Been Violated Recently? - violations committed in an airshow - Brief Article

Approach, Dec, 2000 by Dan Bartlett

Incident 1: The pilot had 3,300 hours, more than 2,000 in type. He had participated in seven previous airshows and considered himself to be highly qualified for the Midwest aerofair listed in a recent message from CHINFO requesting aviation support. He talked to the airshow coordinator before departing from home field. During a stopover en route, he called again and discussed the details of his arrival and airshow practice.

The airshow coordinator told him to relay his practice request to the tower controller on arrival that afternoon. Upon arrival, the pilot asked the tower controller about the status of the airfield waiver and requested several passes with a half Cuban al either end. The tower controller advised that an airfield waiver was in effect and to proceed as requested. The problem was that this airfield waiver didn't apply to the Navy participant. The controller was not familiar with the specifics of the waiver and incorrectly applied it to all aircraft arriving for the airshow. As a result, after the airshow, the FAA alleged the pilot intentionally violated the FARs by flying too low and too fast, and that he had been reckless and careless while flying his aircraft.

Incident 2: An article on the front of a newspaper praised a flawless formation flyby of two F-14s, wings swept, at treetop level, in support of a Midwest Fourth of July parade and celebration. Accompanying photographs showed the thrilling event. When queried after the show, the lead pilot was confident that waivers had been coordinated for the event. However, the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) thought otherwise and forwarded a preliminary pilot-deviation report to the FAA regional office, which in turn forwarded a request for investigation of an alleged flight violation to the Department of the Navy. The FAA alleged that the flight of F- 14s violated a handful of FARs:

91.13(a)--They had operated aircraft in a careless or reckless manner; endangering life and property.

91.117(a)--They had flown at a speed of more than 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL.

91.119(a)--If a power plant had failed during their flight, the ensuing emergency landing would have caused undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

91.11 .(b)--They were flying over a congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, at an altitude of less than 1 ,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

There were no airfield waivers in effect for this event.

These are two examples of the numerous allegations of Navy or Marine Corps pilots violating any number of the FARs. Each allegation warrants an individual evaluation, but there is one area where FAR violations occur regularly and are preventable: public displays (i.e., airshows and flyovers). The FARs listed above are typically cited.

Just because your participation in an airshow or flyover has been approved doesn't mean you can violate the FARs. Normally, a waiver to the FARs is issued to specific aircraft at a specific airport. In the majority of alleged flight violations, an airfield waiver was in effect and our pilots assumed they were included. Prior to any aerial demonstrations being conducted, the FSDO must approve; in writing, any waivers to the applicable FARs.

By being more vigilant in this area, you'll avoid the phone call that starts, "Skipper, I'm investigating an alleged flight violation by one of your pilots.'"

[For more info, see CHINFO message 082200ZFEB00, Aviation Support Guidance.--Ed.]

Dan Bartlett works for the office of OPNAV/CNO N885F, ATC and Airspace.

RELATED ARTICLE: AN "AWARD" YOU DON'T WANT--HOW THE PROCESS WORKS

Every time a Navy or Marine Corps pilot is alleged to have violated a Federal Aviation Regulation, a lengthy investigation ensues. Normally, a Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) will start an investigation based on personal observation or a complaint from Air Rome Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs). FAA Control Towers, or a concerned citizen. If FSDO completes its inquiry and considers the case to be a valid violation of the FAR, they forward it to the legal office at the FAA Region, where it becomes a formal request for investigation. The Navy and Marine cases arrive al the office of OPNAV/ (CNO) N885F, ATC and Airspace.

The governing doctrines for investigating and reporting Department of the Navy flight violations are OPNAVINST 3710.7 and the JAG Manual. The staff at the CNO's office reviews the case for accuracy, validity and correctness, and then forwards the investigation to the senior officer having oversight of the alleged offender. That command conducts an investigation, reports findings and recommendations up the chain of command to CNO.

Every request for investigation is considered an "alleged" violation of the FAR until the investigation supports or mitigates the incident. Pilots may violate the FAR, but mitigating circumstances may exist: A pilot may be trying to avoid a midair collision, which may produce a violation of airspace. Of the 50 or so alleged flight violations we investigate each year, an average of two or three result in awarding a flight violation.