Cessna Over DC -- NASA Form?

[Mike Granby]

If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?

[Gary Drescher]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?

According to the ASRS immunity policy
(http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't
been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five
years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I
doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have
violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)

--Gary

[John T]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com
>
> If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?

hmph

Nice try, though.

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

[Maule Driver]

Is it too naive to think that if they file, and some time passes, and the
story disappears from the headlines that they *might* get away without
punishment.

Hee hee

Of course, the best legal minds could be deployed and these guys would get
(deservedly) trashed.

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?
>

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> According to the ASRS immunity policy
> (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
> timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't
> been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five
> years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I
> doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have
> violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)


"Getting lost" isn't the violation, the violation is busting the ADIZ
and then prohibited airspace.

It doesn't look like this was a student and CFI, it looks like this was
a student and an older private pilot, experience unknown.

Frankly, I'm not sure how you can screw up that badly. I can see
clipping the ADIZ, but to come within 3 miles of downtown, or even close
to that, is penetrating pretty far into where they were not supposed to
be. I will be interested to hear if any further explanation is
forthcoming, because I'd really like to understand how a VFR pilot makes
such a huge mistake unless the pilot was not proficient and did not
adequately prepare for the flight. I'm also not sure that I'd be flying
around down in that area without some type of ground or sat-based
navigation instrument to help ensure that I avoid the ADIZ. The entire
thing is a little puzzling.

If there are no consequences for busting the ADIZ, you might as well not
have the ADIZ. I think the ADIZ is nothing but feel-good BS for the
self-serving politicians, but take that away and you still have Class B
airspace and prohibited areas, which appear to have been violated.



JKG

[Mike Rapoport]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?
>
> According to the ASRS immunity policy
> (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
> timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't
> been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five
> years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I
> doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have
> violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)
>
> --Gary
>

Read 9 (c) (2) on your link. I would say that violating the airspace
constituted a lack of competency.

Mike
MU-2

[Gary Drescher]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> If there are no consequences for busting the ADIZ, you might as well not
> have the ADIZ.

Nevertheless, under current law and policy, there can be no enforcement
consequences if the ASRS immunity conditions are met (inadvertent,
non-criminal violation; no accident; ASRS report filed within ten days; and
no prior finding of FAR violation within five years).

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:16:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote in
>::

>Nevertheless, under current law and policy, there can be no enforcement
>consequences if the ASRS immunity conditions are met (inadvertent,
>non-criminal violation; no accident; ASRS report filed within ten days; and
>no prior finding of FAR violation within five years).

Would that preclude remedial training, testing?

[Dave S]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If there are no consequences for busting the ADIZ, you might as well not
>>have the ADIZ.
>
>
> Nevertheless, under current law and policy, there can be no enforcement
> consequences if the ASRS immunity conditions are met (inadvertent,
> non-criminal violation; no accident; ASRS report filed within ten days; and
> no prior finding of FAR violation within five years).
>
> --Gary
>
>

I know first hand of a pilot who busted a presidential TFR.. had the
F-16's flying off his wing. He was grounded for a few months. I dont see
how the NASA form saved him any.

Dave

[Gary Drescher]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Read 9 (c) (2) on your link. I would say that violating the airspace
> constituted a lack of competency.

Almost any accidental violation that would be reported on an ASRS form shows
a failure of competency. Section 44709 allows the FAA to suspend or revoke a
pilot's license if a re-examination of the pilot shows that the pilot cannot
fly safely. But there's no provision under Section 44709 to take any
*punitive* action.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>If there are no consequences for busting the ADIZ, you might as well not
>>>have the ADIZ.
>
>> Nevertheless, under current law and policy, there can be no enforcement
>> consequences if the ASRS immunity conditions are met (inadvertent,
>> non-criminal violation; no accident; ASRS report filed within ten days;
>> and no prior finding of FAR violation within five years).
>>
>> --Gary
>
> I know first hand of a pilot who busted a presidential TFR.. had the
> F-16's flying off his wing. He was grounded for a few months. I dont see
> how the NASA form saved him any.

Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the
previous five years?

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:16:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Nevertheless, under current law and policy, there can be no enforcement
>>consequences if the ASRS immunity conditions are met (inadvertent,
>>non-criminal violation; no accident; ASRS report filed within ten days;
>>and
>>no prior finding of FAR violation within five years).
>
> Would that preclude remedial training, testing?

You're right, that's a possibility. The FAA just can't take any *punitive*
action if the ASRS conditions are met.

--Gary

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:37:23 GMT, Dave S >
wrote in >::

>I dont see how the NASA form saved him any.

Did he meet all the NASA qualifications?

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If there are no consequences for busting the ADIZ, you might as well not
> > have the ADIZ.
>
> Nevertheless, under current law and policy, there can be no enforcement
> consequences if the ASRS immunity conditions are met (inadvertent,
> non-criminal violation; no accident; ASRS report filed within ten days; and
> no prior finding of FAR violation within five years).


I'm just saying that there need to be consequences, not that those
consequences have to come from the FAA. Of course, if I did something
like that and had these moron reporters stalking me, plastering my name
everywhere, and talking about a Cessna 150 like it was a 757, I don't
think I could find a rock big enough to hide under. Maybe that is
punishment enough.

My biggest issue is the deflection that takes place after these
incidents, or even aircraft accidents in general. The reason people
violate the ADIZ and prohibited areas, and bust airspace, and run out of
fuel, is due to poor planning and/or judgment on the part of the pilots,
not because the ADIZ exists, the airspace exists, or darn it, those
engines require fuel in order to keep running.



JKG

[Mike Granby]

Plus, 44709 only allows revocation if the pilot's action impacts "the
safety of air commerce or air transportation and the public interest".
These guys might have might have acted against the public interest, but
I can't see any argument that they've impacted commerce or transport
safety being sustainable.

[Thomas Borchert]

Martin,

> He has to face all
> charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (-> terrorism).
>

Well, I may be a tad unfair, but frankly, I hope they carry him off to
Gitmo yesterday...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

In article t>, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Read 9 (c) (2) on your link. I would say that violating the airspace
> constituted a lack of competency.

Almost anything a pilot may report on the ASRS form can constitute a
lack of competency though.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Gary Drescher]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Plus, 44709 only allows revocation if the pilot's action impacts "the
> safety of air commerce or air transportation and the public interest".
> These guys might have might have acted against the public interest, but
> I can't see any argument that they've impacted commerce or transport
> safety being sustainable.

I think one could argue that if they'd been shot down over DC, it would've
adversely affected the safety of people on the ground. But 44709 only
provides for suspension or revocation if the pilot is deemed unable to fly
safely in the *future*; it can't be a punishment for past failures. If the
pilots brush up their rusty navigation skills (and their familiarity with
ADIZ and intercept procedures), there's no reason to think they'd be
significantly more likely than other pilots to bust the ADIZ *again*.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00044709----000-.html

--Gary

[John T]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> His certificate is the least he should worry about. He has to face all
> charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (-> terrorism).

No charges are being filed.

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

[Mike Granby]

> think one could argue that if they'd been shot
> down over DC, it would've adversely affected
> the safety of people on the ground.

Agreed. But that isn't air commerce or transportation.

[Mike Granby]

> He has to face all charges maid possible
> by the Patriot Act et al (-> terrorism).

Mens rea?

[Gary Drescher]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> think one could argue that if they'd been shot
>> down over DC, it would've adversely affected
>> the safety of people on the ground.
>
> Agreed. But that isn't air commerce or transportation.

I see your point, but I think it's plausible to construe the safety of air
transportation to include the safety of those on whom a plane might fall,
the safety of the (non-pilot) passenger, and even the safety of the PIC
himself.

--Gary

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>If they file a NASA form, will it save their tickets?
>
>
> According to the ASRS immunity policy
> (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
> timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they haven't
> been found to have committed another FAR violation within the past five
> years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be imposed. (I
> doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found to have
> violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)
>
There is nothing that's going to stop them from at least a 30 day
suspension. There is NO way around this in the DC airspace
viloations (most of which don't cause the "sky is falling"
evacuation that attract news coverage).

