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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:36:12 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in <fXzke.1106$rr.1065@fed1read01>::

>"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?

Exactly my thought, Pete.

>> 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
>

There is that, and the danger the falling wreckage would have posed to
those on the ground. And the danger to the F-16 pilots attempting to
fly formation with the C-150. And the danger caused by the
stampeding bureaucrats. But wait a minute. Those dangers were caused
by the government weren't they? :-)

[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

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> 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".

It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is certainly
engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action, that
particular danger would not be present.

> 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 danger to the public.

That doesn't follow at all. If government policy (correctly or mistakenly)
deems it *less* of an overall threat to safety to shoot down the plane than
to let it continue, that doesn't in any way imply that there's *no* danger
in shooting it down.

> 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?

The issue here is reckless endangerment, not attempted murder.

If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a bystander,
the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death. The *foreseeable
possibility* of that consequence is one of the things the robber is
responsible for. There may or may not be a separate statute under which the
robber can be charged merely for posing that danger to himself or others
(even if the danger is not realized); but there *is* such a regulation with
regard to posing an analogous danger while flying.

--Gary

[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.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a bystander,
>the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.

You make a good point.
On the other hand, if law enforcement creates a danger where none existed
previously, the reckless endangerment seems like a stretch. When police
chase after a car thief, and an accident ensues, the police may be held
responsible, if we assume the thief only meant to steal the car, and not
harm anyone or anything. Now if you want to argue that this is a "special
circumstance" due to the post-9/11 environment, and as such law enforcement
could not safely assume the small plane represented no danger . . .


Greg

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
>>bystander,
>>the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.
>
> You make a good point.
>
> On the other hand, if law enforcement creates a danger where none existed
> previously, the reckless endangerment seems like a stretch. When police
> chase after a car thief, and an accident ensues, the police may be held
> responsible, if we assume the thief only meant to steal the car, and not
> harm anyone or anything.

Under some circumstances, the police may be held responsible for an accident
caused by a high-speed chase. But that is certainly not *to the exclusion*
of holding the person being chased responsible!

Analogously, regardless of whether or not the policy of shooting down
encroaching aircraft is reasonable (and thus regardless of whether those who
formulate or execute that policy can or should be held responsible), those
who cause the policy to be invoked (by violating the prohibited airspace)
*also* bear responsibility.

--Gary

[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.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > 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.

How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
statement.

--Gary

[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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is certainly
> engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action, that
> particular danger would not be present.

Then we should blame Cessna too.

--
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'.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > 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.
>
> How do you know?

If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
restricted area he crossed.

> A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
> statement.
>

Not if he doesn't cache his history files.

What I'm trying to say is that his story seems hopelessly contrived. I'm
sure the attorney is playing on that, but that's what attorney get paid for.

[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

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> > 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?
>
> The issue here is reckless endangerment, not attempted murder.
>
> If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
bystander,
> the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death. The
*foreseeable
> possibility* of that consequence is one of the things the robber is
> responsible for. There may or may not be a separate statute under which
the
> robber can be charged merely for posing that danger to himself or others
> (even if the danger is not realized); but there *is* such a regulation
with
> regard to posing an analogous danger while flying.
>

There are such laws. What's more, if during said robbery and accomplice gets
killed (by police or other person who intervenes) the charge of murder can
(and often is) added, just as if the bad guy had pulled the trigger himself.
Seen that one on COPS.

[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'.

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is
>> certainly
>> engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action,
>> that
>> particular danger would not be present.
>
> Then we should blame Cessna too.

Well, to be more precise, the point is that the danger was engendered in
part by the offender's *wrongful*, *unlawful*, or *negligent* action. That's
not true of Cessna.

--Gary

[George Patterson]

Greg Farris wrote:
>
> When police
> chase after a car thief, and an accident ensues, the police may be held
> responsible, if we assume the thief only meant to steal the car, and not
> harm anyone or anything.

Not in any State in which I've lived. The thief would be held responsible. If a
death ensues, he would be charged with that death. It is the thief's actions of
attempting to run from the police that are the root cause of the accident, and
the police are blameless under law.

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]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > 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.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
> restricted area he crossed.

Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he was.

The alternative explanation is that he not only didn't know about the ADIZ
(which hardly requires an up-to-the-minute briefing), but also didn't know
about the Class B that he was busting.

>> A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
>> statement.
>
> Not if he doesn't cache his history files.

