ADIZ pilot's ticket revoked

[A.Coleman]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL&sn=018&sc=478

AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot
-
Monday, May 23, 2005

(05-23) 12:15 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small
plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11,
forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive
mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.

Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's restricted
airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an
emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he
"constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."

The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who was
also in the plane.

"This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted
airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into
restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward
highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of people
as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.

The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of flight
time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S.
Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.

Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
operating an aircraft, the FAA said. He failed to check the weather report
before leaving Smoketown, Pa., and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to
Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.

___

On the Net:

Federal Aviation Administration:

www.faa.gov
URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL
©2005 Associated Press

[Peter R.]

A. Coleman wrote:

> The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of
flight
> time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S.

> Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted
it.

Really? A Citation jet intercepted the wayward C150? That's news to
me.

--
Peter

[Helen Woods]

It was suposedly a customs jet. It was involved in the chase with the
F16 and blackhawk.

[John T]

Peter R. wrote:
>
> Really? A Citation jet intercepted the wayward C150? That's news to
> me.

The Citation was involved in the intercept although the Blackhawk was the
one flying formation - at least until the F-16s showed up. That was
reported from the beginning.

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

[xyzzy]

A.Coleman wrote:

> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL&sn=018&sc=478
>
> AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot
> -
> Monday, May 23, 2005
>
> (05-23) 12:15 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
>
> The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small
> plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11,
> forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive
> mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.
>
> Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's restricted
> airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an
> emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he
> "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."
>
> The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who was
> also in the plane.

AOPA has said that Sheaffer is not an instructor, if correct Troy Martin
was not "his student" he was merely a passenger (legally anyway)

[Paul kgyy]

What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
government against a C150? Threaten them with loss of duty free
privileges????????????????

[Peter R.]

John T wrote:

> The Citation was involved in the intercept although the Blackhawk was
the
> one flying formation - at least until the F-16s showed up. That was
> reported from the beginning.

Thanks. I guess I missed that. These newsgroups should be required
reading for every pilot. :-)

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
> government against a C150? Threaten them with loss of duty free
> privileges????????????????

Confiscate their booze and cigarettes.

[gatt]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message

> What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
> government against a C150?

Fly into it.

*shrug*

-c

[gatt]

so what do you guys think of it?

Sounds like, all the hysteria and other issues aside, the pilot really
screwed the pooch on many basic levels.

-c
HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
it's restricted airspace?

[Grumman-581]

"John T" wrote in message
...
> The Citation was involved in the intercept although the Blackhawk was the
> one flying formation - at least until the F-16s showed up. That was
> reported from the beginning.

Saying that the F16s were "flying formation" with the C150 is a bit of a
stretch of the term... You might as well say that buzzards circling overhead
as you're dying in the desert are "flying formation" with ya'...

[Dean Wilkinson]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> so what do you guys think of it?
>
> Sounds like, all the hysteria and other issues aside, the pilot really
> screwed the pooch on many basic levels.
>
> -c
> HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
> it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
> it's restricted airspace?
>
I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction. A year off to think
about it sounds fair and proper.

[Denny]

Interested folks need to read Mr. Sheaffer's issued statement, reported
on AVWEB and AOPA....

denny

[Just go look it up!]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:54:34 -0700, "gatt" >
wrote:

>
>so what do you guys think of it?
>
>Sounds like, all the hysteria and other issues aside, the pilot really
>screwed the pooch on many basic levels.

Their side of the story is at
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1

The FAA says "Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of
pilots before operating an aircraft, the FAA said.

He failed to check the weather report before leaving Smoketown,
Pennsylvania, and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which
informs pilots of airspace restrictions."

They say they "checked various weather websites on his home computer
for the flight area and consulted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) website, looking for Temporary Flight Restrictions
(TFR). "

Course, none of it's recorded since they didn't use DUAT(S) so...

[John Galban]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "John T" wrote in message
> ...
> > The Citation was involved in the intercept although the Blackhawk
was the
> > one flying formation - at least until the F-16s showed up. That
was
> > reported from the beginning.
>
> Saying that the F16s were "flying formation" with the C150 is a bit
of a
> stretch of the term... You might as well say that buzzards circling
overhead
> as you're dying in the desert are "flying formation" with ya'...

He didn't say that. He said that the Blackhawk was flying formation
unil the F-16s got there. According to various reports, that's when
the Blackhawk broke off.

While working in a restricted area on a missile range in the 80s, I
once requested that some F-15s to intercept a hot air balloon that had
strayed over a hot range. Now that was a funny intercept!

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

[Dave S]

Customs has been doing aerial intercept of aircraft for years, primarily
from an anti-drug standpoint. There are two based here in suburban
Houston, and we have had them as a speaker before (pre-9/11) regarding
their ops (safety meeting/PR material)

What were they doing? They were tracking the target. Just like they
always do.

Dave

Peter R. wrote:

> John T wrote:
>
>
>>The Citation was involved in the intercept although the Blackhawk was
>
> the
>
>>one flying formation - at least until the F-16s showed up. That was
>>reported from the beginning.
>
>
> Thanks. I guess I missed that. These newsgroups should be required
> reading for every pilot. :-)
>

[Dave S]

keep in mind this is an "Emergency Revocation".

The pilot involved still is entitled to his due process, and the action
MAY (we are talking hypothetically, here) be overturned at the
completion of that due process.

He has yet to actually have his formal meeting, etc..

Dave

A.Coleman wrote:

> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL&sn=018&sc=478
>
> AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot
> -
> Monday, May 23, 2005
>
> (05-23) 12:15 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
>
> The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small
> plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11,
> forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive
> mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.
>
> Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's restricted
> airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an
> emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he
> "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."
>
> The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who was
> also in the plane.
>
> "This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted
> airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into
> restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.
>
> The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward
> highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of people
> as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.
>
> The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of flight
> time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S.
> Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.
>
> Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
> operating an aircraft, the FAA said. He failed to check the weather report
> before leaving Smoketown, Pa., and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to
> Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
>
> ___
>
> On the Net:
>
> Federal Aviation Administration:
>
> www.faa.gov
> URL:
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL
> ©2005 Associated Press
>
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Dave S > wrote:
> keep in mind this is an "Emergency Revocation".

> The pilot involved still is entitled to his due process, and the action
> MAY (we are talking hypothetically, here) be overturned at the
> completion of that due process.

> He has yet to actually have his formal meeting, etc..

> Dave

<snip>

The odds of the NTSB overturning this are somewhere between zero and
not a chance in hell.

For more and the specific regulations (8) violated:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050523faa.html

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave S]

I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
He has not had that yet.

Dave

[Montblack]

("gatt" wrote)
>> What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
>> government against a C150?

> Fly into it.
>
> *shrug*


History Channel - May 15th
(Don't know when it's on again)

"The Hurricane That Saved London"

(From the show page)
Only one fighter plane ever crashed in the streets of London during WWII,
and the story of the crash is the stuff of novels. We join a team of
excavators, at a busy intersection just blocks from Buckingham Palace, that
is about to uncover what remains of it. We also get the firsthand account of
the crash from the doomed plane's pilot Ray Holmes, who is still alive to
tell his story. While defending London from Nazi attacks, Holmes rammed his
fighter plane into a German bomber in a desperate attempt to deflect the
bomber from its target--Buckingham Palace. It worked, but not before Holmes
lost control of his own plane and was forced to eject.

<http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/listings_weekly.jsp?fromYear=2005&fromMonth=4&fromDate=15&NetwCode=THC&timezone=2&View=Weekly&&fromTime=18>

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F53F2402B
(Same History Channel link as above)


Montblack

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Dave S > wrote:
> I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
> before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
> He has not had that yet.

> Dave

A trial in this case would be an appeal to the NTSB.

Doing that would be extremely stupid.

He got essentially the minimum punishment for a finding of violation.

The NTSB could easily decide that wasn't enough and call for a civil
penalty of up to $1000 for each violation cited. He has at least 8.

Sometimes it is best to just shut up and take your medicine.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Carl Orton]

Heard on local DFW radio that he couldn't have carried the student anyway -
he had not logged the required takeoffs & landings in the previous 90 days!!


