9yo pilot

[Let'sgoflying!]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/16/real-balloon-boy-new-mexico-boy-preps-solo-flight-balloon/

 

[Jim Logajan]

As I read the Child Pilot Safety Act, despite the fact that this is an ultralight vehicle, it is still a violation of that Act, which does not limit its applicability to exclude ultralight vehicles. Note that the FAA definition of "aircraft" is "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air," which this vehicle is. Of course, there is little under that law which could be done, since the only penalty therein is revocation of the pilot certificate of the PIC permitting the child to manipulate the controls for the purpose of setting a record, and the PIC in this case doesn't have a pilot certificate to revoke, but it still appears to me to violate the Act.

A bunch of things:

The FAA was directed by the Child Safety Act to produce a report not later than 6 months after its enactment in 1996. One reference I found stated that as of 1999 the FAA had still not published anything. Hmmm.

Additionally the whole point of Part 103 is to carve out an exception to the FAA glossary definition for aircraft. You overlooked the very first qualifying sentence of Part 1, Sec. 1.1 General Definitions: "As used in Subchapters A through K of this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:"

On one hand, the Child Safety Act is a statute outside those subchapters, and doesn't refer to anyone's definition of "aircraft" though it does refer to the FAA regulatory definition of pilot in command.

Furthermore, the Child Safety Act refers to the need for a Private Pilot certificate (and appropriate medical,) which reinforces its intended scope as falling within Part 91, not Part 103 where such certificates (and indeed the word "aircraft") do not exist. And the Act's sanctions - well, if taking away non-existing certificates isn't a dead give-away about its intended scope, I don't know what is. So would the Act apply to ultralight vehicles? "Context requires otherwise."

I find the act poorly written, since it also probably meant to say "holds at least a private pilots certificate...." Otherwise a literal read seems to suggest that a PIC can't allow commercial and ATP certificate holders to take the controls!?

In addition, I suspect that this might be considered to violate state child endangerment laws.

All in all, I think it's a dumb stunt which suggests the parent's haven't the judgement they should in order to hold FAA pilot certificates. When the kid's 14, he can solo legally.

There are no age limits mentioned in Part 103, so the comment about legal solo at 14 is a bit baffling.

I see nothing particularly dumb about the attempt. You need to be specific in your objections. Other than your odd conflation of Part 91 age requirements with those of Part 103, why would 14 years old be okay and 9 years old not? Do you know that he does not know how to select landing sites? Does he have problems reading air currents? How are is his aeronautical decision abilities, and how did you determine them? Is there something you know specifically that makes him unprepared?

The rationale you've provided for your judgment on the parent's judgment appears to be unfounded in facts, and is heavy on irrational emotion.