University Seeks Injunction Because I Comply With Federal Aviation Regulations
FACTS: After Judy DeMers’ Office terminated my enrollment in the middle of the semester without a hearing, the University, stating I was no longer a student asked me to remove my belongings from University property. It was impossible to remove all of my belongings on such short notice. In a rare moment of kindness, Judy DeMers offered to store some of my belongings in her house until I could retrieve them. At the request of Judy DeMers, I rented a light single-engine aircraft and flew to Grand Forks on June 28, 1991, to retrieve my belongings, and try to settle this devastating affair.
Unforecast, deteriorating weather in eastern North Dakota made a departure in accordance with applicable federal aviation regulations and equipment limitations impossible and unsafe. Consequently, I obtained a motel room, did some shopping in the mall and saw a movie. To add a touch of drama Judy DeMers falsely insinuated I followed her all over town after our meeting. I returned to Wyoming when the weather cleared the next day.
The aircraft I piloted did not meet Federal Aviation Administration requirements for flight under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Consequently, Federal Regulations restricted that flight to Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Therefore departing Grand Forks in the prevailing weather would constitute a violation of Federal Aviation Regulations.
During pre-flight planning, I obtained the following required weather reports and forecasts from the Federal Aviation Administration's Flight Service Station pilot briefer, including the following.
Synopsis-VFR conditions prevailed throughout the area. Typical of any summer afternoon, there was a chance of thunderstorms throughout the area.
Surface Aviation Reports (SA)--At the time of departure and during the enroute phase of the flight, Grand Forks reported good VFR conditions. However, very suddenly, Grand Forks weather turned ugly. Thunderstorms developed leaving in their wake low ceilings-clouds at 500 to 700 feet above ground level, low visibility and inclement flying conditions. Note: Because this flight required VFR conditions, the weather delayed departure and made enroute operations in the eastern third of North Dakota unsafe. The weather improved to minimums (clouds at 1,000 above ground level and 3 miles visibility) the following day.
Terminal Forecasts (FT)--At the time of departure and during the enroute phase of the flight weather forecasted VFR conditions for Grand Forks. However, the weather deteriorated so rapidly the National Weather Service issued numerous amendments to their forecasts. All amendments indicated inclement weather; one amendment even forecasted cloud bases beginning at 400 feet above ground the other forecasts called for cloud bases at 700 feet above the ground. All forecasts indicated improvement in the weather the next day.
Area Forecasts (FA)--At the time of departure and during the enroute phase of the flight forecasters called for VFR conditions throughout the area.
However, the same forces responsible for the rapid deterioration of Grand Forks weather caused the weather to deteriorate throughout eastern North Dakota and Minnesota. Throughout eastern North Dakota the amended forecasts call for ceilings 1,000 to 2,000 feet overcast, layered up to 10,000, visibility 3-5 miles and fog over eastern North Dakota-clearly unsuitable for enroute navigation. Note: Minnesota's weather was as bad as eastern North Dakota's weather making any departure from the region unsafe. Forecasts for western North Dakota and the rest of the route remained VFR-clouds 8,000 feet broken and widely scattered light thunderstorms.
NOTE: I possess the actual aviation weather reports pertaining to this flight (example-surface aviation reports, terminal forecasts, area forecasts). I will happily provide these reports to interested persons. I elected not to place these 20+ pages on the Internet because these pages would be of little interest to individuals not trained in aviation meteorology.
I logged over 5100 hours as a professional pilot, it is absurd for the University to criticize and enjoin me for conducting aviation operations safely and in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations!
Applicable Federal Aviation Regulations
91.3 The Pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
91.155 (a) No person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude in the following table.
| Altitude | Flight Visibility | Distance From Clouds |
| 1,200 feet or less above the surface-within controlled airspace | 3 statute miles | 500 feet below
1,000 feet above 2,000 feet horizontal |
| More than 1,200 feet above the surface but less than 10,000 mean Sea Level-within controlled airspace | 3 statute miles | 500 feet below
1,000 feet above 2,000 feet horizontal |
(c) No person may operate an aircraft under VFR, within a control zone beneath the ceiling when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet.
(d) No person may takeoff or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR, within a control zone unless ground visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles.