Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

[SCEPTER]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

AirDOGGe,


AOPA has never (to my knowledge) made a civil rights argument. Instead, it's more of the "go-along-to-get-along" attitude that results in a gradual, or incremental, degradation of our rights.

And to that, I strongly object.

Chris

Flying is a privilege not a right. If you act stupid on a Southwest flight, they can and will kick you off the airplane. If you drink and drive you will lose your license. If you repeatedly buzz the Santa monica pier you will lose your ticket. Thankfully this so called pilot did not crash into the pier.

[FlyKidChris]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Flying is a privilege not a right. If you act stupid on a Southwest flight, they can and will kick you off the airplane. If you drink and drive you will lose your license. If you repeatedly buzz the Santa monica pier you will lose your ticket. Thankfully this so called pilot did not crash into the pier.

You missed my point, or I'm doing a poor job of making it.

Please answer this question; do you have the right to travel?

Your examples above are off-point and perhaps specious. If you act stupid on a flight, you may be endangering the flight. You do not have the right to endanger someone else. Same for drunk driving. I agree that buzzing the pier was stupid and in violation of F.A.R.s, but that's not germane to the argument I'm trying to make.

Do you have the right to travel? You may chose to forfeit that right, but I resent it whenever anyone tries to surrender or reduce my rights. I think it's past time that we consider just how much our civil rights are being violated. Please don't surrender my civil rights, I would not surrender yours.

Do we have the right to travel? Or do I need to show my "papers", mein Herr?

[Pylon1_Mark]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Chris - it's never been about your individual rights. It's about what is in the best interest of public safety. I was an air traffic controller for many years... subject to random drug testing as you well know. Does it violate my civil rights to have to prove I am innocent without any due process by having to subimt to drug test without having any "probable cause" to do so? Yes - but it was and is in the best intest of the flying public and therefore, the public at large. I had/have no problem with people sacrificing some of thier civil liberties in the interest of "the big picture" since I had to do just that during my carreer.

Now when the public percieves that WWII and other high-performance aircraft represent a risk to them - that will set the ball in motion.... just like it has. Reguardless of the merits, there are always extremeists that will use this incident to forward thier own personal adgenda.

It's just the way life is - hopefully calm, rational heads will prevail (they do more often then not) so there remains some hope for the future.

[FlyKidChris]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Mark,

Great reply, thanks.

Like you, I'm also subject to random drug testing. IIRC, the Supreme Court found that it wasn't a violation of individual civil rights. I disagree, obviously. In a later case - regarding random drug testing for Congressional staff - the Supreme Court held that their individual rights were being violated.

My point is that the civil rights aspect is not being pursued. Time and time again, the aviation community has "made nice" and given up a little freedom. The L-39 pilot in this incident has provided a lightning rod to those who wish to diminish our rights.

While we don't have the right to endanger anyone - as this fool did - this incident will be used to take away the rights of others not involved in any way.

My prediction is that the aviation community will once again lose a little ground, while a means of holding ground (by defending civil rights) will not be used.

Why is the aviation community afraid to make that argument?

Chris

[SCEPTER]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Do we have the right to travel? Or do I need to show my "papers", mein Herr?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Chris. It just really bugs me that some of the posts on this thread seem to justify what this pilot did. And make fun of those who ran in fear. Airplanes will always be treated differently because half of the general public is afraid of them. So to answer question, Yes you are allowed to fly across the country. As long as you follow the rules. Flying is not a right. Papers? They are in my logbook. Hopefully the only time I have to show them to a FAA person is when I add a rating.

[wyhdah]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

It appears some, not saying you SCEPTER this post just happens to be after yours, have confused healthy debate of the rules (REGs) as approval of the act. I don't believe anyone on here can find where I said it was a good idea or publically acceptable. The discussion was on legality and some would apply the FARS to conincide with their personal opinions. Others have chosen to continue with healthy point/counterpoint discussion which I think is the purpose of this board.

I think it is important to make the legal definition clear because we all know the FAA can stretch the REGs to their will. Not that that's right or wrong just sayin'....

