10

Is flying an ultralight in a careless or reckless manner illegal?

Someone
  • 7,087
  • 2
  • 40
  • 107

2 Answers2

22

Your specific question: Is flying an ultralight in a careless or reckless manner illegal?

(Assuming that the "Ultralight" in question qualifies as an "Ultralight Vehicle" and is therefore subject to 14 CFR Part 103)

14 CFR Part 103.9- Hazardous Operations addresses this for "Ultralight Vehicles:"

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.

(b) No person may allow an object to be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property.

So, unlike operations subject to FAA pilot and aircraft certification standards and regulations under 14 CFR Part 91, (specifically 14 CFR Part 91.13), which uses the wording "careless or reckless," 14 CFR Part 103.9 uses the word "hazard," which I believe would be applied in a similar manner by the FAA.

(emphasis is mine)

2

Doing anything carelessly or recklessly (i.e. in a manner that puts the lives of others at unnecessary risk) is illegal. Flying an ultralight is no exception.

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Careless and reckless doesn't mean what many people seem to think it means, so here are the definitions given in Wikipedia. Put simply, if you were being careful enough to ensure you were not doing dumb things near other people, then you are not actually being careless, are you?

Recklessness: willingly taking an initial action that a reasonable person would know will likely lead to the actus reus being committed, e.g. drinking alcohol and then driving as a result of automation due to intoxication.

Carelessness (also known as negligence): failing to exercise due diligence to prevent the actus reus that caused the harm from occurring – rarely used in criminal law, often encountered in regulatory offenses (e.g. careless driving) or in the civil law tort of negligence – these are known as strict liability offenses.

Source for both the above quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

