Part 103 FWI?

Ask your aviation questions here and get answers from other Listeners and maybe even one of the UCAP gang. Questions can be serious ones or just trivia.
User avatar
randydu
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:11 pm

Part 103 FWI?

Postby randydu » Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:40 pm

My wife brought up an interesting question after seeing this:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=852106
She assumed it was an ultralight and was wondering what the drinking and flying rules would be. Ultimately the rules in for the pilot in the story are clear since the airplane has two seats and is not under Part 103, but it got me wondering what if it had been a part 103 airplane and an unlicensed pilot? Since there would not be any certificate to suspend or revoke what would the consequence be (Dave?)?
Cheers,
Randy
Skyhawk N62218 (AKA Methuselah) @ KSGS

User avatar
champguy
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:37 pm
Location: Florence, (Coastal) Oregon

Re: Part 103 FWI?

Postby champguy » Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:49 pm

Two place, must be N numbered. My guess is that the pilot is screwed and the harder he fights, the worse it will get.
With a legal 103 ultralight the guy might have a chance. Until he gets the Darwin Award he so clearly deserves.
Remember, not all who wander, are lost.
Image

Dave Higdon
Posts: 808
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:02 pm

Re: Part 103 FWI?

Postby Dave Higdon » Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:18 pm

randydu wrote:My wife brought up an interesting question after seeing this:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=852106
She assumed it was an ultralight and was wondering what the drinking and flying rules would be. Ultimately the rules in for the pilot in the story are clear since the airplane has two seats and is not under Part 103, but it got me wondering what if it had been a part 103 airplane and an unlicensed pilot? Since there would not be any certificate to suspend or revoke what would the consequence be (Dave?)?


Well, like you said -- no tickee, no revokee...that said, the FAA can still come after you on FAR violations, civil action -- and start criminal action through a U.S. attorney if they feel the situation warrants. Not having a ticket to pull doesn't prevent them from getting a court finding that could bar you from even FAR 103...remember, even without license or airworthiness standards, FAR 103 sets out other constraints -- airspace, time of day, populated-area restrictions -- and they can act on violations in 103 and elsewhere...

Short answer: they can still bite you...

Dave

MerlinFAC
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:44 pm

Re: Part 103 FWI?

Postby MerlinFAC » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:57 am

Here's a related question... what happens to someone who is caught using their aircraft to commit a crime? The photo attached to the article shows what it clearly an N-numbered Airborne Outback 2-seat trike registered as Experimental (FAA records don't specify whether it's Amateur-Built or LSA) but it's definitely not a legal ultralight as the article says.

From: http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.d ... 0107310321

2 men held in marijuana case

BY ANDREW KNAPP • FLORIDA TODAY • July 31, 2010

Two local men were arrested Friday morning on drug-cultivation charges after a wildlife officer saw an ultralight plane fly into a remote area of Volusia County and land.

Ronald Paul Thorstad, 53, of Titusville and James L. Nordby, 67, of Mims face felony counts of the cultivation of cannabis, as well as other charges. Officials said Thorstad was armed with a handgun for which he had a concealed-weapons permit.

The men were held Friday in lieu of a $10,000 bond at the Volusia County Jail.

Joy Hill, a spokeswoman for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, said an investigator patrolling the Seminole Ranch Conservation Area off State Road 46 saw the plane land on sandy ground at 9 a.m.

"He watched them land," Hill said, "and he thought that was pretty cool."

Two men climbed off and headed into a thick stand of palm trees near the St. Johns River, a patch considered sovereign land. The investigator figured something was fishy when he saw the water jugs and fertilizer they were carrying into the wooded patch.

"Normally, when we have rain, it's a little island," Hill said. "But now, it's bone-dry, and they were able to land the plane and walk in to check on their two potted pot plants."

Skeptical that the men were not flying in for a leisure visit, Hill said the investigator "stealthily" walked to the edge of the palm trees and waited.

"When they came out, they were quite surprised," she said. "But they were very cooperative."

The plants were confiscated, but the ultralight was hauled away and returned to the home of Thorstad, the owner.

He was charged with the cultivation of cannabis and the possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, both of which are third-degree felonies; and the use of paraphernalia, a first-degree misdemeanor.

Nordby was charged with the cultivation of cannabis and the use of paraphernalia, a first-degree misdemeanor.

In 16 years, Hill has never seen such a case.

"It's not unusual for people to be growing marijuana in secluded areas," she said. "But it was unique in that they used an ultralight."

Contact Knapp at 242-3669 or aknapp@floridatoday.com.


Obviously they'll be in court for the drug charges, but what (if anything) will the FAA do to the pilot, assuming he was in fact licensed? (Couldn't find either name in the landings.com FAA databases for pilots or mechanics, though I'm not sure if that covers Sport Pilots w/out medicals.) Does the FAA come after pilots in felony cases like this? I know they'll get folks who fail to report DUIs on their medical forms, but with Sport Pilot that usually won't happen of course. I know many may disagree that this is even a serious issue (considering that virtually every user comment posted under that article was pro-potheads) but I sure as heck don't foresee anything but bad things coming from allowing these dim bulbs to keep flying, especially after using an aircraft as an integral part of carrying out their criminal scheme.

OTOH, after reading some NTSB reports, this could be a very self-limiting problem... just a shame that they might very well take out innocent bystanders when it catches up with them....

User avatar
Wana Be A Blimp Pimp
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:57 pm

Re: Part 103 FWI?

Postby Wana Be A Blimp Pimp » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:09 am

I think the answer to the pot question is the FAA probably dosent give a darn as pot is on the cusp of being legal any way but just like the DUI while FLYing type situation if they had been stoned they well would deserver to have there " ticket pulled" and most likley would. Let me cut you off at the punch Parafaniala dose not have to be a pipe etc depending on the state law it could be the pot they were keeping th plant in etc. Even if it was a pipe we cant conclude from the charges that they were smoking.

On a personal note I now a large amount of very sucessfull folks in all aspects of both financial life and technical training that use cannabis. I would trust more of them to take a left seat than most drinkers I now. I think the term dim bulb is well a little blind to the truth. That truth being most pot smokers I do now are Engineers computer scientests and the like. If for no other reason the hard math they have to go threw makes them better qualafied than your average "Dim Bulb". Plus two plants would service two guys for like two weeks so the concept that there was a grand crimanal schem is a little diluted. I put these guys in the same catagory as some one who is using a small stove top still to make a half gallon of shine. None the less illegal but worthy of Fedaral attention not really.
Image


Return to “Aviation Answers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests