Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison

[Montblack]

Ever Consider Lying To The FAA?
Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison

From today's AvWeb (free) e-mail newswire.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/358-full.html#189253

This case:
http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1505

Many cases:
http://www.oig.dot.gov/docs_by_area.php?area=45&long=1


Don't lie ...unless you're actually in Government.

Montblack
Free Martha <fist>

[Jon Kraus]

Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
what happened that we don't know about.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
Mooney 201 4443H

Montblack wrote:
> Ever Consider Lying To The FAA?
> Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison
>
> From today's AvWeb (free) e-mail newswire.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/358-full.html#189253
>
> This case:
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1505
>
> Many cases:
> http://www.oig.dot.gov/docs_by_area.php?area=45&long=1
>
>
> Don't lie ...unless you're actually in Government.
>
> Montblack
> Free Martha <fist>
>
>

[UltraJohn]

according to the article: What he omitted was two jail terms for drug
related offenses. Which show up quite readily in the most casual of checks.
This guy was not a rocket scientist (at least a good one!).
John




Jon Kraus wrote:

> Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
> what happened that we don't know about.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Mooney 201 4443H
>
> Montblack wrote:
>> Ever Consider Lying To The FAA?
>> Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison
>>
>> From today's AvWeb (free) e-mail newswire.
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/358-full.html#189253
>>
>> This case:
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1505
>>
>> Many cases:
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/docs_by_area.php?area=45&long=1
>>
>>
>> Don't lie ...unless you're actually in Government.
>>
>> Montblack
>> Free Martha <fist>
>>
>>

[Dave S]

He was a 2 time convicted felon for drug offenses... and I find it
pretty hard to "inadverdently" forget to disclose that on an application.

So.. yea.. kinda severe, but I think the fella was a perfect opportunity
to "make an example". Regardless of how you feel about it, felons and
former felons are pretty much walking around with a permanent black mark
on their record, wether they've done their time, paid their dues....etc.

Dave

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
> what happened that we don't know about.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Mooney 201 4443H
>
> Montblack wrote:
>
>> Ever Consider Lying To The FAA?
>> Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison
>>
>> From today's AvWeb (free) e-mail newswire.
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/358-full.html#189253
>>
>> This case:
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1505
>>
>> Many cases:
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/docs_by_area.php?area=45&long=1
>>
>>
>> Don't lie ...unless you're actually in Government.
>>
>> Montblack
>> Free Martha <fist>
>>
>

[jls]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
> what happened that we don't know about.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Mooney 201 4443H
>

The form you fill out when you apply for a medical clearly asks what crime
you've ever been convicted of ---- any crime. It also clearly warns that
lying on the form can subject you to prosecution for perjury pursuant to
criminal sections of the United States Code.

[AINut]

He might have the same thoughts that I have:
1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
earning a license.

It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.

David


jls wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
>>what happened that we don't know about.
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>Mooney 201 4443H
>>
>
>
> The form you fill out when you apply for a medical clearly asks what crime
> you've ever been convicted of ---- any crime. It also clearly warns that
> lying on the form can subject you to prosecution for perjury pursuant to
> criminal sections of the United States Code.
>
>

[Dave S]

AINut wrote:

> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
> to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.
>
> David
>
>>

If he felt it was not the FAA's business, he should have not applied for
the medical form. In doing so, he was endorsing a document that attested
to the absence of conviction. Thats what he was busted for. LYING. Not
for being an ex-con. He was busted for LYING about it.

Unfortunately, if he wanted to seek the PRIVELEDGE of flying in the US
(outside the confines of the sport class)he needed to obtain the
medical. He made his choice and they made an example of him. Had he
simply owned up to it, he would likely had finally been issued the
medical... and wouldn't be incarcerated now.

Dave

[George Patterson]

Dave S wrote:
>
> He made his choice and they made an example of him.

In my opinion, they didn't make an example of him. If I recall the form
correctly, he didn't get anywhere near the maximum sentence. If they had wanted
to make an example of him, it would be very easy to get a maximum sentence on
someone with two prior felony convictions.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Matt Whiting]

AINut wrote:

> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.

It is if you want a pilot certificate. If you don't want that, then you
are correct that it is none of the FAA's business.


> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
> earning a license.

The information is relevant. Offender's often repeat, that isn't news.

> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
> to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.

Empathizing with it still doesn't make perjury legal. :-)

Matt

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave S > posted:

> AINut wrote:
>
>> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
>> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't
>> going to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.
>>
>> David
>>
Fortunately, the FAA doesn't leave it up to individuals to decide what is
or is not relevant to flight safety. In this case, there is more than one
reason to suspect that his problem *could* be a risk, and that possibility
was underscored by his lying about it.

> Unfortunately, if he wanted to seek the PRIVELEDGE of flying in the US
> (outside the confines of the sport class)he needed to obtain the
> medical. He made his choice and they made an example of him. Had he
> simply owned up to it, he would likely had finally been issued the
> medical... and wouldn't be incarcerated now.
>
I'd guess that he lied about it because a drug conviction may pretty much
eliminate his chances of being issued a medical. And, it's an indictment
against his judgement that he didn't expect the feds to find out about it.

Regards,

Neil

[AINut]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> AINut wrote:
>
>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
>> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>
>
> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>
>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>> earning a license.
>
>
> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.

Obviously. But they are wrong.

[John Godwin]

AINut > wrote in
:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be
>> irrelevant.
>
> Obviously. But they are wrong.

...and with respect to your statement, your medical and/or psychiatric
credentials are?.....

--

[Matt Whiting]

AINut wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> AINut wrote:
>>
>>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not
>>> have committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>>
>>
>>
>> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
>> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
>> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>>
>>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>>> earning a license.
>>
>>
>>
>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.
>
>
> Obviously. But they are wrong.

No, they are being prudent.

Matt

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
AINut > wrote:
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> AINut wrote:
>>
>>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
>>> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>>
>>
>> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
>> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
>> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>>
>>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>>> earning a license.
>>
>>
>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.
>
>Obviously. But they are wrong.

You have *your* opinion.

They have _theirs_.

The law says "their opinion is the only one that counts".

Since they 'own the game', *IF* you're going to "play the game", you play
by _their_ rules.

Note: criminal convictions -- even after 'time served' -- ARE indicative of
the prior exercise of "bad judgement", among other things. Telling lies about
prior convictions on a document where it says "you can go to jail if you
lie here" is _continued_ exercise of "bad judgement".

The FAA has a *valid* "public safety" interest in evaluating the 'judgement'
of the candidate 'pilot in command' in life-and-death situations -- affecting
not only said pilot, but passengers, and potentially _large_ numbers of
people on the ground.