Pilot Lands On Golf Course....Son Late To Tennis Lesson

[FLYTPAY]

This idiot landed his plane to get his son to his tennis lesson.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/golf.course.plane.2.668950.html

 

[snake020]

According to article, he was planning to take off again once delivering his son to his lesson.

And how did he intend to do that?

 

[phrogpilot73]

What a giant douche-nozzle. More of the entitlement/me, me, me that is beginning to piss me off nowadays. Yank his license forever, and rescind his airplane registration. Then charge him with a litany of crimes. He deserves it.

Funny, I remember in the OPNAV 3710 the prohibition against landing at places other than airfields (and what was required if you did), but I can't find it in the FAR's. My search skills are lacking today.

 

[Lawman]

And how did he intend to do that?

Avoid the sand traps?

 

[usmarinemike]

I don't really think the FARs prevent this, guys. Other than making sure you're not too close to structures or people, I don't think there's a problem except that it shows an excessive sense of entitlement and a lack of logical thought about risk and reward. Of course, he displayed a lack of that in having 10 children.

His plane was also properly equipped for an off field landing, except for leaking fuel, which seems to me to be just a technicality used to hammer this guy. I would have to also surmise that he makes unimproved landings often to have confidence to do this. Perhaps he even keeps the plane at his house, for we all know that the drive to the airport and preflight time takes a huge amount of time, which didn't seem to be a problem for this guy.

I'm not defending him. It's just that there are some details missing. Perhaps there should be some kind of Article 134 type of FAR for public douchebaggery.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I don't really think the FARs prevent this, guys. Other than making sure you're not too close to structures or people, I don't think there's a problem except that it shows an excessive sense of entitlement and a lack of logical thought about risk and reward.

Perhaps there should be some kind of Article 134 type of FAR for public douchebaggery.

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."

91.119:

"(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

That's the closest I can find thusfar. I'm sure there's more buried somewhere...

 

[nugget81]

I don't really think the FARs prevent this, guys. Other than making sure you're not too close to structures or people, I don't think there's a problem except that it shows an excessive sense of entitlement and a lack of logical thought about risk and reward.

I disagree. See specifically CFR 91.13 - Careless or Reckless Operation, and 91.119 (b)- Minimum Safe Altitudes over congested areas (which Lincolnshire is if you look it up on mapquest.) Personally, I think this was his last flight since the FAA isn't exactly nice about these types of things....

Edit: Damn, Phrog's FAR-fu is strong today!!

 

[xj220]

Those are the altitudes for cruising, but what about landing? I've come into plenty of civilian airports where I've been no more than a couple hundred feet over homes. Since he was landing, could he skirt those regs?

 

[phrogpilot73]

Edit: Damn, Phrog's FAR-fu is strong today!!

What can I say, I'm bored at work today. Here's where he landed on Google Earth. Please note how close he is to Class D airspace... He's under the floor of the Bravo at least. I'd be surprised if he ever flies again.

And if you're wondering where I got the google earth airspace thing, here's the link. It's outdated, but it is good for turning on and off B, C, etc... and visualizing. Might help a stud...

 

[Bugsmasher]

Usually local laws prohibit landings anywhere except public airports and private property with permission. I'm too lazy to look up the Cook county regulations, but I'll bet its there. Either way, he's definitely getting nailed on "careless and reckless", for good reason. He might fly again, but it'll be a long suspension.

Of course, with this guys entitlement attitude, it wouldn't surprise me if he just flew without a certificate.

 

[usmarinemike]

Thanks for the citations. I knew there would be support for a case against him. I just wanted you guys to do the searching instead of myself having to look it up.

With a good enough lawyer though...

 

[Scoob]

Definite below in headwork for not claiming the fuel leak caused him to land (or electrical gremlins, UFOs, "crew comfort condition No.2, etc...)...and oh look, there's the tennis court...while we're here, why don't you just run over to your lesson there, junior.

 

[larbear]

Who cares??? There are worse places to land than a golf course. People are such a bunch of overreacting pansy hypochondriacs.

 

[plc67]

The FAAs version of "conduct unbecoming" is "non compliance disposition." Had a Fed quote that to me when he didn't like the way I responded to a take off clearance. Told me there was nothing in the FARs that I could've been violated for but that's one of their phrases that casts a wide net. I'm sure they could work that verbage Into this guys enforcement package. Although I do consider golf courses a waste of good real estate.

 

[Schnugg]

Now if he was in a small helicopter....???