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the
> previous five years?

I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to
avoid any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates
DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension.

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in the
>> previous five years?
>
> I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to avoid
> any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates
> DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension.

I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
binding.

There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in
which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity
was denied?

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> According to the ASRS immunity policy
>> (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/immunity_nf.htm), if they file ASRS forms in a
>> timely manner, and if their violation was inadvertent, and if they
>> haven't been found to have committed another FAR violation within the
>> past five years, then no civil penalty or certificate suspension can be
>> imposed. (I doubt that a student pilot flying with his CFI could be found
>> to have violated the FARs by getting lost, in any event.)
>>
> There is nothing that's going to stop them from at least a 30 day
> suspension. There is NO way around this in the DC airspace
> viloations (most of which don't cause the "sky is falling"
> evacuation that attract news coverage).

See my reply to your same point elsewhere in this thread.

--Gary

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
> declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
> this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
> seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
> binding.


You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own
rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in
particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or
conveniently redefining them to suit the moment.



JKG

[Gary Drescher]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
>> declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
>> this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
>> seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were
>> not
>> binding.
>
> You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own
> rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in
> particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or
> conveniently redefining them to suit the moment.

I've read several cases that are popularly regarded as showing the FAA
ignoring its own rules, but on close examination, I don't think that's what
happened. In any case, abrogating an explicit promise of immunity would be
an *extreme* violation of due process. I am unaware of any precedent for
that, nor has anyone here cited one.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> I'm just saying that there need to be consequences, not that those
> consequences have to come from the FAA.

It's not clear where else they could come from, though (except in terms of
embarrassment, as you mention). Accidentally busting an ADIZ is not a crime,
as far as I'm aware; the FBI has already announced that there are no
criminal charges to be pressed.

> The reason people
> violate the ADIZ and prohibited areas, and bust airspace, and run out of
> fuel, is due to poor planning and/or judgment on the part of the pilots,

The reports so far suggest that the pilot did plan to avoid the ADIZ, so his
planning was not necessarily inadequate. Looks like he just got lost. What
was probably lacking was his navigational skill, though even that isn't
certain--being highly skilled makes elementary errors unlikely, but not
impossible.

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> > > He has to face all
> > > charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (-> terrorism).
> ^^^^^
> sorry for my typo ... *arggl*, to late to supersede.
>
>
> > Well, I may be a tad unfair, but frankly, I hope they carry him off to
> > Gitmo yesterday...
>
>
> only unfair? to lose your civil rights? guilty unless proven unguilty? or
> what? *phew*
>
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

The patriot act (a misnomer if there ever was one) says you are guilty and
have no chance to prove you are innocent.

[Dave Stadt]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > His certificate is the least he should worry about. He has to face all
> > charges maid possible by the Patriot Act et al (-> terrorism).
>
> No charges are being filed.

By the FBI. Doesn't exclude FAA or others from lining up.


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

[Dave Stadt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >
> >> Do you know if he filed the form? Did he have any other violations in
the
> >> previous five years?
> >
> > I can guarantee you that the "emergency" rules have been invoked to
avoid
> > any "get out of jail free cards." Any pilot that violates
> > DC airspace will get at last 30 days suspension.
>
> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
> declared immunity policy.

It's called the patriot act.

[John T]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> By the FBI. Doesn't exclude FAA or others from lining up.

These pilots are not facing any criminal charges. FAA sanctions are a civil
matter. The worst that will happen is a revocation of their certificates.

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
>> declared immunity policy.
>
> It's called the patriot act.

True. But the "Patriot" Act could be used to imprison any of us for any
reason at any time, with or without an ADIZ incursion. So far, though, its
invocation against US citizens is rare (though still a grave danger). The
FBI has already announced that no criminal charges are contemplated. The
ASRS immunity policy applies only to civil violations; the "Patriot" Act is
part of criminal law.

--Gary

[Jose]

> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
> declared immunity policy.