Paul Smith
  • 1,075
  • 8
  • 9
  • 6
    "Doing anything carelessly or recklessly (i.e. in a manner that puts the lives of others at unnecessary risk) is illegal." -- give some thought to this sentence: "I've been really careless about keeping up with oil changes on my car, and now the motor is all worn out." Later you mention "the actus reus that caused the harm". If we are talking about doing anything carelessly, it is not obvious that the potential harm will always involve some other person or some other person's property. So your "i.e." clause appears to be a false equivalency. – quiet flyer Sep 09 '23 at 12:17
  • 4
    Random Wikipedia word definitions are not a useful answer to a question of law. – nobody Sep 09 '23 at 14:28
  • 1
    If the question was whether or not 91.13 applied to ultralights I would agree, otherwise I generally disagree with the comments above. (You don't have to cite 14 CFR part 91.xxx to answer a question as to whether flying airplanes into the WTC was illegal.) And Quiet Flyer, your maintenance practice is likely to result in premature engine wear before putting other lives at risk. The other answer is better, and more aviation oriented, but this one is correct and I don't think deserves to be downvoted. – Michael Hall Sep 09 '23 at 17:10
  • 2
    It's reasonable to say that a 5th grade student was careless doing her homework, but it's not reasonable to say that this rises to the level of any form of legal offense. The statements are over broad and as such aren't helpful in addressing the very specific question asked. – Ralph J Sep 09 '23 at 17:36
  • 2
    @quietflyer - What thought is needed? you've been careless with the oil changes in your car and you've been careless with oil changes on a commercial aircraft. One puts the lives of others at risk, one doesn't. Lack of care is not a crime. Endangering others is. – Paul Smith Sep 09 '23 at 17:55
  • 2
    Current and future commenters: Please read the qualifier in the second sentence in parenthesis! – Michael Hall Sep 09 '23 at 18:53
  • The top answer emboldened the wrong part: to other persons or property, +1. You can do w/e you want to your stuff on your property. Involving other persons or property changes everything and need not be aviation specific unless the title said so. – Mazura Sep 10 '23 at 02:03
  • 2
    I'm downvoting because careless and reckless behaviors are absolutely permitted by the FAA, so long as they don't endanger others. Wikipedia definitions are useful for lay arguments, but not for analyzing a century of case law. It is my right as a pilot to drag wheels on the water, to do low altitude high-speed passes, to put my plane into an inverted spin, or to build an experimental with rocket propulsion. All of these might be reckless to my safety, but so long as it is not (and cannot be construed to be) to others then the FAA is permissive. – Kenn Sebesta Sep 10 '23 at 11:58
  • 3
    Upvoting. His clear point was that "Flying an ultralight is no exception" for making actions legal or illegal. "Doing anything carelessly or recklessly (i.e. in a manner that puts the lives of others at unnecessary risk) is illegal," seems hard to misconstrue. If an action is illegal in normal activity, then it is while you're flying. "Doing anything carelessly or recklessly in a manner that puts the lives of others at unnecessary risk" as a simple example. Changing your oil generally isn't illegal, so doesn't fall under the purview of this answer. – BWhite Sep 11 '23 at 03:44
  • @KennSebesta - Thank you. You forced me to find the actual FAA rule 91.13. The FAA are not permissive. Behave in a manner that is clearly reckless, and they will get very interested. Step over the line and put someone else at risk and they will come down on you like a ton of bricks. – Paul Smith Sep 11 '23 at 09:30
  • @PaulSmith the FAR says "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." That FAR is exactly what we've made it out to be: the FAA literally only cares if you are endangering "the life or property of another". If you are not, then 91.13 simply does not apply. Do you read that differently? If so, could you point out what in 91.13 supports an argument that the FAA is "not permissive" and "will get very interested"? – Kenn Sebesta Sep 11 '23 at 23:15
  • @BWhite where in the OP's question is there a comment made re 91.13? The question, as I and many others read it, is "is it illegal for me to do dumb things with ultralights, aka Pt 103 aircraft"? There was no qualifier which shows the OP is asking about doing reckless things near others. If you choose to focus just on reckless actions with other people around, then I think we all agree with 91.13. But reading 91.13 attentively lets us conclude the FAA has two categories of "reckless operation": 1) when people/property are around and 2) when they're not. The FAA doesn't care about the latter. – Kenn Sebesta Sep 11 '23 at 23:22
  • @KennSebesta - Careless doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, that is why I gave the definitions. If you were being careful enough to ensure you were not doing dumb things near other people, then you are not actually being careless, are you? I am updating the answer to include this. – Paul Smith Sep 13 '23 at 08:40
  • @PaulSmith I think you're forcing a definition of "careless" which is not supported by the FAR. The mere fact that the FAA sees the need to qualify careless for the purpose of 91.13 is proof positive that there can be "careless" operation without anyone or anything around. Can you find any case law support for 91.13 being applied in an expansive way such that there are, in practice, no careless actions which would not fall under 91.13? If so, I would switch my downvote to an upvote. – Kenn Sebesta Sep 13 '23 at 11:05
  • @PaulSmith you might read https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/87090/20394, and in specific the given example of not putting landing gear down. I think an pilot who forgets to put the landing gear down would always be careless, but this would only be a FAR violation if that happened in a place where it could endanger others, e.g. a public airfield as opposed to one's own cow pasture. You might also review https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/91985/20394 for its highlight examples of "careless" operation, many of which would be allowed in a private context (e.g. running the engine unattended). – Kenn Sebesta Sep 13 '23 at 11:21
  • @KennSebesta - Sorry but you are still looking at this backwards. Of course you can be careless when no one is around, so what? Read the legal definition again, the fact you are being careless means you have not shown the due diligence required to know that no one is around. If you go somewhere where there is nobody to do your dumb thing, then you are not being careless. – Paul Smith Sep 13 '23 at 20:55
  • @PaulSmith your statement is in contradiction to the tables on pages 4-15 and 9-22 in FAA Order 2150.3C - Compliance and Enforcement Program (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_2150.3C_CHG_7.pdf). Actions such as a gear up landing are defined as careless, without consideration to the presence of others. A definition of careless is given on Page 9-3 and again does not require others' presence. Reading the FAA's definition, would you argue that an accidental gear up landing is only careless if there are no people around? – Kenn Sebesta Sep 13 '23 at 21:11
  • @KennSebesta You seem to be arguing both sides. "Yeah, basically. The FAA's mandate is not to protect individuals from the consequences of their actions, it's to protect the public and all the other people those actions might hurt." I agree with you. "Actions such as a gear up landing are defined as careless, without consideration to the presence of others." Which is it? "@BWhite where in the OP's question is there a comment made re 91.13?" Not directly. What's your point? – BWhite Sep 14 '23 at 03:33
  • @BWhite "That's not the way I would do it, but I can't stop you," is a ubiquitous refrain, from financial investing to eating habits to romantic partnerships. As we've established, the FAA doesn't have a rule against careless operation when there's no one around, and yet the FAA still defines these behaviors as careless. I fail to see a both sides argument here. – Kenn Sebesta Sep 14 '23 at 11:34
  • @KennSebesta , I hate to be pedantic, but I can't tell what your point is. Exactly which part of "Doing anything carelessly or recklessly, that is: in a manner that puts the lives of others at unnecessary risk, is illegal. Flying an ultralight is no exception." do you take issue with? In some of your answers, you seem to be agreeing with it. So what's your disagreement? – BWhite Sep 15 '23 at 05:48
  • @BWhite my disagreement is with the "i.e." and parentheses. I would agree completely with "Doing anything carelessly or recklessly in a manner that puts the lives of others at unnecessary risk is illegal". Putting that in a clause, however, indicates that merely doing things carelessly or recklessly is proscribed by the FAR. This is not correct, as has been shown above. And while "i.e." could be ambiguous in this context, the comment train gives it clarity. P.S. I feel like our positions are now well understood, so I'm going to bow out unless there's something helpful I can add. – Kenn Sebesta Sep 15 '23 at 09:17
  • @KennSebesta - That is not what recklessness is. It is not actually putting lives at risk, it is likely to put lives at risk. Its pedantic, but its important. It is why doing the same dumb thing is not illegal if you have taken precautions that no one could be hurt. – Paul Smith Sep 16 '23 at 09:09