"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
. ..
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL&sn=018&sc=478
>
> AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot
> -
> Monday, May 23, 2005
>
> (05-23) 12:15 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
>
> The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small
> plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11,
> forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive
> mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.
>
> Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's
> restricted
> airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an
> emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he
> "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."
>
> The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who
> was
> also in the plane.
>
> "This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted
> airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into
> restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.
>
> The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward
> highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of
> people
> as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.
>
> The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of
> flight
> time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S.
> Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.
>
> Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
> operating an aircraft, the FAA said. He failed to check the weather report
> before leaving Smoketown, Pa., and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to
> Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
>
> ___
>
> On the Net:
>
> Federal Aviation Administration:
>
> www.faa.gov
> URL:
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL
> ©2005 Associated Press
>
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Montblack wrote:
> "The Hurricane That Saved London"
>
> (From the show page)
> Only one fighter plane ever crashed in the streets of London during WWII,
> and the story of the crash is the stuff of novels. We join a team of
> excavators, at a busy intersection just blocks from Buckingham Palace, that
> is about to uncover what remains of it. We also get the firsthand account of
> the crash from the doomed plane's pilot Ray Holmes, who is still alive to
> tell his story. While defending London from Nazi attacks, Holmes rammed his
> fighter plane into a German bomber in a desperate attempt to deflect the
> bomber from its target--Buckingham Palace. It worked, but not before Holmes
> lost control of his own plane and was forced to eject.


Hurricanes had ejection seats? I learn something new here every day. <G>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dean Wilkinson wrote:
>> HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
>> it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
>> it's restricted airspace?
>>
> I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
> violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
> and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
> trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction. A year off to think
> about it sounds fair and proper.


NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student will get
to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the controls, the
private pilot was the pilot in command.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[John Galban]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>
> Hurricanes had ejection seats? I learn something new here every day.
<G>
>
Come on, he was quoting the History Channel. It's been my experience
that you can expect to see a few aviation faux pas in their programs
every now and then.

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

[Grumman-581]

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> I wish they'd shot that Schaefer guy. He's rat****ed all of us. No
> doubt, there will be some great clamor from the lay public for the FAA
> to "DO SOMETHING," and the FAA will drool and do something all right.
> It'll be stupid, pointless and ineffective, will rat**** a lot of
> law-abiding people and not accomplish a thing.

Oh gee, a Prodigy weenie... And a semi-anonymous one at that... Like anyone
actually gives a **** what a web-tv wantabe actually thinks (and I'm using
that term *very* loosely)...

[Franklin Newton]

Dear tube,
You need to take a longer look at who is actually doing the rat*****ng, it's
not Shaefer and it's not Osama.

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> I wish they'd shot that Schaefer guy. He's rat****ed all of us. No
> doubt, there will be some great clamor from the lay public for the FAA
> to "DO SOMETHING," and the FAA will drool and do something all right.
> It'll be stupid, pointless and ineffective, will rat**** a lot of
> law-abiding people and not accomplish a thing.
>
> I hope Schaefer never sees a left seat again.

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:Iuvke.2341$Is4.888@attbi_s21...
> Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I wish they'd shot that Schaefer guy. He's rat****ed all of us. No
> > doubt, there will be some great clamor from the lay public for the FAA
> > to "DO SOMETHING," and the FAA will drool and do something all right.
> > It'll be stupid, pointless and ineffective, will rat**** a lot of
> > law-abiding people and not accomplish a thing.
>
> Oh gee, a Prodigy weenie... And a semi-anonymous one at that...

And schizophrenic at that!


> Like anyone
> actually gives a **** what a web-tv wantabe actually thinks (and I'm using
> that term *very* loosely)...

Bigot!! :~)

[Juan Jimenez]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> Montblack wrote:
>> "The Hurricane That Saved London"
>>
>> (From the show page)
>> Only one fighter plane ever crashed in the streets of London during WWII,
>> and the story of the crash is the stuff of novels. We join a team of
>> excavators, at a busy intersection just blocks from Buckingham Palace,
>> that
>> is about to uncover what remains of it. We also get the firsthand account
>> of
>> the crash from the doomed plane's pilot Ray Holmes, who is still alive to
>> tell his story. While defending London from Nazi attacks, Holmes rammed
>> his
>> fighter plane into a German bomber in a desperate attempt to deflect the
>> bomber from its target--Buckingham Palace. It worked, but not before
>> Holmes
>> lost control of his own plane and was forced to eject.
>
>
> Hurricanes had ejection seats? I learn something new here every day. <G>

Yes, it had one of those newfangled Beatfeet Industries ejection seat, whose
single electrical component was a lightbulb on the instrument panel above a
placard that read "And now for something completely different!"

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Dean Wilkinson wrote:
> >> HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
> >> it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
> >> it's restricted airspace?
> >>
> > I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
> > violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
> > and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
> > trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction. A year off to think
> > about it sounds fair and proper.
>
>
> NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student will
> get
> to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the controls, the
> private pilot was the pilot in command.

But does he get to log the time as PIC?

;-) ;-) ;-)

rg

[AES]

In article >,
Just go look it up! > wrote:

>
> Their side of the story is at
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1
>

As I read through the above I kept thinking more and more: despite the
first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like words
_very_ carefully crafted by an attorney. And sure enough, at the bottom:

"A principal in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Joseph, McDermott &
Reiner, P.C., Mark T. McDermott is engaged in general practice with
an emphasis on litigation, aviation law, and pilot medical
certification. . . . McDermott has been retained by Jim Sheaffer
to represent him in the FAA's investigation of this matter."

[H.P.]

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
>I wish they'd shot that Schaefer guy. He's rat****ed all of us. No
> doubt, there will be some great clamor from the lay public for the FAA
> to "DO SOMETHING," and the FAA will drool and do something all right.
> It'll be stupid, pointless and ineffective, will rat**** a lot of
> law-abiding people and not accomplish a thing.
>
> I hope Schaefer never sees a left seat again.


That being said...Now please have your dominatrix take that bandana'ed ball
out of your mouth, remove the handcuffs, take off the cop hat, comb your
beard and pull up your pants. Now...straighten-out the leathers, slowly
return to the Harley, start her up and go home. Your mother just put clean
sheets on your bed and she's wondering what flavor cake you'd like for your
40th.

[George Patterson]

A.Coleman wrote:
>
> AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot

Another account -- from AOPA --
FAA revokes pilot's certificate

The FAA has revoked Hayden "Jim" Sheaffer's private pilot certificate for
violating on May 11 the heavily restricted airspace over the nation's capital.
The errant pilot's actions caused an international stir.

In the eight-page emergency revocation, the FAA found that Sheaffer failed to
properly prepare for the flight, lost situational awareness throughout the
flight, penetrated multiple layers of restricted and prohibited airspace, didn't
respond properly to intercepting aircraft, and failed to take physical control
of the airplane from an inexperienced passenger.

"Your operation of civil aircraft N5826G under these circumstances demonstrates
either a complete disregard or lack of understanding of basic requirements for
the safe operation of aircraft," the letter said. "These failures establish that
you lack the qualifications necessary to hold an airman certificate."

Sheaffer was ordered to immediately surrender his certificate to the FAA. He
will not be permitted to fly for a minimum of one year. He can then apply for a
new certificate provided he passes a written and practical test. He has the
right to make an immediate appeal to the NTSB. The FAA decided not to take
action against the passenger on the Cessna 150, student pilot Troy Martin.

Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal in the
Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and Reiner, to represent him. In
a written statement, Sheaffer claimed that he prepared for the flight properly
by checking weather and temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough
preflight.

"In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted area of
Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more than
anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to infringe upon the
Washington, D.C., restricted zones," said part of the statement.

The emergency revocation represents the most severe penalty the FAA can levy on
a pilot. "This action we're taking reflects the seriousness of the incident,"
FAA spokesman Greg Martin told AOPA in an interview Monday.

The charges represent the culmination of an FAA investigation that included its
own interviews as well as information from other law enforcement agencies.
Martin and Sheaffer were questioned immediately after the May 11 incident.
Martin was re-interviewed late last week.

The FAA listed Sheaffer's actions by each regulation he violated:

* FAR 61.57(a). Acted as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying a
passenger without having made at least three takeoffs and three landings within
the preceding 90 days.
* FAR 91.103. As pilot in command, failed to familiarize himself with all
available information concerning that flight.
* FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as
to endanger the life or property of another.
* FAR 91.131(a)(1). Operated an aircraft within Class B airspace without
receiving an ATC clearance or establishing and maintaining two-way radio
communication with the ATC facility controlling that airspace.
* FARs 73.83 and 91.133(a). Entered a prohibited area without having the
permission of the using or controlling agency to do so.
* FAR 91.139(c). Operated an aircraft within the designated airspace
defined by an issued notam without complying with the authorizations, terms, and
conditions prescribed in the regulation covered by the notam.
* FAR 99.7. Operated the aircraft in an air defense identification zone
(ADIZ) without complying with special security instructions issued by the
administrator in the interest of national security and that are consistent with
appropriate agreements between the FAA and the Department of Defense.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
> government against a C150?