[FlyKidChris]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Chris. It just really bugs me that some of the posts on this thread seem to justify what this pilot did. And make fun of those who ran in fear. Airplanes will always be treated differently because half of the general public is afraid of them. So to answer question, Yes you are allowed to fly across the country. As long as you follow the rules. Flying is not a right. Papers? They are in my logbook. Hopefully the only time I have to show them to a FAA person is when I add a rating.

SCEPTER,
Thanks for the reply. No, I'm not trying to pick a fight either, so I apologize for the harshness of my "tone."
I do think you know what I meant by "papers," though. If we don't stand our ground (protect our rights), then maybe someday we will need travel permits (i.e., "papers").
I still don't know if my point has been made. Should I try again?
Blue skies,
Chris
P.S. In my flying experience, I can think of several incidents where people with enough money to own and operate some expensive aircraft haven't had good common sense, the knowledge or the experience to operate them in a safe and legal manner. The buzzing of the pier at Santa Monica is just another example.

[Frank C.]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Flying is a privilege not a right. If you act stupid on a Southwest flight, they can and will kick you off the airplane. If you drink and drive you will lose your license. If you repeatedly buzz the Santa monica pier you will lose your ticket. Thankfully this so called pilot did not crash into the pier.

Glad to know someone has common sense. I totally agree with you.

Frank C.

[Frank C.]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

It appears some, not saying you SCEPTER this post just happens to be after yours, have confused healthy debate of the rules (REGs) as approval of the act. I don't believe anyone on here can find where I said it was a good idea or publically acceptable. The discussion was on legality and some would apply the FARS to conincide with their personal opinions. Others have chosen to continue with healthy point/counterpoint discussion which I think is the purpose of this board.

I think it is important to make the legal definition clear because we all know the FAA can stretch the REGs to their will. Not that that's right or wrong just sayin'....

My son is a helicopter pilot, flying Medical Evacuation birds. He says, yes, the FAA can be a little picky. But FARS is what it is. So this is not about Constitutional Rights.

Frank C.

[Frank C.]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Keep in mind that neither reputation nor experience prevent any pilot from making errors in judgment.

No pilot is so experienced that he is infallible.

I can list for you right off hand a half dozen well known, well respected, highly experienced pilots who are *dead* today *because* they exercised bad judgment in an airplane.

Amen!

Frank C.

[FlyKidChris]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

So this is not about Constitutional Rights.
Frank C.

Ah, but the impact of this buzz job might impact the constitutional rights of me, your son and all other pilots.

Should your son "pay" for something he didn't do? I certainly don't think so.

[wyhdah]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

My son is a helicopter pilot, flying Medical Evacuation birds. He says, yes, the FAA can be a little picky. But FARS is what it is. So this is not about Constitutional Rights.

Frank C.

And my contention was what is and what is not congested? If you are talking about safe landing areas as the FARs do then thats one thing, if you are talking about public perception it's another.

Asside from congestion the FARs read "safe operation" that's pretty open. There is nothing in there about frighting the public. That's another discussion.

[comancheflyer]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

On a happier note, I am still amazed how little general aviation has been impacted in a negative way since 9-11. Outside of a few more restricted and prohibited areas (especially around D.C.) it is just about as easy to fly from A to B as it always was. No mandatory flight plans, avoid flying over nuclear power plants, stadiums, Disneyland, etc. and adhere to the regulations in part 91 and everyone will be happy.

The only impact locally I have seen as of late is the special schooling and background checks that I had to submit to in order to receive my special ID badge that allows me to enter the airport property since it conducts 121 operations. Airports that don't have 121 operations don't require this from what I understand. I can live with this. What I do worry about is the proposed user fees that the airline industry and many in congress (including our president) are trying to impose on G.A. operations. I'm afraid that will make flying a hobby for only the affluent like it is in much or all of Europe. Lets all hope congress uses common sense when it comes time for that vote.

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

Wow! lotta posts since last night. Lemme reply to this one:

AirDOGGe,

Thanks for the reply.

