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?