STOP THENOISE

Courts rule Nuisance is a State Matter
----
Mass Nuisance Lawsuit Settled
----
Misinformation
 on the Web
 

FAA Enforcement Efforts

The .wav file you hear on opening this page is a statement by Christopher Poreda, Regional Counsel for the FAA New England Region speaking at a public meeting with pilots on 07 Oct 2004. Mr. Poreda makes it clear to his pilot pals that he will not enforce the Sporting Event TFR rules. He reminds them that he has this power because he is the New England Regional Counsel. The Office of the Inspector General refused to take action against Mr. Poreda. How high up does the corruption go?

Here are samples of enforcement actions currently in the hands of FAA Inspectors.
These have progressed beyond being complaints by citizens and have been  investigated for the purpose of FAA taking action against the operator of the aircraft.

This list of enforcement actions is old. It does not mean that there have been no more violations. Quite the contrary. We are buzzed regularly by openly hostile pilots and more frequently annoyed by simply inconsiderate ones. It is clear that FAA will not enforce its own regulations until we first send one of their own to jail. What we are concentrating on now are those activities where FAA leaves a better paper trail; the aerobatic waiver process.

We may return to reporting every violation if resources allow.

These reports are presented with the most recent first. Where FAA has assigned an EIR number to the case, it is listed. FAA does not assign EIR numbers to cases as they are received. EIR numbers are only assigned after FAA has conducted its investigation and has decided to prosecute. This makes tracking a complaint through the investigation process difficult. We believe EIR numbers should be assigned as the complaints come in. FAA does not want this degree of traceability and the resultant accountability.

Traceability, auditability and accountability are in short supply at FAA.

EIR: not assigned        10 July 2004, West Townsend, MA

Violation: Aircraft came in loud and low over witness' home, went vertical, and proceeded to perform aerobatics over witness' home for before resuming base course and departing area.

Witness' home is in a congested area. Location is within 4 NM of Federal Airway V106.
Location is home of STN president. Maneuvers were an act of violent intimidation and extortion.

Disposition: Closed - no N-number. This even thought the witness was able to track down the plane and the pilot and provided that data to FAA.

EIR: not assigned        22 March 2003, Ayer, MA

Violation: Aircraft engaged in aerobatic flight over congested residential area and over downtown Ayer, MA.

Disposition: Closed. FAA brokered deal with pilot. Pilot agreed not to return, citizens agreed to allow FAA to not prosecute.  BTW: Pilot returned.

This incident calls to question just what role FAA believes it is supposed to perform. Is it a regulator, defense counsel for the offending pilot, or an arbiter?

EIR: not assigned        15 March 2003, Townsend, MA

Violation: Aircraft engaged in aerobatic flight over Townsend Ridge Golf Course within 4 NM of Federal Airway V106.

Disposition: Closed. FAA refused to make any effort to identify the aircraft in the photographs due to lack of an N-Number.

EIR: not assigned        21 May 2002, Ayer, MA

Violation: Aircraft engaged in aerobatic flight over the abandoned Moore Army Air Field in Ayer, MA within 4 NM of Federal Airway V431. Pilot also buzzed witness on the ground.

Disposition: Closed. FAA moved the location of Moore AAF on the chart so that pilot was no longer within 4 NM of Federal Airway V431. FAA moved the airfield clear over to the other side of a state highway ( Route 2A). FAA claimed it could not prove buzzing because plane flew below radar during event. Well, what do you call it when the plane dips real low?