I can remember a few times over the years, when a driver has lost control of a car and "plowed" through a crowd, sometimes with very tragic results. Was there a call to ban cars then?

No, but if I recall most of those cases, senior OLDER drivers in their late 70's or 80's were involved, and there was a cry to limit drivers licenses to the same. Many low-education or simply ill-informed people get crazy when things go wrong.

As an example, a woman recently died here when a guy running 2 huge dogs with his bike accidentally "clothes-lined" her in the back of the legs as he tried to pass. She hit her head and later passed away due to complications.

Immediately, the cry went out from some over-reacting folk that walking dogs with bikes should be banned entirely, citing examples of dog owners trying to run their small dogs too fast and dragging them behind the bikes as a result.

Silly, as I've been exercising my dogs via bike for the last decade with no issues. I just taught them early to run in front or alongside, and let the dog set the pace of the ride, instead of trying to make them keep up with me.

People will over-react no matter what the situation. Sometimes you just have to let it blow over in time and allow cooler heads to deal with the problem.

Yet here, regarding the buzzing of the Santa Monica pier, there is a call to ban or greatly restrict warbird flying. In my opinion, that would be a violation of my civil rights. I - and you - have the right to travel; does anyone dispute that? So if I have the right to travel, does any government have the right to restrict that mode of travel - as long as I'm not endangering someone (by doing so)?


Chris

The right to travel anywhere in the USA (within reason) is still yours. The METHOD of travel will always be a controlled issue though, and correctly so.

After all, few people want noisy helicopters landing in their next door neighbor's driveway, or a car with a jet engine cooking the front of cars following close behind in traffic, or skies full of hot-air balloons interferring and endangering scheduled airlines...The list of examples can go on and on...

Nobody is trying to take well-deserved rights away, but be aware that, as already mentioned, some "RIGHTS" do not exist. People have a right to own a gun, but not the right to take it anywhere in public. The right to drive or fly is not a right at all and is often incorrectly viewed as such, just as the right to FREEEDOM OF SPEECH is mis-understood so many times.

That's another good example. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you can say basically anything you want in any venue at any time (defamation of character lawsuits and tresspassing charges are noteworthy samples). There HAS to be some kind of control.


This is all actually a good thing. Without such laws and restrictions, life would be basically a free-for-all, and chaos would be the norm. There is a method behind the madness, and it's the best we can do in this world of 6 billion people full of souls who think of themselves and rarely/never of others.

It's for the best, trust me. All will work out in the end. The "system" really does work.

And don't worry about the "ground all warbirds" cries....That's old news, and will pop up from time to time. I've been hearing those warnings since that poorly-trained warbird owner/pilot drove his surplus jet through the middle of an ice cream palor in Sacramento so many decades ago, which actually resulted in new regs that made the hobby safer. People still get to fly their old jets. They just have to do it correctly and safely now.

Just give it a chance. Give it time. All will be well in the end, but note that there's no way to make EVERYONE happy. That's life.

[wyhdah]

Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39

On a happier note, I am still amazed how little general aviation has been impacted in a negative way since 9-11. Outside of a few more restricted and prohibited areas (especially around D.C.) it is just about as easy to fly from A to B as it always was. No mandatory flight plans, avoid flying over nuclear power plants, stadiums, Disneyland, etc. and adhere to the regulations in part 91 and everyone will be happy.

The only impact locally I have seen as of late is the special schooling and background checks that I had to submit to in order to receive my special ID badge that allows me to enter the airport property since it conducts 121 operations. Airports that don't have 121 operations don't require this from what I understand. I can live with this. What I do worry about is the proposed user fees that the airline industry and many in congress (including our president) are trying to impose on G.A. operations. I'm afraid that will make flying a hobby for only the affluent like it is in much or all of Europe. Lets all hope congress uses common sense when it comes time for that vote.

I agree and even the power plant restrictions are relaxed, in practice, in the rural areas which is reasonable. I think those in know understand the minimal threat GA has in that sense but several of the rules are written to cover the perception. I still think you would have a hard time taking out any significant structure with a C-182.