What exactly is this policy? My understanding is that they can't use
information in the NASA form as evidence against you, but if they have
independent evidence, that is fair game.

Jose

--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
>> declared immunity policy.
>
> What exactly is this policy? My understanding is that they can't use
> information in the NASA form as evidence against you, but if they have
> independent evidence, that is fair game.

No, the immunity policy is much stronger than that. See the pointer earlier
in the thread, along with my summary of its content.

--Gary

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
> declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
> this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
> seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
> binding.
>

The whole FAA regulatory system is an afront to your legal system. The
ASRS immunity never applied to crimes (specifically exempted). The
FAA isn't runnign the show here, and nobody has had the guts to stand
up to the people who are.

> There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in
> which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity
> was denied?
>
You're confusing two issues. The ASRS gives you immunity from action
based on the information you submit. This is importat, but it doesn't
apply here. They don't need the information in the ASRS form to prove
you violated the ADIZ.

The second ASRS feature is the absolution from sanctions if you
had submitted one. This just said you can get out of sanctions if
you showed a good attitude by sumbitting the form. This is what
is not being offered to pilots busting the ADIZ.

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
>> declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
>> this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
>> seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were
>> not binding.
>
> The whole FAA regulatory system is an afront to your legal system. The
> ASRS immunity never applied to crimes (specifically exempted). The FAA
> isn't runnign the show here, and nobody has had the guts to stand
> up to the people who are.

No crime was committed; the FBI has already announced that no criminal
charges will be pressed. You were claiming there could be a 30-day license
suspension regardless of ASRS immunity conditions; that would be a civil
matter (under the FAA's jurisdiction), not a criminal matter.

>> There've been many DC ADIZ violations. Are you aware of any instance in
>> which a pilot met the ASRS immunity conditions, but the promised immunity
>> was denied?
>>
> You're confusing two issues. The ASRS gives you immunity from action
> based on the information you submit. This is importat, but it doesn't
> apply here. They don't need the information in the ASRS form to prove
> you violated the ADIZ.

Right; that's not the type of immunity I was referring to.

> The second ASRS feature is the absolution from sanctions if you
> had submitted one. This just said you can get out of sanctions if
> you showed a good attitude by sumbitting the form. This is what
> is not being offered to pilots busting the ADIZ.

My point is that the written immunity policy promises that that absolution
*will* be granted (provided that a few conditions are met, as discussed
earlier in the thread). The written promise does not specify any exception
for ADIZ violations, so any such exception would constitute a blatant
violation of the stated promise. Promises of immunity are taken very
seriously by our legal system. In the absence of any known precedent for
such a blatant violation of an explicit promise of immunity (when the stated
conditions are met), I don't see any reason to conclude that that's what
would occur.

--Gary

[Ron Natalie]

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> No crime was committed; the FBI has already announced that no criminal
> charges will be pressed.

Just because there is no criminal charges filed, doesn't mean that a
crime wasn't technically comitted.

>
> My point is that the written immunity policy promises that that absolution
> *will* be granted (provided that a few conditions are met, as discussed
> earlier in the thread). The written promise does not specify any exception
> for ADIZ violations, so any such exception would constitute a blatant
> violation of the stated promise. Promises of immunity are taken very
> seriously by our legal system. In the absence of any known precedent for
> such a blatant violation of an explicit promise of immunity (when the stated
> conditions are met), I don't see any reason to conclude that that's what
> would occur.
>
Welcome to the post-911 world. The ASRS doesn't even have the force of
regulation and the FAA and the rest off the executive branch is free to
misinterpret the regulations as they see fit.

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>>
>> No crime was committed; the FBI has already announced that no criminal
>> charges will be pressed.
>
> Just because there is no criminal charges filed, doesn't mean that a crime
> wasn't technically comitted.

True. But do you know of any specific criminal statute that's violated by an
inadvertent ADIZ incursion?

> Welcome to the post-911 world. The ASRS doesn't even have the force of
> regulation and the FAA and the rest off the executive branch is free to
> misinterpret the regulations as they see fit.