They were just practicing. Customs is working to try to take over enforcement of
the ADIZ from the FAA. Representative Mark Souder of Indiana tried to add an
ammendment to the HS bill to give them control over it.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

gatt wrote:
>
> HOW do you as a safe, qualified pilot fly over Washington DC and not know
> it's Washington DC? Are there any pilots in these forums that DON'T know
> it's restricted airspace?

Actually, I've flown over that area many times cutting under the Dulles class-B
in happier days. There's not much there that's distinctive if you don't know the
area. A fair number of little lakes that all look alike. Then an increasing
number of houses, but by then, you'd be inside the ADIZ. I must say, however,
that I would've turned around many miles before they did. The beltway is really
unmistakeable, and, of course, you've got lots of famous landmarks a bit further on.

In short, coming from that direction, it would be real easy to bust the ADIZ
without knowing it, but *extremely* hard to get as far as they did without
knowing you're over D.C..

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Dean Wilkinson wrote:
>
> I think it was warranted. If an instructor shows such poor judgement as to
> violate a highly publicised ADIZ through lack of adequate flight planning
> and usage of advanced navigation equipment (hell, even VOR would do the
> trick), he needs to be given remedial instruction.

I don't know of any instructors who have done this.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

AES wrote:
>
> As I read through the above I kept thinking more and more: despite the
> first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
> ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like words
> _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.

Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Dave S wrote:
> keep in mind this is an "Emergency Revocation".
>
> The pilot involved still is entitled to his due process, and the action
> MAY (we are talking hypothetically, here) be overturned at the
> completion of that due process.

If he's really stupid enough to appeal it all the way to the NTSB, I'd bet they
make the revocation permanent.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Carl Orton wrote:
> Heard on local DFW radio that he couldn't have carried the student anyway -
> he had not logged the required takeoffs & landings in the previous 90 days!!

According to APOA, he's charged with that violation.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Mike Granby]

> Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
> in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
> Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
> that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
> temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mike Granby > wrote:

> > Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
> > in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
> > Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
> > that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
> > temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.

> Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
> to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

If you are smart you hire an attorney at the first smell of trouble.

If you are smart and get what amounts to a slap on the wrist, you keep
your mouth shut and let sleeping dogs lay.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
> [...]
> * FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
> so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.

The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
anywhere.

Pete

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
>> [...]
>> * FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
>> so as to endanger the life or property of another.
>
> Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.
>
> The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
> another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?
>
> I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
> anywhere.
>
> Pete
>

Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the trigger...

Jay B

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:18:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"George Patterson" > wrote in message
>news:N7yke.18404$4d6.14844@trndny04...
>> [...]
>> * FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
>> so as to endanger the life or property of another.
>
>Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.
>
>The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
>another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
down, isn't endangering life or property of another?

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
>you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
>possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
>down, isn't endangering life or property of another?
>

No. That's preposterous.
I agree with Pete there's something disturbing about the application of
91.13. We always worry about "catch-all" rules, and that worry seems
partially justified.

I also find rather dubious that the chopper pilots placarded an unuseable
frequency for the wayward pilots to communicate on. Looks like there was more
than one blundering aircrew up there that day. This action arguably delayed a
resolution of the situation.

I think most pilots feel certificate action is appropriate - that's the
opinion I'm reading anyway - but "emergency revocation" may be a bit
heavy-handed, particularly considering the gov't crews were imperfect as
well, and came out with a bit of egg on their faces.

G Faris

[Neil Gould]

Recently, George Patterson > posted:

> AES wrote:
>>
>> As I read through the above I kept thinking more and more: despite
>> the first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
>> ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like
>> words _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.
>
> Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.
>
Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by the
authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at gunpoint,
this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>Getting yourself to the point where armed aircraft are ready to shoot
>>you down and thus likely killing the other person onboard, or the
>>possibility of damage on the ground where you hit after being shot
>>down, isn't endangering life or property of another?
>
> No. That's preposterous.

No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.

Could you explain why you disagree?

Thanks,
Gary

[OtisWinslow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Alyke.18428$4d6.5879@trndny04...
> AES wrote:
> Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.
>
> George Patterson

Sounds like it to me too. This guy is a hazzard and has no business
anywhere near an airplane.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>

>
>No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is
>something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case here.
>
>Could you explain why you disagree?

>
Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not engendered
buy the actions of the "offender". The lethal danger presented by the
actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such not
a a danger to the public. If the police shoot at a fleeing bank robber,
and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he could
have been killed?

G Faris

[Ron Natalie]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
> government against a C150? Threaten them with loss of duty free
> privileges????????????????
>
Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
planes.

[Ron Natalie]

Denny wrote:
> Interested folks need to read Mr. Sheaffer's issued statement, reported
> on AVWEB and AOPA....
>
> denny
>
Mr. Sheaffer's statement was issued by his attorney (not a bad idea) and
should be taken with a LARGE amount of skepticism.

[Ron Natalie]

xyzzy wrote:

>
> AOPA has said that Sheaffer is not an instructor, if correct Troy Martin
> was not "his student" he was merely a passenger (legally anyway)
>

Right, "a student" not "his student" would be a more appropriate word.

[Ron Natalie]

Dave S wrote:
> keep in mind this is an "Emergency Revocation".
>
> The pilot involved still is entitled to his due process, and the action
> MAY (we are talking hypothetically, here) be overturned at the
> completion of that due process.
>
>
There is NO due process in FAA actions, emergency or otherwise.

[Ron Natalie]

Dave S wrote:
> I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
> before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
> He has not had that yet.
>
> Dave
>
Nobody gets a fair trial before the FAA.
You have to spend years and mucho dollars before you ever
get to a real judge.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.owning Dave S > wrote:
>
>>I agree that this guy's ticket is gone gone gone... but my point is...
>>before we lynch the fella, we are going to ensure he has a fair trial.
>>He has not had that yet.
>
>
>>Dave
>
>
> A trial in this case would be an appeal to the NTSB.

No a trial would be appearing before a bona fide member of the
judiciary, which you are not elligible for until after the NTSB
has ruled (and the FAA has either ignored the ruling if it was in
your favor, or the NTSB rubber stamps the sham process as it was).

>

[Ron Natalie]

George Patterson wrote:

> * FAR 99.7. Operated the aircraft in an air defense identification
> zone (ADIZ) without complying with special security instructions issued
> by the administrator in the interest of national security and that are
> consistent with appropriate agreements between the FAA and the
> Department of Defense.

I can't see how 99.7 applies here. The DC Area ADIZ doeesn't meet the
applicability standards of Part 99 despite the fact that it shares the
acronym with the airspace of that part.

[Ron Natalie]

Peter Duniho wrote:
..
>
> The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
> another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?
>
If he had been shot down over DC it would have been dangerous to those
on the ground :-)

They could also write him up for failure to maintain a safe altitude
over a congested area as well.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article >,

> says...
> >
>
> >
> >No, it's perfectly reasonable, if the prospect of being shot down is

> >something you're supposed to be aware of--which is indeed the case
here.
> >
> >Could you explain why you disagree?
>
> >
> Certainly. I find it preposterous because the danger is not
engendered
> buy the actions of the "offender". The lethal danger presented by the

> actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a danger that is
> controlled by experts in the interest of public safety, and as such
not
> a a danger to the public. If the police shoot at a fleeing bank
robber,
> and miss, do we charge the robber for attempted murder, because he
could
> have been killed?
>
> G Faris


No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
the bank robber will usually be charged.

Gig G

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
>
> "In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted
area of
> Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more than
> anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to infringe upon
the
> Washington, D.C., restricted zones," said part of the statement.

Incredible!!! Amazing!!

I'm surprised the guy can make coffee.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> > Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
> > in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
> > Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
> > that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
> > temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.
>
> Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
> to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.

Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
there is no audit history doesn't hold up.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Alyke.18428$4d6.5879@trndny04...
> AES wrote:
> >
> > As I read through the above I kept thinking more and more: despite the
> > first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
> > ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like words
> > _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.
>
> Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.

Redundant, no?

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Recently, George Patterson > posted:
>
> > AES wrote:
> >>
> >> As I read through the above I kept thinking more and more: despite
> >> the first person wording, this just doesn't sound like something two
> >> ordinary people would have written -- it sounds more and more like
> >> words _very_ carefully crafted by an attorney.
> >
> > Actually, it sounds like absolute and total bull**** to me.
> >
> Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by the
> authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at gunpoint,
> this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.
>
Well, it sounds much nicer than would remarks about ****ting your pants.

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:

> No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
> the bank robber will usually be charged.

charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[George Patterson]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
> security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
> not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
> planes.

