What confuses me is that all the pundit TV shows keep saying tonight is
that authorities have decided not to charge the pilots with a crime.
Are they shaving the distinction between "crime" and a "violation" very
closely. I can't imagine there wouldn't be administrative action
against these two pilots. At least remedial training and a check ride
with an FAA examiner. Or a license suspension. You'd get as much for a
transgression into a plain old class B or C.

Paul Huffman > wrote in
:

> What confuses me is that all the pundit TV shows keep saying tonight
> is that authorities have decided not to charge the pilots with a
> crime. Are they shaving the distinction between "crime" and a
> "violation" very closely. I can't imagine there wouldn't be
> administrative action against these two pilots. At least remedial
> training and a check ride with an FAA examiner. Or a license
> suspension. You'd get as much for a transgression into a plain old
> class B or C.

But a violation of FARs is not a criminal offense. It's a civil action.
That's why you aren't provided with a lawyer, and don't go to a
courtroom. A license suspension is very likely, but that isn't a
criminal sanction.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

In article >, says...

>
>But a violation of FARs is not a criminal offense. It's a civil action.
>That's why you aren't provided with a lawyer, and don't go to a
>courtroom. A license suspension is very likely, but that isn't a
>criminal sanction.
>
>--

Exactly. Which, to me, also means that even though the police say they do
not intend to file charges, the FAA is still free to issue sanctions,
including suspensions or revocations. Is this incorrect?

G Faris

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message

>
> Exactly. Which, to me, also means that even though the police say
> they do not intend to file charges, the FAA is still free to issue
> sanctions, including suspensions or revocations. Is this incorrect?

Yes, that's correct. First time ADIZ offenders face a mandatory 30-day
suspension. This is a civil matter, not criminal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:04:17 -0400, Tom Fleischman
> wrote:

>On 2005-05-11 22:27:59 -0400, Paul Huffman > said:
>
>> What confuses me is that all the pundit TV shows keep saying tonight is
>> that authorities have decided not to charge the pilots with a crime.
>> Are they shaving the distinction between "crime" and a "violation" very
>> closely. I can't imagine there wouldn't be administrative action
>> against these two pilots. At least remedial training and a check ride
>> with an FAA examiner. Or a license suspension. You'd get as much for
>> a transgression into a plain old class B or C.

There is the charging with a Federal Crime, which they say they aren't
going to do, and the violation of FAA regulations for which they most
likely will both be "violated". The FAA is not at all forgiving of
those who transgress into the TFRs and ADIZs. The pilot, at the least
will probably lose his ticket for a year or two, then have to take
remedial training followed by an FAA Check ride (not one given by a
DE). Quite likely the student will get nothing more than some extra
training with emphasis on pilotage, special use airspace, briefings,
and the use of flight plans.

>
>Why both of them? One was PIC, the other was a passenger. Why take
>action against the passenger.

In this case the passenger would probably be considered an accomplice.
The only saving grace is the passenger was a student.
But as to why both? If you are riding with a friend who stops to make
a withdrawal at the bank, except he does it as a robbery. Then drives
away. A few blocks later the police arrest both your friend and you.
It will take a *lot* of convincing that you were not an accomplice.
Probably the convincing of a jury.

Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you convicted
if you draw the wrong jury.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:04:17 -0400, Tom Fleischman
> > wrote:
>>Why both of them? One was PIC, the other was a passenger. Why take
>>action against the passenger.
>
> In this case the passenger would probably be considered an accomplice.

How can someone possibly be an "accomplice" to getting lost? Being an
accomplice requires intentionally helping to take a prohibited action. How
can someone be an accomplice to a violation that's not even intentional on
the part of the perpetrator himself?

> If you are riding with a friend who stops to make
> a withdrawal at the bank, except he does it as a robbery. Then drives
> away. A few blocks later the police arrest both your friend and you.
> It will take a *lot* of convincing that you were not an accomplice.
> Probably the convincing of a jury.

In the situation you describe, it's not up to you to convince a jury of
anything. It's up to the *government* to *prove beyond a reasonable doubt*
that you not only knew about the robbery, but took *overt action* for the
sake of assisting in the robbery. In the absence of some evidence of your
participation (such as testimony to that effect by your friend or by
witnesses), there isn't even a case to be brought against you.

Again, though, that's not at all analogous to the ADIZ violation, which was
unintentional even on the part of the PIC, so no one could possibly be an
"accomplice" to that violation.

And in fact, rather than taking action against the passenger, the FAA has
been praising him, as was documented recently in another thread.

--Gary