It's true that a promise of immunity doesn't constitute a regulation. But I
don't see how you conclude that it has *less force* than a regulation. As I
keep pointing out, promises of immunity are legally binding, and are treated
as such, even in very serious cases. No one in this discussion has been able
to cite an example, before or after 9/11, in which the FAA was able to (or
even tried to) impose a sanction that violated ASRS-promised immunity.

--Gary

[Jay Honeck]

>> No charges are being filed.
>
> By the FBI. Doesn't exclude FAA or others from lining up.

Here's the word from FAA Spokesman William Schumann:

Pilots who violate the ADIZ (so far none have been discovered to be
full-fledged evil-doers, or even to harbor any ill-intent) generally get a
30- to 90-day suspension of their certificate, Shumann said, but each case
is handled individually. The range of possibilities does include revocation.
It might be more understandable that pilots can be tripped up by Temporary
Flight Restrictions that appear with no warning (like those that follow the
president), but it seems it would be tough to miss the ADIZ and the FRZ. The
FRZ has been violated much less often than the ADIZ, Shumann said.

This was published after the LAST incursion (remember the Mooney?) -- no
telling what will happen after this most recent one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
> It's not clear where else they could come from, though (except in terms of
> embarrassment, as you mention). Accidentally busting an ADIZ is not a crime,
> as far as I'm aware; the FBI has already announced that there are no
> criminal charges to be pressed.

Seems like a homeland security event to me. I fail to believe that
there can't be exceptions to the NASA ASRS procedures in extreme cases,
and I'd say busing the ADIZ and prohibited airspace is extreme.



> The reports so far suggest that the pilot did plan to avoid the ADIZ, so his
> planning was not necessarily inadequate. Looks like he just got lost. What
> was probably lacking was his navigational skill, though even that isn't
> certain--being highly skilled makes elementary errors unlikely, but not
> impossible.


I haven't seen or heard anything that suggests that the flight planning
was adequate, but even if it was, the execution was not adequate. I
would say that it's quite certain that the pilot's navigational skills
were not adequate, otherwise he wouldn't have busted airspace as badly
as he did--remember, he didn't just clip the ADIZ and retreat, he was
apparently pretty deep into the ADIZ and the prohibited area.

It seems like the entire event could have been avoided had he been
talking to someone. Apparently, the radio wasn't working. In my
opinion, taking an airplane with an inoperative radio into or around the
DC area is lunacy.



JKG

[Gary Drescher]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> I fail to believe that there can't be exceptions to the NASA ASRS
> procedures in extreme cases,
> and I'd say busing the ADIZ and prohibited airspace is extreme.

The immunity promise is spelled out in the NASA link I posted earlier. It
has no exception for busting ADIZs. "Extreme" cases are criminal cases
rather than merely civil cases (in civil cases, the FAA can just impose
fines and administrative penalties, such as license suspensions). The ASRS
immunity indeed does not apply to criminal violations. But the FBI has
already said that there is no crime to prosecute. So that leaves the FAA,
which is bound by the ASRS immunity promise (if the spelled-out conditions
apply).

Look, it's not that I'm underestimating what the government could do in the
name of homeland security these days. I don't deny that they could
contravene due process (and other Constitutional guarantees) to disappear
you, or torture you, or send you to Saudi Arabia to be tortured, if they
deemed it important enough. What I doubt is that they would blatantly and
publicly contravene due process (by failing to honor a binding promise of
immunity, which is a staple of our legal system) just to impose a piddling
penalty like suspending a pilot's license.

> Apparently, the radio wasn't working. In my
> opinion, taking an airplane with an inoperative radio into or around the
> DC area is lunacy.

Has it been established that the radio failed *before* entering the area?

--Gary

[John Galban]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Apparently, the radio wasn't working. In my
> > opinion, taking an airplane with an inoperative radio into or
around the
> > DC area is lunacy.
>
> Has it been established that the radio failed *before* entering the
area?
>

According to one of the intercept pilots, the Cessna pilot began
talking to them on 121.5 after the intercept. Sounds to me like the
radio was working fine.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)