FARK.com: (6865212) FAA grounds ten young whooping cranes and the bird-like plane they think is their mother teaching them to migrate because the pilot is being paid. No, really

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		FAA grounds ten young whooping cranes and the bird-like plane they think is their mother teaching them to migrate because the pilot is being paid. No, really (orlandosentinel.com)		95
		More: Asinine

• • •

8781 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2012 at 2:24 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6865212

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

95 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

ZAZ

2012-01-07 11:42:26 AM

100 years from now humanity will have offed itself and flocks of cranes will be flying to Alabama for the winter. Why? Because that's the way their parents did it and their parents before them.

mr_a

2012-01-07 11:46:29 AM

If the bird-brains at the FAA have time to worry about this, then there are obviously a few too many people working there. Let's whack a million from their budget to help them focus.

Not that it would make any difference. They would just shutdown the radar at LAX to make up the difference.

edmo

2012-01-07 11:51:45 AM

If they were flying a true ultralight, it wouldn't matter. But if you start flying bigger stuff, or a two-seat ultralight, that puts you in the sport category and you need a license. It's not rocket science - it's basic stuff you're supposed to know as a pilot.

If you want to get paid for doing something in life it seems you should know what you're doing.

Trance750

2012-01-07 11:58:24 AM

Just when you thought the Government couldn't possibly get any more derp....

GAT_00

2012-01-07 12:07:46 PM

Trance750: Just when you thought the Government couldn't possibly get any more derp....

Yes, it is absolutely terrible there are strict rules for flying airplanes.

Trance750

2012-01-07 12:12:19 PM

GAT_00: Trance750: Just when you thought the Government couldn't possibly get any more derp....

Yes, it is absolutely terrible there are strict rules for flying airplanes.

What about hang-gliding instructors?

GAT_00

2012-01-07 12:15:25 PM

Trance750: GAT_00: Trance750: Just when you thought the Government couldn't possibly get any more derp....

Yes, it is absolutely terrible there are strict rules for flying airplanes.

What about hang-gliding instructors?

FAA governs powered flight. Don't be obtuse.

flucto

2012-01-07 12:16:11 PM

GAT_00: Yes, it is absolutely terrible there are strict rules for flying airplanes.

Clearly there must be an automatic exception for feel good stories. "Plumber borrows A320 to bring hay to farm for under privileged yaks." Free Pass.

Eddie Adams from Torrance

2012-01-07 12:26:26 PM

The Federal Government is attacking a small businessman? Unpossible.

Thanks Taxbongo.

St_Francis_P

2012-01-07 12:29:40 PM

flucto: Clearly there must be an automatic exception for feel good stories. "Plumber borrows A320 to bring hay to farm for under privileged yaks." Free Pass.

There still need to be clearly defined rules. For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

flucto

2012-01-07 12:34:07 PM

St_Francis_P: For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

What if the pilot is dropping free puppies to orphans?

St_Francis_P

2012-01-07 12:47:03 PM

flucto: St_Francis_P: For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

What if the pilot is dropping free puppies to orphans?

Sure. If it's orphans, the animals don't even necessarily need to be cute. You could be say, dropping Gila monsters and it would be OK.

martissimo

2012-01-07 12:47:24 PM

flucto: St_Francis_P: For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

What if the pilot is dropping free puppies to orphans?

As god as my witness, I thought puppies could fly!

itazurakko

2012-01-07 12:50:59 PM

GAT_00: Yes, it is absolutely terrible there are strict rules for flying airplanes.

Nah, the rule totally makes sense for the reasons given in TFA - but it seems this is the sort of thing that would make an ideal case for a waiver, if the FAA in fact has a waiver system. No passengers, no stunting, etc.

Alternatively you'd think the conservationists could get creative with the payment for the pilots - make the job volunteer, and then figure out some other job to pay him for that's trivial, or something.

flucto

2012-01-07 12:52:18 PM

St_Francis_P: Gila monsters

t1.gstatic.com

"And finally tonight, as if things were bad enough at Our Lady of Perpetual Suffering Home for the Parentally Challenged, today an unlicensed pilot dropped boxes of Gila monsters onto the children, who were immediately eaten. Obama's 'audacity of flying hope' campaign is clearly to blame."

flucto

2012-01-07 12:53:20 PM

itazurakko: Nah, the rule totally makes sense for the reasons given in TFA - but it seems this is the sort of thing that would make an ideal case for a waiver, if the FAA in fact has a waiver system. No passengers, no stunting, etc.

TFA says they're considering a waiver. I'm having a complete panty-wad failure over this story.

GAT_00

2012-01-07 01:36:07 PM

itazurakko: Nah, the rule totally makes sense for the reasons given in TFA - but it seems this is the sort of thing that would make an ideal case for a waiver, if the FAA in fact has a waiver system. No passengers, no stunting, etc.

Which would be fine if they tried for one. They just farked this up.