Helicopters are fine even if you *are* going to fire weapons (though it is to be
hoped that Customs doesn't own any "gunships").

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
> another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?

The minute the F-16s were scrambled.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
>
>> No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
>> the bank robber will usually be charged.
>
> charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

Charged with first-degree murder. If your commission of a violent felony
leads to a death that otherwise would not have occurred, you have committed
first-degree murder (in most states), regardless of who fired the gun.

See http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html.

--Gary

[George Patterson]

Greg Farris wrote:
>
> I also find rather dubious that the chopper pilots placarded an unuseable
> frequency for the wayward pilots to communicate on. Looks like there was more
> than one blundering aircrew up there that day.

Seems quite understandable to me. They wanted him to use 121.5, which is SOP. It
turned out there was an ELT sounding in that area. Not only would you not know
that until you dialed in the frequency, but it's quite possible that the ELT was
not blocking the frequency a few miles or minutes before.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article m>,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote:
>
>
>>No but if a third person is hit by that bullet that the police fires
>>the bank robber will usually be charged.
>
>
> charged with what?! not getting in the way of a bullet?

IIRC, in Tennessee the name of the charge is "felony murder", that is, murder
due directly or indirectly to the fact that you are committing a crime.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> [...] The lethal danger
> presented by the actions of law enforcement is - theoretically - a
> danger that is controlled by experts in the interest of public
> safety, and as such not a a danger to the public. If the police shoot
> at a fleeing bank robber, and miss, do we charge the robber for
> attempted murder, because he could have been killed?
>
Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
the bystander that the police accidentally shot?

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:ApGke.6$2b.2@trndny05...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > Customs owns the blackhawks too. They're on loan to the DC area
> > security efforts. Helicopters are a bit more appropriate (if you're
> > not going to fire weapons) than jets for shooing away wayward light
> > planes.
>
> Helicopters are fine even if you *are* going to fire weapons (though it is
to be
> hoped that Customs doesn't own any "gunships").
>

They do, or they have them available on very short notice.

And since about ten years ago, all federal officers are armed, including
Depts. of Education, HHS, Agriculture...

[George Patterson]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
> the bystander that the police accidentally shot?

Yes, we do.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Bucky]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by
the
> authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at
gunpoint,
> this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.

That's the way any police officer would treat a suspect. You have to
determine that they are not armed first. If you were on the verge of
being shot down by F-16s, you would be pretty happy about only being
spread-eagled at gunpoint.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Bucky > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Especially the part about being "...treated well and proper..." by
>> the authorities. If I found myself spread-eagled on the ground at
>> gunpoint, this would not be my assessment of how I was treated.
>
> That's the way any police officer would treat a suspect. You have to
> determine that they are not armed first. If you were on the verge of
> being shot down by F-16s, you would be pretty happy about only being
> spread-eagled at gunpoint.
>
Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
guns blazing.

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01...
> Quite possibly his and that of his passenger if they'd pulled the
> trigger...

I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> Charged with first-degree murder. If your commission of a violent felony
> leads to a death that otherwise would not have occurred, you have
> committed first-degree murder (in most states), regardless of who fired
> the gun.
>
> See http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html.

Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
crime?

It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be
foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful
killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be
applied to the killing of a bystander.

Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious that
an airspace violation. It doesn't even apply to all felonies.

In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from an
ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory
standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a
robbery, deadly force is generally authorized (just this month, here in
Washington, a couple of guys strangled and killed a would-be unarmed and
unconscious car thief, and the killing was found to be justified), but the
C150 presented no danger that would justify creating a hazard either to the
occupants or those on the ground by firing on it.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:VXHke.24$4b.10@trndny07...
>> Or, perhaps more to the point, do we charge the robber for the murder of
>> the bystander that the police accidentally shot?
>
> Yes, we do.

Note that, at least judging from the very brief explanation Gary posted a
link for, we would not charge a criminal guilty only of theft, burglary, or
similar crimes (even if those are felonies).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:ryGke.62$5b.7@trndny03...
> Seems quite understandable to me. They wanted him to use
> 121.5, which is SOP. It turned out there was an ELT sounding
> in that area. Not only would you not know that until you
> dialed in the frequency [...]

One would expect that the folks asking the pilot of the C150 to use 121.5
should be actually *listening* to that frequency.

Just because it's "SOP" doesn't excuse their request. It is also "SOP" to
be ready to communicate to the other aircraft on the frequency.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> >
> > "In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the
restricted
> area of
> > Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more
than
> > anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to
infringe upon
> the
> > Washington, D.C., restricted zones," said part of the statement.
>
> Incredible!!! Amazing!!
>
> I'm surprised the guy can make coffee.

Ditto. I'm glad they yanked his license. The ADIZ may very well be
counter-productive but that does not diminish the carelessness he
demonstrated.

-cwk.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:%rGke.7$2b.0@trndny05...
> The minute the F-16s were scrambled.

Right. Clearly F-16s were a completely justified use of force against such
a terrible threat as the mighty Cessna 150.

I guess if I'm caught cutting across the corner of my neighbor's yard and he
starts waving a shotgun around, threatening the life and property of others,
I'm to blame for that too?

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
> crime?

Not offhand. But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at
least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a
bystander or of a victim as for the death of an accomplice. (If anything,
it's the application of felony-murder to the *accomplice's* death that seems
a little bit of a stretch.)

> It is conceivable to me that the law considers an accomplice to be
> foreseeably in danger, or that it would differentiate between a lawful
> killing and an unlawful killing, but that a different standard would be
> applied to the killing of a bystander.

Why wouldn't bystanders be deemed foreseeably endangered by an armed bank
robbery? Seems pretty foreseeable to me. A reasonable person feels
(justifiably) frightened to be in the middle of such a robbery, right?

> Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
> situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious
> that an airspace violation.

Of course, but that wasn't the point of the discussion.

To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

> In any case, I also don't feel that the two situations are analogous from
> an ethical standpoint (though, they may be from the current regulatory
> standpoint). That is, in the case of the commission of a crime, even a
> robbery, deadly force is generally authorized

And in the case of penetrations all the way into the FRZ, deadly force is
also authorized, and is well known to be authorized. Hence, its use--whether
the policy is reasonable or not--is a readily foreseeable consequence of
such an incursion, and thus a readily foreseeable source of danger to the
pilot, his passenger, and the folks below him.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
> Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
> the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
> responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
> otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

Oops, sorry, what I just said was inaccurate--Greg didn't make that mistake.
Rather, he proposed a slightly different analogy, which I amended to make it
closer to the situation under discussion; then I addressed the *amended*
analogy.

--Gary

[Jose]

> But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at
> least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a
> bystander...

Well, you're comparing a violent felony with an airspace incursion by a
basic trainer. For a better comparsion, would the perpetrator of a
trespass be responsible for the deaths of innocent bystanders when the
police fire machine guns to stop him from reaching the front door with
some leaflets?

There needs to be an expection that the criminal act will reasonably
result in a certain response for the perpetrator to be responsible for
the result of that response.

Jose
r.a.owning and r.a.student retained, though I don't follow those groups.
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>> Do you have an example in which the person killed was not involved in the
>> crime?
>
> Not offhand. But surely the perpetrator of a violent felony would be *at
> least* as responsible for the death (by accidental police fire) of a
> bystander or of a victim as for the death of an accomplice.

Because one can reasonably assume that someone trying to prevent the crime
would fire upon the participants in the crime, but not upon an innocent
bystander.

Note that I'm not claiming the law says one thing or another. I am simply
pointing out that the example provided is ambiguous and there are plausible
interpretations that don't support the earlier claim made.

> [...]
> Why wouldn't bystanders be deemed foreseeably endangered by an armed bank
> robbery? Seems pretty foreseeable to me. A reasonable person feels
> (justifiably) frightened to be in the middle of such a robbery, right?

I agree they feel frightened. "Justifiably" is in the eye of the beholder,
just as are restrictions on aircraft, and even on passengers on commercial
airlines. It could just as easily be argued that it isn't in a bank
robber's best interest to harm the innocent bystanders, that the bystanders
aren't even the target of the robbery (usually), and that if they just stay
calm and do nothing, they'll be fine.

In this situation, an armed guard who tries to stop the robbery could create
a hazardous situation out of one that was otherwise not going to present a
hazard to the bystanders.

>> Note also that this example applies only to a very narrow range of
>> situations, all of which involve criminal activities MUCH more serious
>> that an airspace violation.
>
> Of course, but that wasn't the point of the discussion.

Sure it is. I will grant that the original example supposedly being refuted
by you can be divorced from my statement that you quoted here. But to do so
doesn't contribute much to the real question: how is the pilot in this case
guilty of causing a hazard to life or property?

