Flyfunston

I helped write the 25’ Rule but believe increased beach traffic and improved launch necessitate a revision. The proposed revision is as follows:

“No pilot shall fly within 25’ of a person on the
ground except when:
1. The pilot could not reasonably anticipate
a person being within 25’ or
2. It would not to create a danger to the person.
The burden shall be upon the pilot to establish
the exception.”

Dan Brown wrote:I helped write the 25’ Rule but believe increased beach traffic and improved launch necessitate a revision. The proposed revision is as follows:

“No pilot shall fly within 25’ of a person on the
ground except when:
1. The pilot could not reasonably anticipate
a person being within 25’ or
2. It would not to create a danger to the person.
The burden shall be upon the pilot to establish
the exception.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dan,
We are on the same page in regard to concept, but we need changes in wording. To clarify, I would support a revision that allows pilots to come a bit closer to people on the ground in two situations;
1) The pilot was on a safe approach and someone entered their path in a way that could not reasonably have been anticipated.
2) The close proximity did not create a safety hazard.

The problem I see revolves around the subjectivity of the judgment.

Point: If the burden to establish the exception lies with the pilot, would not every pilot who landed within 25' simply say the he determined that it did not create a danger or could not have reasonably been foreseen? I've heard this excuse from almost every pilot who has broken the 25' rule and if it were their decision to make, nobody would ever be suspended!

The decision of whether a violation occurred or not can't be up to the pilot, is has to lie with an Executive Board member or other witness, or group of witness's.

The rules state that it is every pilots responsibility to enforce the rules, and since the Exec's are not always around, should we not have a provision for regular pilots to submit a violation report?

Steve,

1. “Reasonably anticipate” includes “safe approach”. If you are not on a “safe approach”, you “reasonably anticipate” a problem.
2. “Safety hazard” could be substituted for “danger to the person”.
3. The pilot is presumed guilty of violating the Rule if he lands w/n 25’. However the proposed modification has exceptions allowing a defense. As with all safety issues, the decision as to whether the pilot comes w/n the exception is by the officers. Presently there are no exceptions and the officers do not have discretion to allow a defense.
4. In theory every pilot should report safety violations. But unless there is a serious violation, pilots only will report violations by pilots they dislike or in defense of their own violations.

In the wording of the modification “to” between “not” and “create” should be removed.

Dan

The re-wording sounds good to me.
As the author, you would be the best person to make the motion for rules revision and participate in the pre-vote discussion.
I hope you can make it to a club meeting in the near future!

A motion was made at the September meeting to modify the wording of the 25' rule per Dan's request.

There was quite a long discussion about it. The motion did not receive a second and failed to go to vote.

The general consensus was that the current language "as may be appropriate" already gives the execs sufficient latitude.

From the FF rules;

5. Enforcement of Rule Violations:
Any violation of established rules as determined by the National Park Service or Fellow Feathers Officers will result in disciplinary actions or suspensions as may be appropriate.

Thanks to everyone who worked on the rules. There will be a more comprehensive rules change in the future to incorporate the tandem regulations. I will start a new topic when this gets close.