ArkAngel

2012-01-07 01:46:50 PM

What is wrong with all of you?! Are you people Farkers or not?! There are more important things to do in this thread than discuss FAA regulations

the-feeding-tube.com

NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window

martissimo

2012-01-07 01:59:14 PM

itazurakko: GAT_00: Yes, it is absolutely terrible there are strict rules for flying airplanes.

Nah, the rule totally makes sense for the reasons given in TFA - but it seems this is the sort of thing that would make an ideal case for a waiver, if the FAA in fact has a waiver system. No passengers, no stunting, etc.

Alternatively you'd think the conservationists could get creative with the payment for the pilots - make the job volunteer, and then figure out some other job to pay him for that's trivial, or something.

I saw a more detailed submission a day or two ago, that is how they are claiming this, saying the pilots get paid for all their ground work and volunteer to fly, apparently it got them waivers for years before this mess

St_Francis_P

2012-01-07 02:06:12 PM

ArkAngel: What is wrong with all of you?! Are you people Farkers or not?! There are more important things to do in this thread than discuss FAA regulations

[the-feeding-tube.com image 500x845]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 333x500]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]
[www.straitpinkie.com image 300x400]
[img001.lazygirls.info image 640x346]
[img002.lazygirls.info image 640x326]
[img002.lazygirls.info image 640x569]
[img001.lazygirls.info image 509x640]
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window

OK, fine; it should be legal to drop Anna Paquin to orphans, too.

Because People in power are Stupid

2012-01-07 02:26:26 PM

What's the big whoop?

MythDragon

2012-01-07 02:29:55 PM

The pilot?
www.lighthousepoole.co.uk

MrSid

2012-01-07 02:31:04 PM

Yet another reason the government should wander off and get lost.

natmar_76

2012-01-07 02:34:28 PM

only pilots with commercial pilot licenses can fly for hire

This seems reasonable.

MythDragon

2012-01-07 02:34:57 PM

flucto: St_Francis_P: For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

What if the pilot is dropping free puppies to orphans?

You mean operation Puppy Drop?
www.digmydog.org

"Quick! Mr. Scruffles! Pull your chute!"
'RUFF RUFF RUFF{It's okay! I can jump from here}'
*Thud*

Retief of the CDT

2012-01-07 02:36:36 PM

The official FAA motto is "We're not happy till You're not happy". They live for this kind of thing. That said, ArkAngel has the right idea. Also, "Fly Away Home" had Dana Delany in it as well . . . at work, no links unfortunately.

r1niceboy

2012-01-07 02:38:28 PM

The whooping crane is endangered as it is. Let's stop a decent percentage of the existing birds from learning their way across the country in order to find food and mates in the future. I used to live in Nebraska, and those birds are kind of a big deal there. One of Grand Island's few sources of tourist revenue has just been held hostage by a state where every significant piece of wilderness that can be has been plowed and had a condo stuck on it.

Lone Stranger

2012-01-07 02:41:00 PM

Jisaw

2012-01-07 02:41:48 PM

If cranes want to survive or even exist on our planet, they'd better hurry the hell up and start tasting delicious.

Charlie Freak

2012-01-07 02:42:36 PM

Here's the relevant law:

14 CFR 61.113

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.

(e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of:

(1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or

(2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.

(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.

(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.

(h) A private pilot may act as pilot in command for the purpose of conducting a production flight test in a light-sport aircraft intended for certification in the light-sport category under §21.190 of this chapter, provided that-

(1) The aircraft is a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft;

(2) The person has at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the category and class of aircraft flown; and

(3) The person is familiar with the processes and procedures applicable to the conduct of production flight testing, to include operations conducted under a special flight permit and any associated operating limitations.

Commercial pilot standards are much more rigorous than those of private, and especially sport pilot certificates. And once again, the FAA never farks around. I'm surprised the group is surprised.

dogette

2012-01-07 02:42:54 PM

/so glad I got to share this

hicksfa2

2012-01-07 02:43:04 PM

edmo: If they were flying a true ultralight, it wouldn't matter. But if you start flying bigger stuff, or a two-seat ultralight, that puts you in the sport category and you need a license. It's not rocket science - it's basic stuff you're supposed to know as a pilot.

If you want to get paid for doing something in life it seems you should know what you're doing.

Has nothing to do with the size of the aircraft, and everything to do with what the aircraft; pilot are certificated for.

As a Commercial Pilot License holder myself, I see nothing wrong with this.

wutchamacallem

2012-01-07 02:43:04 PM

The FAA has approved this program for years. An individual inspector has a lot of power. It sounds like a new one came along and decided to Be Important.

Shazam999

2012-01-07 02:45:15 PM

St_Francis_P: flucto: St_Francis_P: For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

What if the pilot is dropping free puppies to orphans?

Sure. If it's orphans, the animals don't even necessarily need to be cute. You could be say, dropping Gila monsters and it would be OK.

You're an anti-gilite, aren't you?