Even a criminal engaging in a felony is not necessarily guilty of causing a
murder, even if someone is killed. It takes a very particular circumstance
for that to be held true. Even if it might be understandable (from an
emotional point of view) for the victim of the crime to use deadly force,
the criminal is not automatically held responsible.

> To support the claim that the pilot was *not* culpable for endangerment,
> Greg proposed an analogy to a robber's responsibility for shots fired *at*
> the robber. Greg claimed mistakenly that the robber lacks legal
> responsibility for the consequences of those shots; I was merely showing
> otherwise to rebut the implication of his analogy.

Change the word "robber" to "burglar", and his example holds up just fine.

> And in the case of penetrations all the way into the FRZ, deadly force is
> also authorized, and is well known to be authorized. Hence, its
> use--whether the policy is reasonable or not--is a readily foreseeable
> consequence of such an incursion, and thus a readily foreseeable source of
> danger to the pilot, his passenger, and the folks below him.

First of all, deadly force has NEVER been used. It's not authorized per se,
though the government does repeatedly claim that they WILL authorize deadly
force. It's hard to imagine a pilot seriously believing that the government
will shoot down a C150 until it actually happens. Maybe it will, maybe it
won't, but I'd disagree with the "well known to be authorized" claim. Some
people may foolishly believe the government to have enough common sense to
not go around murdering pilots just because they crossed some invisible
boundary, especially when that murder could create just as much hazard to
life and property of others as the airplane might threaten even under the
control of a malicious pilot.

I agree our government doesn't have that much common sense. But I don't
think it's fair to say that no person should or could possibly hold that
belief.

Furthermore, it's not foreseeable to someone who failed to discover the
restricted area in the first place, and who failed to realize they were in
the restricted area. Going back to the robbery example, in that case the
robber knows full well what they are doing, and is held accountable. In
this case, the pilot is being accused of intentionally endangering the life
or property of someone else, when in fact the pilot did no such thing.

Which brings us full circle to my original concern: 91.13 truly is a
"catch-all" regulation, as used by the FAA. It really doesn't seem to
matter to them whether there was any specific disregard of safety. Using
the broad interpretation of the language of that regulation that the FAA
uses, as well as those defending the charge, 91.13 would apply to
practically any violation of any FAR. After all, practically all of the
regulations are designed for the purpose of providing safety to the life or
property of others. A violation of any other regulation could be construed
as a de facto violation of 91.13 under that interpretation.

Why not just have a regulation that says "it is a violation of this
regulation to violate any other regulation in the FARs"?

Pete

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
>> The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property
>> of another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?
>
> The minute the F-16s were scrambled.


Speaking of reporters (as happens around here from time to time)
.....wouldn't it be interesting if some young enterprising cub reporter went
out and found those flares?


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Recently, Bucky > posted:
> >
> Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
> gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
> the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
> guns blazing.

Call your local police department and ask them if they know a better way.

When they get done laughing, let us know what they said.

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
> Huh. I guess 91.13 really IS the "catch-all" regulation.
>
> The guy sure did screw up. But at what point was "the life or property of
> another" endangered as a direct result of his actions?
>
> I guess if the FAA can apply 91.13 here, they can apply it practically
> anywhere.


Which is why his legal team must mount the "Miracle on 34th Street" defense:

"We intend to prove there really is a Santa Clause Your Honor"

They need to make the case about the FAA, Homeland Security, TSA, the Media,
etc. But what do I know about legal matters? I thought OJ did it


Montblack
"But... but maybe he's only a little crazy like painters or composers or...
or some of those men in Washington." - Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

[Bucky]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
> gunpoint".

I can't come up with any counter-arguments because apparently you think
being spread-eagled at gunpoint is the worst thing that can happen to a
person.

> There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed

Like what? Asking them if they were armed? Having them walk through a
metal detector?

Let's say you were a cop who just caught a suspected drug dealer
driving a stolen car. How would you approach him? You'd point your gun
at him and tell him to get down on the ground with his hands behind his
head. Otherwise, he might just reach for a weapon. Well, at that point
in time, they didn't know who these two guys were, they could have been
drug dealers, terrorists, mental patients, or just two clueless pilots.

[Blueskies]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:abyke.10075$BF5.1153@trndny06...
> Paul kgyy wrote:
>> What in the #(*$%& is a customs jet going to do to protect our national
>> government against a C150?
>
> They were just practicing. Customs is working to try to take over enforcement of the ADIZ from the FAA. Representative
> Mark Souder of Indiana tried to add an ammendment to the HS bill to give them control over it.
>
> George Patterson
> "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
> no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ around DC. So the Customs plane was simply protecting the
border inside the border...

[Blueskies]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:Qjyke.18423$4d6.6648@trndny04...

> In short, coming from that direction, it would be real easy to bust the ADIZ without knowing it, but *extremely* hard
> to get as far as they did without knowing you're over D.C..
>
> George Patterson
> "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
> no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.


What altitude were they at, and what was the flight visibility?

[Roger]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> > Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
>> > in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
>> > Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
>> > that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
>> > temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.
>>
>> Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
>> to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.
>
>Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
>there is no audit history doesn't hold up.
>
There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
Duats (Session and Transaction number).

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

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Roger > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:

> >
> >"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >>
> >> > Sheaffer has hired an attorney, Mark T. McDermott, a principal
> >> > in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Joseph, McDermott and
> >> > Reiner, to represent him. In a written statement, Sheaffer claimed
> >> > that he prepared for the flight properly by checking weather and
> >> > temporary flight restrictions and conducted a thorough preflight.
> >>
> >> Great. So not only has he screw himself re his ticket, he's now about
> >> to **** all his money away on high-price attornies and a useless fight.
> >
> >Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
> >there is no audit history doesn't hold up.
> >
> There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
> Duats (Session and Transaction number).

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

Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
only one that officially counts.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Grumman-581]

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...
> Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where
> the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
> it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ
> around DC. So the Customs plane was simply protecting the
> border inside the border...

But are they protecting DC from the rest of the country or the rest of the
country from DC... Personally, I would prefer it to be the latter...

[Peter Duniho]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Which is why his legal team must mount the "Miracle on 34th Street"
> defense:
>
> "We intend to prove there really is a Santa Clause Your Honor"

He's got no defense. The thought that he might even try to dispute most of
the charges is ludicrous, even if he does indeed go and try to do just that.

I just don't see what the point of tacking on 91.13 is.

> They need to make the case about the FAA, Homeland Security, TSA, the
> Media, etc. But what do I know about legal matters? I thought OJ did it

In our justice system, it is entirely possible (and even expected, at least
for a small number of cases) that someone can have done the crime, but not
be found guilty of it.

I'd love to see SOME case be turned into an indictment against the FAA, DHS,
TSA, the Media, etc. IMHO, this probably isn't the one, given how oblivious
the pilot seems to be about the whole thing. What we need is a pilot who is
clearly competent, and yet in spite of good-faith efforts to stay out of
trouble, wound up in trouble anyway. Much more media-friendly. :)

Pete

> "But... but maybe he's only a little crazy like painters or composers
> or... or some of those men in Washington." - Miracle on 34th Street
> (1947)

Yes, one of the best quotes from that movie. :)

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Quite so. His statement that he checked all this from his home PC where
> >there is no audit history doesn't hold up.
> >
> There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased)
> and on
> Duats (Session and Transaction number).
>

He didn't use DUATS...he said he used something like the Weather Channel.

I doubt he was aware that even if erased a disk can be read. If he WAS
aware, I think his lawyer was figuring that doing a disk recovery would be
major overkill.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Roger > wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
> > Duats (Session and Transaction number).
>
>
> Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
> only one that officially counts.
>

Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web site.
IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete disk
recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial case
such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
dodge against a negligence action.

I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather, TAFs,
maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.aviation.owning Roger > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
> > > Duats (Session and Transaction number).
> >
> >
> > Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's the
> > only one that officially counts.
> >

> Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web site.
> IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.

> If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete disk
> recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial case
> such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
> dodge against a negligence action.

> I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather, TAFs,
> maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.

That won't do you much good in a legal battle; only DUATS or a call to
FS is an official CYA.

I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.aviation.owning Roger >
wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:40:25 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > There is an audit trail both on the PC (unless it's erased) and on
> > > > Duats (Session and Transaction number).
> > >
> > >
> > > Only problem is they never claimed to have checked Duats and that's
the
> > > only one that officially counts.
> > >
>
> > Quite! He said he checked weather and NOTAMS on some "unofficial" web
site.
> > IIRC, he never mentioned if the "other" web site showed the RA.
>
> > If the feds wanted to verify his story, they'd have to do a complete
disk
> > recovery and it's not likely they would do so in a relatively trivial
case
> > such as this. I suspect his lawyer knows this and used that excuse as a
> > dodge against a negligence action.
>
> > I don't use DUATS either, but I print everything I do get, weather,
TAFs,
> > maps, _everything_, and keep it in a flight folio.
>
> That won't do you much good in a legal battle; only DUATS or a call to
> FS is an official CYA.

