvers within class B,
C, or D airspace if such maneuvers are not essential to
the performance of the flight. ATC personnel are not
permitted to approve a pilot’s request or ask a pilot to
perform such maneuvers. Unusual maneuvers include
unnecessary low passes, unscheduled fly-bys, climbs at
very steep angles, practice approaches to altitudes
below specific minimums (unless a landing is to be
made), or any so-called flat hatting wherein a flight is
conducted at a low altitude and/or a high rate of speed
for thrill purposes.​

5.5.1.6 Flat Hatting.

Flat hatting or any maneuvers

conducted at low altitude and/or a high rate of
speed for thrill purposes over land or water are
prohibited.​

​

​

​

 

[HAL Pilot]

Don't know about the AF, but for the Navy, the only guy who can violate you is the CNO, so the FAA would have to petition the Navy for the violation. HOWEVER, if you do hold FAA certificates, I believe they can still go after you. Not necessarily for a violation, but as far as pulling said paperwork if the act warranted it.

Seeing as I was MC for a flight which received over 200 violations off Long Beach while doing a ISAR test around 1987-1988, I feel a little qualified to address this point....

The FAA is supposed to forward any violations for the military to the appropriate service. The service then is supposed to investigate the matter. If the service decides the violation was due to operational necessity, the service takes the violation. A component in the chain of command can accept the violation. If the service decides the violation was due to negligence or not required as part of the mission, it can assign the violation to the aircraft commander and/or mission commander. The service then decides what action to take against the individuals and their military flying status. If the service assigns the violation to the crew, it may or may not release the name(s) of those involved to the FAA. If the service releases the names of the crew, then the FAA can take action against any FAA certificates they hold.

In my case the violations were reported to the appropriate CNO staff office and forwarded down the chain to AIRPAC and then CPWP. CPWP took on the violations and it ended there. However I will say my case was pretty unique in that we knew we were going to get the violations before we even took off.

We were conducting a test of ISAR (it was new then...) against ships and shore based targets off Long Beach. We had ships at anchor, ships underway, ships next to the pier and objects on the pier and slightly inland. It was a test that supposedly cost close to $20 million to set up and conduct. It had been in the works for over a year and required extensive coordination. We had air space reservations with the FAA which they canceled about an hour before we were scheduled to take off. Due to the winds, they said they needed the airspace for the airline approaches into LAX. Rescheduling the test would cost huge bucks and take months so our Admiral (Commander Patrol Wings Pacific -CPWP) told AIRPAC he was going to launch it anyway. AIRPAC concurred and off we went. We said Due Regard and MARSA to ATC and ignored their vectors out of the airspace. We were flying a 20 mile racetrack with the south end violating the Class B (TCA back then) and their approach corridors. Every lap - "Navy RCXX turn right heading XXX...Approach, Navy RCXX can not comply, we are due regard and MARSA at this time....Navy RCXXX you're violated......Approach, Navy RCXXX roger..." There was also a whole lot of off colored remarks thrown our way by the airlines as they were vectored, held and delayed but our little operation......

I don't know if it is still a point discussed during annual instrument ground school but they used to emphasize that if ATC ever asks your name you don't give it. You only give your aircraft call sign and said to forward any questions to AIRPAC or AIRLANT (it might have been the type commander?). If ATC gives you a phone number and asks that you call, you are supposed to not call and report it up your chain of command for action. It was also part of the training for SDOs, etc not to give out aircrew names. Base Ops is not supposed to give out the names either and military flight plans filed with the FAA are not supposed to include PIC names. At least this was the way it was taught during my last Navy instrument ground school in 1996. I don't know if it has changed.

Military and government pilots (to include the local PD helos) are supposed to observe FARs to the maximum extent possible but under federal law they can deviate when required. That is why flight violations are supposed to go to the service for investigation and assignment.

Edit: I just saw that while I was typing my book, Nittany said the same thing about not giving names.

 

[nittany03]

Slight threadjack . . . I've heard the term "Due Regard" mentioned by several VP types, but what exactly is it?

 

[Recovering LSO]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_12_60/ai_n9483721


Was going to just cut and paste but its fairly lengthy.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Due Regard basically means that we can not comply with the ATC rules and will operate with "due regard" for the safety of other aircraft.

On the mission I mentioned, we did not meet all the criteria for Due Regard but we did it anyway. The biggest thing we lacked criteria-wise was that we technically were not in international airspace although we were more than 12 miles offshore.

Here is a pretty good link describing Due Regard: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_12_60/ai_n9483721

 

[Recovering LSO]

While these rules apply specifically to Naval Aviators (OPNAV 3710.T), I'm sure there is a comparable Air Force Pub.​

You should teach IGS...

Strange you would say that

 

[kmac]

Due Regard basically means that we can not comply with the ATC rules and will operate with "due regard" for the safety of other aircraft.

Continuing this threadjack with my own story...
We were flying out of Brunei with the Sultan's brother (Prince somebody) when the Malaysian ATC started giving us fits with out clearance. Even though the proper dip clearances had been made, the moment we tried to launch out of Brunei we kept getting the cold shoulder. We weren't talking directly with the Malaysians, since we were still on the ground in Brunei. Finally, after about 20 minutes the Bruneins were able to grant us takeoff (We had tried to takeoff VFR but they wouldn't allow that even). So now we're trying to stretch out fuel and at the same time make it to the ship as per our overhead time (DVs were late as usual). Once airborne we were switched to the Malaysian controllers who would absolutely not let us fly through their "airspace" enroute to the ship (mind you it was a straight shot off the coast). We were given holding instructions and told to standbye. I had my copilot make one turn while I pimped the controllers for a response. I was actually surprised to hear "Passwoood xx, return to Brunei and land there. You are not cleared through our airspace" (or something to that effect). We were already approaching 20 miles off the coast so at this point I declared "due regard" and proceeded out to the ship. They kept on telling us to come back, and so I changed frequencies. Besides, we were getting close to bingo and I kept a constant fuel ladder. As it was, we were bingo on the ball. Thank goodness my copilot flew a nice pass and got us aboard. I would have hated to fly BACK through their airspace to land in Brunei after basically telling them to F-off. The DVs made it and the boat was happy. End of story.

 

[raptor10]

reminds me of that Youthly Puresome article from the hook

The Long Green Table (Almost)

http://www.tailhook.org/Fa06YTH.htm

Editor's comment: you missed this notice on main page:

The Hook magazine is published quarterly by the Tailhook Association.
Views expressed in The Hook are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Tailhook Association or the United States Navy. Printed in the USA. Bulk-rate postage paid at San Diego, California. Copyright ©2005 by the Tailhook Association. All rights are reserved.

That means you cannot lift their material from their website or magazine without express permission. You can link to it or summarize the text you want to share.

 

[Gatordev]

Interesting stuff, HAL, thanks for explaining that out. I hadn't heard Nitt's exact reasoning before, but the whole "don't give the name to ATC" is always a no brainer. What I hadn't heard before was them not asking PIC's name. That makes sense and would explain why sometimes FSS asks and sometimes they just want "Based out of..." Since I started flying on the civilian side long before the Navy (back when they had your TCAs), I always expected to give my name when filing as military, since that's what was done on the civilian side.

I'll have to incorporate that into cross-country training, especially for Texas. For a state that's supposed to be friendly, they certainly have some uncompromising controllers.

 

[Sly1978]

Don't know about the AF, but for the Navy, the only guy who can violate you is the CNO...

I'd just as soon not be violated by anyone, thanks.

 

[Gatordev]

Well played.