Pilot Counsel

Items per page   10 | 25 | 50 | 100
21 to 30 of 279 results

Pilot Counsel: Safety seats

Pilot Magazine | Aug 01, 2012

In our continuing review of the flight rules that apply to general aviation pilots and owners, we last reviewed the rules of FAR 91.105 and 91.107 on the use of seatbelts and shoulder harnesses in October 2004. That's because the rules have essentially remained unchanged. Now, however, the FAA has issued what it calls a "clarifying" interpretation regarding the shared use of a single restraint, which purportedly changes prior interpretations, and is worth noting.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Jul 01, 2012

The flight rules of FAR Part 91, which specify the minimum safe altitudes for flight, provide that "except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes." The rule then goes on to prescribe the specific minimum altitudes.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Jun 01, 2012

The number of FAA enforcement cases that come across my desk remind me that Section 61.15(e) of the Federal Aviation Regulations continues to generate an unusually large number of enforcement actions against pilots. This is the regulation that requires pilots to report certain automobile driving infractions to the FAA.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | May 01, 2012

A recent decision of the National Transportation Safety Board came across my desk that assessed a $5,000 fine against a pilot for failing to surrender his medical certificate to the FAA. The case illustrates one of the few circumstances in which the FAA can make such a demand without affording the pilot all of the legal protections I have written about in this column over the years.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Apr 01, 2012

There is nothing unusual about a fatal air crash resulting in litigation, with charges and countercharges alleging negligence on the part of pilots, air traffic controllers, manufacturers, and others. It's a sign of the litigious society in which we live.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Mar 01, 2012

A recent legal interpretation of FAR 91.130, "Operations in Class C airspace," by the FAA chief counsel answers a question about the two-way radio communications requirement for an aircraft departing a satellite airport in Class C airspace. (As a reminder, a satellite airport is any airport that exists within Class C or D controlled airspace, but is not the so-called "primary" airport on which the airspace is based. The satellite airport may or may not have an operating control tower.) This provides an opportunity to review the communications requirements for airports in controlled airspace (different controlled airspaces are depicted or coded on aeronautical charts), and helps us to better understand the interpretation.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Feb 01, 2012

I try to offer guidance to pilots on how to deal with the many different FAA enforcement matters that I see in the administration of the AOPA Legal Services Plan. That's not because most pilots will experience some trouble with the FAA - most won't. However, some significant number will, and we can't tell in advance which ones will.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Jan 01, 2012

The airspace in which we fly is finite. There will be no more. So what we have needs preserving. The FAA is charged

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Nov 01, 2011

General aviation pilots are interested to know, or be refreshed, about who and what they may legally carry on their personal and business flights, where "compensation" could arguably be involved. The FAA very broadly applies the term. To mention an extreme, the FAA has long held that transporting someone to where he/she wants to go, for the purpose of logging flight time, is compensation.

Pilot Counsel:

Pilot Magazine | Nov 01, 2011

At AOPA's Aviation Summit in Hartford, Connecticut, I was reminded that general aviation pilots still wrestle with who and what they can legally carry in their aircraft without running afoul of the commercial regulations. The question that caused the most consternation was whether a pilot flying incidental to his/her business or employment could legally carry other employees, customers, or passengers in connection with that business or employment.