It depends if the battle was a criminal action or a negligence action.

I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in fact
call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
(IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they changed,
but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb terminal
and printing was impossible.

> I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
> NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't "Official"
as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
screen?

[Dave Butler]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in fact
> call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
> (IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they changed,
> but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb terminal
> and printing was impossible.

If you access the raw text service with telnet, and use any of the modern
terminal emulators, you can easily get a text file that you can browse with your
favorite text editor, print, run post-processing filters, etc...

[George Patterson]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> Think about this folks....Customs patrols the borders where the ADIZ is supposed to be...our gov't is so confused that
> it thinks it has a country inside our country, thus the ADIZ around DC.

Well, as alienated as most of the politicos seem to be getting from the
mainstream population, I'd say this is a fair assumption. How long do you think
it'll be before we need passports to go there?

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Note that, at least judging from the very brief explanation Gary posted a
> link for, we would not charge a criminal guilty only of theft, burglary, or
> similar crimes (even if those are felonies).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The felony murder rule, adopted by a number of jurisdictions, is a legal
doctrine according to which anyone who commits, or is found to be involved in, a
serious crime (a felony), during which any person dies, is guilty of murder. (In
states with the death penalty, this usually includes capital murder, although
there are independent constitutional limitations on the imposition of the death
penalty on those guilty of felony murder.) This applies even if one does not
personally or directly cause the person's death. For example, a getaway driver
for an armed robbery can be convicted of murder if one of the robbers killed
someone -- or got killed in some jurisdictions -- in the process of the robbery,
even though the driver was not present at and did not expect the killing.

However, the actual situation is not as clear-cut as the above implies. In
reality, not all felonious actions will apply in most jurisdictions. To
"qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present some degree of
danger. If while passing a forged check, the receiver, who happens to be a
hemopheliac, gets a paper cut and bleeds to death, most courts will not hold the
defendant guilty of murder.

On the other hand, many activities that are inherently very dangerous cannot
apply for the felony murder rule. Aggravated assault, for instance, does not.
The reason is that virtually all murders result from an assault! (It's hard to
cause the death of someone without causing them bodily harm.) But aggravated
assault is a felony. Thus if the felony murder rule were to apply in the case of
aggravated assault, it would essenitally reduce the culpability requirements
carefully set by the legislature for murder to those requirements of assault.
For this reason aggravated assault would be said to "merge" with murder.

To counter the common law style interpretations of what does and does not merge
with murder (and thus what does not and does qualify for felony murder), many
states explicitly list what offenses qualify. The American Law Institute's Model
Penal Code lists robbery, rape or forcible deviate sexual intercourse, arson,
burglary, kidnapping, and felonious escape.

Other issues also loom. For instance, whose actions can cause the defendant to
be guilty of felony murder? There are two schools of thought. One is the agency
theory; the other is the proximate cause theory. The former states that only
deaths caused by the agents of the crime can result in a felony murder
conviction, while the latter holds that any deaths that result from a crime
would qualify. As an example of the distinction, take the following hypothetical.

Say John Doe is robbing a bank. John is a bit careless however, and is not
paying attention long enough that one of the tellers has a chance to hit the
silent alarm. Police arrive, and corner John. Rather than give up nicely, John
decides to try to fight his way out, and begins shooting. Officers return fire,
and one of them tragically misaims and the bullet strikes and kills a bystander.
In this case, jurisdictions that follow the agency theory would hold that John
is not guilty of felony murder in the death of the bystander, as the death was
immediately caused by the actions of the police, who are not agents of the
crime. Jurisdictions following the proximate cause theory however adopt an
opinion much closer to a but for relationship: the death would not have occurred
but for the commission of the crime, so John is guilty of felony murder.

Note that if John Doe was not alone and was with, say, his wife Jane Doe, if
John kills someone (even accidentally) during the comission of the robbery, both
John and Jane are guilty of felony murder since they are both agents of crime,
and conspired together. Even Joe Shmoe driving around the block in the getaway
car would be guilty of felony murder despite the fact that he likely didn't even
know that anyone was killed. This is essentially universally held.

Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In
many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be
imposed, subject to one of two additional requirements. A person convicted of
felony murder cannot be executed unless it is shown that he himself killed,
attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to
commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the
robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person
sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But
because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he
cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder.

On the other hand, a person who is convicted of murder can be executed if it is
shown that he was a "major participant" in the murder and showed "extreme
indifference to human life." For example, three brothers who broke their father
out of prison and went on a crime spree killed a family traveling along a
highway. They did so by flagging down their car under the pretense of being
distressed motorists, then leading them out into the desert and shooting them
execution-style. The father was the one who actually pulled the trigger, but the
brothers were present at the killings and could have stopped them. A statewide
police manhunt ensured; the father and brothers parted ways, and the father and
one of the brothers died of exposure in the desert. The two remaining brothers
were later apprehended, and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that imposing the
death penalty on them did not violate the Constitution.
George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:

<snip>

> > I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
> > NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.

> It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't "Official"
> as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).

DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

> Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
> screen?

No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:pY2le.1$Fb.0@trndny07...
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [...]

Well, first of all, I'm not ready to consider Wikipedia a "real"
encyclopedia. Lots of people love it, and I don't doubt that there's a lot
of good information in there. But if I wanted to "prove" a point, all I'd
have to do is go write a new topic or edit an existing one, and then quote
it. For that matter, even a "real" encyclopedia is somewhat of a weak
reference. But IMHO what matters here are the actual laws and court
precedents.

That said, the text you quoted simply reinforces my understanding that the
concept of "felony murder" is applicable only in relatively narrow
situations, that it's not even used held in all jurisdictions, and that
where used, there is considerable disagreement as to how to apply it.

It certainly seems FAR from a foregone conclusion that it makes sense to
charge the pilots themselves with the endangerment of others.

Pete

[Franklin Newton]

So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011 into
the glades because of a lightbulb???
"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
. ..
>
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL&sn=018&sc=478
>
> AA Revokes License of D.C. 'Alert' Pilot
> -
> Monday, May 23, 2005
>
> (05-23) 12:15 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
>
> The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small
> plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11,
> forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive
> mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.
>
> Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's
restricted
> airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an
> emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he
> "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."
>
> The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who
was
> also in the plane.
>
> "This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted
> airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into
> restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.
>
> The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward
> highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of
people
> as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.
>
> The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of
flight
> time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S.
> Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.
>
> Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before
> operating an aircraft, the FAA said. He failed to check the weather report
> before leaving Smoketown, Pa., and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to
> Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
>
> ___
>
> On the Net:
>
> Federal Aviation Administration:
>
> www.faa.gov
> URL:
>
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/05/23/national/a121517D16.DTL
> ©2005 Associated Press
>
>

[Morgans]

"Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
.net...
> So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
> dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
> Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
into
> the glades because of a lightbulb???

Apples and oranges.

Not taking basic skills along for the ride was a basic mistake.

Stuffing a L1011 was the usual accident chain of events, failing to be
broken, at a million opportunities. Not dumb. Unfortunate.
--
Jim in NC

[Franklin Newton]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to
folks,
> > dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
> > Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
> into
> > the glades because of a lightbulb???
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> Not taking basic skills along for the ride was a basic mistake.
>
> Stuffing a L1011 was the usual accident chain of events, failing to be
> broken, at a million opportunities. Not dumb. Unfortunate.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Absolutley the same.
Fly the airplane, Fly the airplane, Fly the airplane, the first and most
important basic skill to bring along, otherwise you may not need the rest!

[George Patterson]

Franklin Newton wrote:
> So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
> dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
> Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011 into
> the glades because of a lightbulb???

Yep. We *really* don't want to see what he could accomplish with an L1011.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
> > > NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.
>
> > It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
"Official"
> > as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).
>
> DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

Site?

>
> > Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on
the
> > screen?
>
> No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.
>

Which is why I print everything.

[Matt Barrow]

"Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
.net...
> So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to folks,
> dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
> Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
into
> the glades because of a lightbulb???

Non-sequitur.

[Matt Barrow]

"Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> >
> Absolutley the same.
> Fly the airplane, Fly the airplane, Fly the airplane, the first and most
> important basic skill to bring along, otherwise you may not need the rest!