Nem Wan

2012-01-07 02:46:36 PM

I can see a valid slippery slope argument for regulation. If they let a guy get paid for this, then someone might want to get paid to be a courier or to put advertising on the plane or whatever, and suddenly you have a lot more ultralights flitting around.

Daraymann

2012-01-07 02:48:18 PM

FTFA: Now the birds and the plane are grounded in Alabama while the Federal Aviation Administration investigates whether the journey violates regulations because the pilot was being paid by a conservation group to lead the cranes on their first migration instead of working for free.

That's what this country needs to get back on track. Slave labor!

Nem Wan

2012-01-07 02:53:16 PM

If we don't regulate ultralight flight then it's total anarchy.
stereogram.files.wordpress.com

PvtHike

2012-01-07 03:00:52 PM

martissimo: flucto: St_Francis_P: For example, puppies or kittens being involved, or some other cute animal.

What if the pilot is dropping free puppies to orphans?

As god as my witness, I thought puppies could fly!

Yay! WKRP!

TemporarySanity

2012-01-07 03:01:16 PM

natmar_76: only pilots with commercial pilot licenses can fly for hire

This seems reasonable.

"For hire" in that context means with human passengers, or commercial interests such as the "Marry Me Stacy" banner planes.

flucto

2012-01-07 03:03:28 PM

TemporarySanity: "For hire" in that context means with human passengers, or commercial interests such as the "Marry Me Stacy" banner planes.

Nope.

MouserMusing

2012-01-07 03:07:06 PM

Did Vol. work at PWRC in the late eighties...so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

You had to be berry berry quiet around the whoopers during the mating season or the eggs wind up only good for breakfast.

I have no problem with the law, but it is another fine example of idiots in government. The wavier should have been granted the same day.

Good to know some arseburger at the FAA was combing the web and spotted this violation or some white knight citizen clearly read the FAA statues and just had to call it in.

Link (new window)
Link (new window)

ecor1

2012-01-07 03:09:44 PM

Sounds like the conservation group didn't get its ducks in a row before starting this whole thing. Outrage failure.

cgremlin

2012-01-07 03:10:47 PM

If the waiver route doesn't work, then I suppose the pilots could incorporate individually. Have the corporation(s) be paid for whatever service, and then have the pilots fly for free. Just because you own a corporation doesn't mean you have to be a paid employee of it.

Wardrobe_Malfunction

2012-01-07 03:17:11 PM

Once again folks, having a position of authority requires knowing how to enforce the letter of the law like a farking robot. Common sense does not apply.

Carlip

2012-01-07 03:22:06 PM

R.J. Pennypacker wanted for questioning.

malaktaus

2012-01-07 03:29:48 PM

FTFA: That's a valid rule. They shouldn't be hired to do that. But it wasn't written, I believe, to stop a wildlife reintroduction," Joe Duff, an Operation Migration co-founder and one of its pilots, said. The conservation group has agreed voluntarily to stop flying and has applied to FAA for a waiver.

So they weren't actually forced to stop flying, they were merely informed that they were doing it wrong and they voluntarily grounded themselves while they apply for the waiver, which they should have done in the first farking place. But hell, the FAA should refuse to enforce a rule because the violators of that rule are working for a good cause. Who decides what constitutes a 'good cause'? Who cares! Cut the FAA's budget! eliminate the whole damn agency! Government bad! Whar birf certifikut!? Derp!

/whole lotta dumbasses in this thread

PaLarkin

2012-01-07 03:30:30 PM

Governments loathe people being free. Government bureaucrats get off every time they can fark with someone. The guy flying the plane is hurting nobody. The plane being there causes no harm. This is merely an arbitrary rule that reinforces my belief the USA is no longer a free society. It's now a facist government. Government now regulates everything in our lives.

Thudfark

2012-01-07 03:36:27 PM

ArkAngel: What is wrong with all of you?! Are you people Farkers or not?! There are more important things to do in this thread than discuss FAA regulations

[the-feeding-tube.com image 500x845]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 333x500]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]
[www.straitpinkie.com image 300x400]
[img001.lazygirls.info image 640x346]
[img002.lazygirls.info image 640x326]
[img002.lazygirls.info image 640x569]
[img001.lazygirls.info image 509x640]
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window)
NSFW (new window

I have no idea what the hell this has to do with anything, but I approve of this message. And if you some day decide to run for office, I promise I won't release tapes of that incident.

insertsnarkyusername

2012-01-07 03:37:22 PM

PaLarkin: Governments loathe people being free. Government bureaucrats get off every time they can fark with someone. The guy flying the plane is hurting nobody. The plane being there causes no harm. This is merely an arbitrary rule that reinforces my belief the USA is no longer a free society. It's now a facist government. Government now regulates everything in our lives.

Why do you not want rules governing who can fly and aircraft and how?

Jon iz teh kewl

2012-01-07 03:39:38 PM

Why can't the government just leave the birds alone. Who cares if they are synthetic. Cause no one cares more about birds than people.

Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.