A well-known former Alaska air charter operator has been found guilty of two federal charges following what has been termed a near collision in 2023. According to the Anchorage Daily News, William Marsan, 57, of Palmer, a self described "free citizen" was convicted of flying without a certificate and operating an unregistered aircraft by a jury. The charges arose from an FAA investigation into a 2023 incident in which it was alleged he took off from the opposite end of the active runway in Palmer and nearly collided with a plane landing in the correct orientation.
Reminds me of the poster that I saw in one of the cubicles where I worked. It showed a giant eagle with sharp talons outstretched swooping down to grab a tiny mouse that had his back to the viewer with middle finger outstretched to the eagle. The caption was âOne last great act of defianceâ.
Iâve had a couple of close calls with people like this who think the rules donât apply to them. One was a near miss in the clouds with a 210. It was able to track the guy down and he was a free citizen type. His âfreedomâ just about killed me and my family. I have no sympathy for people like this. They are dangerous.
This was discussed when the incident occurred.
None of that is an excuse for careless and dangerous operation of an aircraft. Or for flying without a medical certificate and registration.
Itâs not an excuse for bad airmanship, just saying that NORDO and using any runway is perfectly legal at uncontrolled fields. There is also no âcorrect orientationâ since there is no tower defining one.
âCorrect orientationâ might refer to traffic pattern direction, which is in fact defined by regulation, even at an airport without an active control tower. See 14 CFR 91.126(b), et seq.
A fundamental flaw in thinking of âfreeâ action is impact on other people.
Happens on roads too, even race tracks have rules to reduce risk (the person herein whose name resembles a race car driverâs should know that). (Different from rules to limit competition.)
But control-minded people will say that flying is not a privilege - wrong, the question is what rules are appropriate to limit risk to others.
Sometimes obsessed - Transport Canada hassled a person who landed a small helicopter on a remote beach because that was flying below 500 feet AGL. (I donât know if a passenger was on board, though risk to a consenting knowledgeable passenger shouldnât be a concern.)
Of course some people are obsessive in many things - anti-aviation eco-activists definitely. In many aspects of life eco-activists froth about very low risk such as from very small amounts of an undesirable element. (Blocking runways and vandalizing aircraft is a different matter - thatâs criminal activity, âinitiation of forceâ that is defined in laws.)
Rules are that NORDO is OK and using any runway for departure is OK. Doing that is perfectly legal and/or should be expected at uncontrolled fields. Just because you announce a 5 mile final does not mean that the NORDO Cub can see or hear you before it starts a takeoff roll. Uncontrolled means just that.
Obviously there are cautions for both incoming and outgoing traffic at uncontrolled fields to minimize risks. Thatâs where good airmanship is needed to go âbeyond the rulesâ and play nice.
Per the AIM, there are uncontrolled aircraft and uncontrolled airspace and uncontrolled airports. I guess youâll need to contact FAA.Gov to let them know their mistakes in terminology.
Common sense comes first in aviation. Sure, you can legally use the opposite runway, but unless thereâs a real safety reason, itâs just asking for trouble. Stick with the flow of traffic if the active runway worksâitâs safer and keeps things predictable for everyone. Talk to other pilots, pay attention, and keep it simple: safety and courtesy should always guide your decisions. And for NORDOs, grab a handheld radioâitâs cheap insurance and just plain smart.
As the NTSB wrote in an Order some years ago, essentially, âIt is neither possible nor necessary for the Administrator to anticipate all possible unsafe acts a pilot might commit and write a regulation against all of them.â See Administrator v. Jaax, 5 NTSB 1616 (1986) and Administrator v. Russo, NTSB Order No. EA-3800 at 8 (1993). Thatâs why even at an airport without an active control tower, taking off in the opposite direction of other traffic can be considered a violation of 14 CFR 91.13 (âcareless or recklessâ) even if it is not expressly prohibited in the flight rules of 14 CFR Part 91 Subpart B.
Further, if another aircraft is already on final to land, taking off in the opposite direction, thus forcing the landing aircraft to alter or abandon its approach, is a black-letter law violation of 91.113(g).
14 CFR 91.113(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach.
And itâs the responsibility of the departing aircraft to ensure that this conflict does not arise even if nobody has a radio.
14 CFR 91.113(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way [as paragraph (g) does in this case - rbl], the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
Thatâs what I said Ron.
itâs legal, but you have to âplay niceâ with others.
Itâs only becomes careless or reckless (like 14 CFR 91.113(g)) when you âtake advantageâ of rules and force a bad situation. Simple.
âGood Airmanshipâ may be an applicable concept.
Crew of PW314 would have lived if they had taken the extra effort to ensure contact with the Aeradio station at Cranbrook BC airport. I have reason to believe they tried. Cleared to land at the uncontrolled airport by ATC back in Calgary, they touched down normally, deployed reversers, then realized what they thought was blowing snow was a sweeper. Stowed reversers, were at 200 feet and accelerating when one reverser deployed - not controllable at their speed, not quite enough time to reach the over-ride switch to stow it. (No traffic in the area, weather on limits for ILS approach.) Aeradio station - think FIS in US but on the airport, was acting like a control tower which it was not authorized to do, sweeper depending on Aeradio to tell him to vacate runway, Calgary ATC had given an ETA ten minutes in error despite the flight being within a couple of minutes of schedule all winter prior to that.