C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER F—AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES › PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES › Subpart B—Flight Rules

14 C.F.R. § 91.111

Operating near other aircraft

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Turturro v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 3d 434 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Turturro v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 3d 434 (E.D. Pa. 2014). · cites it 3× “Similarly, 14 C.F.R. § 91.111 provides that “[n]o person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.”
Charles Andrew Throckmorton v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., James Busey, Adm'r Fed. Aviation Admin., 963 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “65 (a) (1986) (now 14 C.F.R. § 91.111 (a) (1991)). 3 . Section 91.”
Jeffrey W. Bennett v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Fed. Aviation Admin., 66 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 1995). “In violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.111 (a) 5 Bennett had passed so close to the Cessna 172 that he had created a collision hazard.”
Joseph Turturro v. United States, 629 F. App'x 313 (3rd Cir. 2015). “” 14 C.F.R. § 91.111 (a). Plaintiffs also assert that the Agusta pilots violated parts of the Aeronautical Information Manual (“AIM”) and other FAA publications.”
Furline v. Adm'r FAA, 246 F. App'x 813 (3rd Cir. 2007). “The FAA found that Furline had violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.111 (a), 91.113(b), 91.113(f) and 91.”
Jeffrey W. Bennett v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd. & Fed. Aviation Admin., 55 F.3d 495 (10th Cir. 1995). “In violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.111 (a) 5 Bennett had passed so close to the Cessna 172 that he had created a collision hazard.”
Thomas D. Ray, V. Vincent Davis Ditmore (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “Keeping Proper Distance Ditmore correctly notes that he and Ray had a concurrent duty to keep a proper distance under 14 C.F.R. § 91.111 (a), which provides, “No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.”
Ellis v. FAA (5th Cir. 1999). “The Board affirmed the judgment of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) finding that Ellis’s actions violated 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.111 (a), 91.123(b), 91.129(i), and 91.”
Szabo v. FAA (4th Cir. 1996). “65(a), which became 14 C.F.R.§ 91.111(a), pro- vides that "No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.”
— 14 C.F.R. § 91.111(a) — 1 case
Szabo v. FAA (4th Cir. 1996). “65(a), which became 14 C.F.R.§ 91.111(a), pro- vides that "No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.