Your apparent ingnorance about the 1011 flight is appalling.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1117036890.671631@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > I'd rather have the actual DOCUMENTS than just a log that said I did in
fact
> > call for a briefing. And yes, I can print from DUATS, but until recently
> > (IIRC) all you could do was screen dumps. I don't know when they
changed,
> > but I remember when all you could do was accesss them from a dumb
terminal
> > and printing was impossible.
>
> If you access the raw text service with telnet, and use any of the modern
> terminal emulators, you can easily get a text file that you can browse
with your
> favorite text editor, print, run post-processing filters, etc...

Whoopie do!!

If I had a Model-T Ford, I could hand crank the engine! :~)

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Franklin Newton" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to
folks,
> > dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
> > Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
> into
> > the glades because of a lightbulb???
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> Not taking basic skills along for the ride was a basic mistake.
>
> Stuffing a L1011 was the usual accident chain of events, failing to be
> broken, at a million opportunities. Not dumb. Unfortunate.
> --
> Jim in NC

You are right, it wasn't dumb it was idiotic.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
> Franklin Newton wrote:
> > So all you learned folks think this guy is a real safety hazard to
folks,
> > dumber than a loon and deserves never to fly again.
> > Was he dumber or more hazardous than the whole crew who stuffed a L1011
into
> > the glades because of a lightbulb???
>
> Yep. We *really* don't want to see what he could accomplish with an L1011.

<Chuckle>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan of
> > > > NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.
> >
> > > It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
> "Official"
> > > as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).
> >
> > DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.

> Site?

http://www.duats.com/faq.html

"When getting a briefing on DUATS, is this considered to be a legal
pre-flight briefing, with the same standing as a briefing I'd get by
calling Flight Service?

Yes. A DUATS route briefing contains the same elements as a route
briefing which is provided by an FAA Briefer. The briefing is recorded
by DUATS, and your receipt of the data can be proven, should the need
arise. (Of course, this requires you to sign on to DUATS using your own
DUATS Access Code or Personal Access code!) The DUAT service is paid for
by the FAA, and is certified by the FAA as being equivalent to a live
Flight Service Specialist for pre-flight briefings."

Good enough for you?

> > > Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on
> the
> > > screen?
> >
> > No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.
> >

> Which is why I print everything.

Which is totally, absolutely useless for legal purposes.

Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In rec.aviation.owning Matt Barrow >
wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > I check weather etc. elsewhere than finish with DUATS for a scan
of
> > > > > NOTAMS and PIREPS and to get my official square checked.
> > >
> > > > It may be up to the second and the most thorough but it's isn't
> > "Official"
> > > > as far as I know (hanger lawyers, what say??).
> > >
> > > DUATS has been an official briefing for a few years now.
>
> > Site?
>
> http://www.duats.com/faq.html
>
> "When getting a briefing on DUATS, is this considered to be a legal
> pre-flight briefing, with the same standing as a briefing I'd get by
> calling Flight Service?
>
> Yes. A DUATS route briefing contains the same elements as a route
> briefing which is provided by an FAA Briefer. The briefing is recorded
> by DUATS, and your receipt of the data can be proven, should the need
> arise. (Of course, this requires you to sign on to DUATS using your own
> DUATS Access Code or Personal Access code!) The DUAT service is paid for
> by the FAA, and is certified by the FAA as being equivalent to a live
> Flight Service Specialist for pre-flight briefings."
>
> Good enough for you?
>
> > > > Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data
on
> > the
> > > > screen?
> > >
> > > No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.
> > >
>
> > Which is why I print everything.
>
> Which is totally, absolutely useless for legal purposes.
>
> Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

Where is that documented?

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> > Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.

> Where is that documented?

Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?

91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
approved.

There have been articles on AOPA about the consequences of not using
the "official" sources; a search should find them.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Charles O'Rourke]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>Could you prove that you did anything more than just scan the data on the
>>>screen?
>>
>>No more than you can prove you were listening when you called FS.
>
> Which is why I print everything.

It seems to me that creating a written record can't do anything but
harm, legally.

The FAA can't prove anything about your briefing if you keep no records.
If you do, it makes it easy for them to point out where it was
lacking. And if your briefing missed something vital, which would
probably be the case if you're being charged with "not having all
available information concerning that flight," how is a written record
of your missing it going to help?

Charles.
-N8385U

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt > wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.
>
> > Where is that documented?
>
> Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
> that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?
>
> 91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
> available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
> means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.

That's not what 91.103 says.

> AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.

It suggests FSS or DUATS.

> There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
> approved.

I have seen FAA statements to that effect but only for part 91 flights.

[Dave Butler]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Whoopie do!!
>
> If I had a Model-T Ford, I could hand crank the engine! :~)

Do as you wish.

[Dave A.]

We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you took off
into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather briefing from the
FSS or DUATS.
It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that determines if
you are legally allowed to be flying based on your restrictions, whatever
they may be.
Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing, but
if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.

I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have been
told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
examiner this way.
--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.aviation.owning Dave Stadt > wrote:
>>
>> > > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > Only a FAA or a DUATS briefing counts.
>>
>> > Where is that documented?
>>
>> Which part? That you need a briefing, that it has to be "official" or
>> that FS and DUATS are the only briefings that count?
>>
>> 91.103 says you need a briefing and contains the catch all of "all
>> available information concerning that flight" which to the FAA enforcers
>> means weather, NOTAMs, TFRs, etc.
>
> That's not what 91.103 says.
>
>> AIM 5-1-1 says FS or DUATS.
>
> It suggests FSS or DUATS.
>
>> There was a proposed AC to add other services; I don't know if it was
>> approved.
>
> I have seen FAA statements to that effect but only for part 91 flights.
>
>

[RST Engineering]

Both the written exam and the oral exam bear absolutely no resemblance to
anything in the real world. It is a rite of passage and damned little else
(both for pilots and mechanics).

Jim

> I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have
> been told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
> examiner this way.

[Dave Butler]

Dave A. wrote:

> It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that determines if
> you are legally allowed to be flying based on your restrictions, whatever
> they may be.

I'd say it's the fact of the actual weather at the time and place that you are
flying that determines whether you are legally allowed to be flying, regardless
of what FSS or DUAT says.

In some kind of legal proceeding, you might use the reports from FSS or DUAT to
substantiate that the weather is/was what you say, but it's the actual weather
conditions that determine whether your flying is legal.

Dave

[Dave A.]

> In some kind of legal proceeding, you might use the reports from FSS or
> DUAT to substantiate that the weather is/was what you say, but it's the
> actual weather conditions that determine whether your flying is legal.

I agree, and I believe that is the point. I am told the reasons are
anecdotal. Bear in mind that I am passing the standing of the instructors
of my flight school.

Lawyers and pilot advocates look at how the FAA rules and how the FAA
interprets the regulations for those rules.

Based on the history of FAA rulings (the sole interpreter and judge of such
rules, similar to the FCC in authority) lawyers determine that the FAA does
in fact consider the regulation to mean that a pilot is required to check
with FSS or DUATS, give a tail number and use that interaction as proof in a
legal proceeding.

a random example I made up off the top of my head;

You land VFR in less than 3 miles visibility. This alerts an FAA
representative and he spot checks you for an IFR ticket.
You have none. The only recourse you have is the FAA's weather reporting
stations and did you check it.
The local news forecast is of no use because you can't prove you checked it
and it has no legal bearing on the situation even if you could prove it.

So the wording may no be there but that is cold comfort when you have your
license suspended with no recourse.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-
"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1117119150.93476@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Dave A. wrote:
>
>> It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that determines
>> if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your restrictions,
>> whatever they may be.
>
> I'd say it's the fact of the actual weather at the time and place that you
> are flying that determines whether you are legally allowed to be flying,
> regardless of what FSS or DUAT says.
>

>
> Dave

[Dave Stadt]

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:HEkle.274$zb.28@trndny02...
> We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you took
off
> into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather briefing from
the
> FSS or DUATS.

How does FSS or DUATS know what the conditions are at the thousands of
airports without weather reporting?

> It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that determines
if
> you are legally allowed to be flying based on your restrictions, whatever
> they may be.

Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.

> Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing,
but
> if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.
>
> I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have
been
> told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
> examiner this way.
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
>

[Dave A.]

> Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.

I did. Then I remembered lawyers.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave A." > wrote in message
> news:HEkle.274$zb.28@trndny02...
>> We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you took
> off
>> into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather briefing from
> the
>> FSS or DUATS.
>
> How does FSS or DUATS know what the conditions are at the thousands of
> airports without weather reporting?
>
>> It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that determines
> if
>> you are legally allowed to be flying based on your restrictions, whatever
>> they may be.
>

>
>> Your local tower or TV station might tell you the weather is one thing,
> but
>> if the FSS says it isn't you could be in violation.
>>
>> I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for, but I have
> been
>> told that I will be wrong if I don't answer the question with the FAA
>> examiner this way.
>> --
>> Dave A
>> Aging Student Pilot
>>
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:fcwle.3544$zb.3181@trndny01...
> > Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.
>
> I did. Then I remembered lawyers.

So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.

> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
>
> -I can gather all the news I need
> on the weather report-

[George Patterson]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
> things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.

I think he meant the other way 'round. When I was based at Kupper, the nearest
reporting station was Newark. Newark's on the coast and frequently has IMC when
Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting group that
we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I don't think any
of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I certainly didn't.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <x2xle.2405$Lb.1000@trndny05>, George Patterson wrote:
> Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting group that
> we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I don't think any
> of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I certainly didn't.

Well, quite possibly because the FAA inspector was technically wrong.
Whether you're legal VFR or not depends on the conditions at your point
in space and time, not what some weather station several miles away
might be reporting. Otherwise, the corollary of what the FAA inspector
says is that you are technically LEGAL if it's 200 and 1/2 so long as
EWR is reporting VFR.

--
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"

[Dave A.]

> So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
> things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.


No no, other way around.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave A." > wrote in message
> news:fcwle.3544$zb.3181@trndny01...
>> > Actual conditions outrank FSS or DUATS. Think about it.
>>
>> I did. Then I remembered lawyers.
>
>
>> --
>> Dave A
>> Aging Student Pilot
>>
>> -I can gather all the news I need
>> on the weather report-
>
>

[Dave A.]

> Well, quite possibly because the FAA inspector was technically wrong.
> Whether you're legal VFR or not depends on the conditions at your point
> in space and time, not what some weather station several miles away
> might be reporting.

The question was, what is a legal briefing and where is it stated in the
regulations. If you take off in the conditions stated by George Patternson
you are technically flying illegal.

The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by the FAA
is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only proof should
legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103. Being that the FAA
is the regulatory body, they will impose the fine based on their judgments.





--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <x2xle.2405$Lb.1000@trndny05>, George Patterson wrote:
>> Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting group
>> that
>> we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I don't
>> think any
>> of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I certainly
>> didn't.
>
Otherwise, the corollary of what the FAA inspector
> says is that you are technically LEGAL if it's 200 and 1/2 so long as
> EWR is reporting VFR.
>
> --
> 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"

[Dave A.]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:x2xle.2405$Lb.1000@trndny05...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> So you would launch if actual conditions were below minimums but FSS said
>> things were OK. Interesting, but not condusive to a long life.
>
> I think he meant the other way 'round.

Thanks George, thought I was going crazy.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

When I was based at Kupper, the nearest
> reporting station was Newark. Newark's on the coast and frequently has IMC
> when Kupper is VFR. I remember an FAA inspector telling a safety meeting
> group that we were technically illegal if we flew VFR when EWR was IFR. I
> don't think any of us changed our habits as a result of that statement. I
> certainly didn't.
>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave A. > posted:

>> Well, quite possibly because the FAA inspector was technically wrong.
>> Whether you're legal VFR or not depends on the conditions at your
>> point in space and time, not what some weather station several miles
>> away might be reporting.
>
> The question was, what is a legal briefing and where is it stated in
> the regulations. If you take off in the conditions stated by George
> Patternson you are technically flying illegal.
>
Then, why do Pireps trump briefings? Whether one is "flying illegal" is
determined by the conditions where one is flying, not the conditions
elsewhere.

> The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by
> the FAA is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only
> proof should legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103.
>
This is a somewhat different matter. Should one need such proof, FSS and
DUATS may be the only sources that are not to be challenged in court.
However, if you crash at a fogged-in airport because FSS and/or DUATS
report CAVU elsewhere, good luck trying to use those reports to defend
yourself.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave A. > posted:

> We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you
> took off into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather
> briefing from the FSS or DUATS.
> It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that
> determines if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your
> restrictions, whatever they may be.
>
So... you depart from a non-weather reporting airport that is below
minimum, while the reporting airport is CAVU, and you think you have
"proof" that you took off into legal minimums? Think again.

Around here, there are lots of airports, most non-reporting. It is not at
all unusual for one of the reporting airports to be below minimums while
others are above, or even CAVU. When you call for a briefing under such
conditions, the briefer offers pireps if they have them, and if they
don't, they leave it up to the pilot to determine the actual conditions.
It's not unusual to arrive at the non-reporting airport to find other
planes in the pattern, and any one of those pilots and/or tower can be
valid proof in court that conditions were above minimums. Essentially,
pireps trump briefings.

Regards,

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:hzCle.4554$Fb.1419@trndny07...
> The philosophizing on the subject aside, all indications given by the FAA
> is that the FSS and DUATS weather and NOTAMS are your only proof should
> legal proceedings take place that you followed 91.103.

FSS and DUATS are the only services whose use is supposed to generate
*automatic* proof of the briefing, with no further effort on your part. But
if you get the same information elsewhere, you *may* still be able to prove
that you did so (witnesses, notes, saved or deleted data on your computer,
etc.).

--Gary

[Dave A.]

Suit yourself.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

-I can gather all the news I need
on the weather report-

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...
> Recently, Dave A. > posted:
>
>> We are taught for the Oral exam that the only way you can prove you
>> took off into legal minimums for VFR flight is to obtain a weather
>> briefing from the FSS or DUATS.
>> It is only the FSS or DUATS weather report for that time that
>> determines if you are legally allowed to be flying based on your
>> restrictions, whatever they may be.
>>
> So... you depart from a non-weather reporting airport that is below
> minimum, while the reporting airport is CAVU, and you think you have
> "proof" that you took off into legal minimums? Think again.
>
> Around here, there are lots of airports, most non-reporting. It is not at
> all unusual for one of the reporting airports to be below minimums while
> others are above, or even CAVU. When you call for a briefing under such
> conditions, the briefer offers pireps if they have them, and if they
> don't, they leave it up to the pilot to determine the actual conditions.
> It's not unusual to arrive at the non-reporting airport to find other
> planes in the pattern, and any one of those pilots and/or tower can be
> valid proof in court that conditions were above minimums. Essentially,
> pireps trump briefings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

Ron Garret wrote:

>>NOT an instructor. A private pilot. Now a former pilot. The student
>>will get to fly again simply because even if he was manipulating the
>>controls, the private pilot was the pilot in command.
>
> But does he get to log the time as PIC?

And did he mail that letter to NASA within 24 hours?

[Dave S]

Neil Gould wrote:

> Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being spread-eagled at
> gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that someone is unarmed, not
> the least of which is that they didn't exit their Vehicle of Terror with
> guns blazing.
>
> Neil
>

Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop" on
TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied to a
pilot in a plane.

The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to. Everyone
got to go home alive that night.

Dave

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave S > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being
>> spread-eagled at gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that
>> someone is unarmed, not the least of which is that they didn't exit
>> their Vehicle of Terror with guns blazing.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>
> Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop"
> on TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied
> to a pilot in a plane.
>
> The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to.
> Everyone got to go home alive that night.
>
Suffice it to say that you are easier to please than I. I expect to go
home alive every night with one exception, and I don't expect that
exception to be at the hands of some paranoid idiot with a badge
over-reacting to what should have been a non-event. Their lack of common
sense is more worrisome than the hazard they misperceived.

Neil

[Roy Page]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Dave S > posted:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but not much would make me happy about "only being
>>> spread-eagled at gunpoint". There are other ways to determine that
>>> someone is unarmed, not the least of which is that they didn't exit
>>> their Vehicle of Terror with guns blazing.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>
>> Surely that is not the first time you've seen a "felony traffic stop"
>> on TV.. even if it WAS the first time you may have seen it applied
>> to a pilot in a plane.
>>
>> The ground guys did their job, just like they were trained to.
>> Everyone got to go home alive that night.
>>
> Suffice it to say that you are easier to please than I. I expect to go
> home alive every night with one exception, and I don't expect that
> exception to be at the hands of some paranoid idiot with a badge
> over-reacting to what should have been a non-event. Their lack of common
> sense is more worrisome than the hazard they misperceived.
>
> Neil
>
>
Neil,
You are right on the money, perfectly said and totally accurate.

--
Roy
N5804F - PA28-181 Piper Archer II

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I certainly agree that life and property was in danger. But as Larry points
> out, those hazards were not of the pilot's creation.

If you fly into a war zone, the hazards are also not of your creation;
nevertheless, *you* will have placed all occupants of the plane in a hazardous
situation, and *you* are responsible.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.