And you know that he doesn't? Besides, that's not even true. Unless you go
out of your way to securely wipe your drive's free space (and often even if
you do), recoverable traces of your browsing remain.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qDGke.63$5b.44@trndny03...
> Not in any State in which I've lived. The thief would be held responsible.
> If a death ensues, he would be charged with that death. It is the thief's
> actions of attempting to run from the police that are the root cause of
> the accident, and the police are blameless under law.

What leads you to believe that the police are not legally liable *in
addition* to the thief, under some circumstances?

--Gary

[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'.

[Michael 182]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > 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.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
> If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
> restricted area he crossed.
>
>> A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
>> statement.
>>
>
> Not if he doesn't cache his history files.
>

I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history. Depending
on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight
briefing site.

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
> > It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is
certainly
> > engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action,
that
> > particular danger would not be present.
>
> Then we should blame Cessna too.

Bob, look up: contributory negligence.

[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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:30:26 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <6UGke.50$5b.48@trndny02>::

>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.
>

While that charge may be appropriate for the felonious example cited,
Hayden L. Sheaffer was not charged with any criminal offence, and FAA
orders are not laws.

[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...

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > > It is not engendered *solely* by the offender's action. But it is
> certainly
> > > engendered *in part* by the offender's action: if not for that action,
> that
> > > particular danger would not be present.
> >
> > Then we should blame Cessna too.
>
> Bob, look up: contributory negligence.

nah, I was suitably informed by Gary's reply.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Matt Barrow" > 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.
> >>
> >> How do you know?
> >
> > If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
> > restricted area he crossed.
>
> Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he was.

IIRC from his statement, he was so focused on Camp David that he missed the
DC ADIZ. That doesn't seem plausible, only a childish excuse.

>
> The alternative explanation is that he not only didn't know about the ADIZ
> (which hardly requires an up-to-the-minute briefing), but also didn't know
> about the Class B that he was busting.

Does that sound like someone who got a briefing, via either DUATS/FSS or
some web site? I do all mine via the net and seldom on DUATS but I've never

> >> A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
> >> statement.
> >
> > Not if he doesn't cache his history files.
>
> And you know that he doesn't? Besides, that's not even true. Unless you go
> out of your way to securely wipe your drive's free space (and often even
if
> you do), recoverable traces of your browsing remain.

It's not that I don't know it, but that the attorney probably doesn't, which
is hy he concoted the story, or certainly doesn;t expect they to go to such
investigative lengths over such a "trivial" matter.

You can stop trying to show off your investigatory/geeky prowess now.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:

> "Matt Barrow" > 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.
>
> How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might
> confirm his statement.
>
I think that the matter of checking the weather is a very minor part of
these circumstances. One is not required to check weather in any
particular manner, and it doesn't appear that this pilot's flight path was
influenced by weather issues in any way. I don't even understand why the
FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Matt Barrow" > 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.
> >>
> >> How do you know?
> >
> > If he had, he'd have recognized that his course of flight busted the 2nd
> > restricted area he crossed.
> >
> >> A forensic examination of his hard drive might confirm his
> >> statement.
> >>
> >
> > Not if he doesn't cache his history files.
> >
>
> I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
> files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history.
Depending
> on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
> index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight
> briefing site.
>
Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.

Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he was.
>
> IIRC from his statement, he was so focused on Camp David that he missed
> the
> DC ADIZ. That doesn't seem plausible, only a childish excuse.

His statement did not address whether he knew where he was (but didn't know
the ADIZ was there), or knew where the ADIZ was (but didn't know he was
there).

> It's not that I don't know it,

Well, that was my only point--we have no basis for impugning his claim that
he obtained a briefing, and he may even be able to prove it (if he cares
to).

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:
>
> > "Matt Barrow" > 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.
> >
> > How do you know? A forensic examination of his hard drive might
> > confirm his statement.
> >
> I think that the matter of checking the weather is a very minor part of
> these circumstances. One is not required to check weather in any
> particular manner, and it doesn't appear that this pilot's flight path was
> influenced by weather issues in any way. I don't even understand why the
> FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Cops, federal or local, throw everything into the pot, then "cut the deck".
The schmucks lawyer, I think, was trying to provide an overall alibi to
deflect the overall air of negligence (or whatever the proper legalistic
jargon is).

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Not if his navigation was so bad that he simply didn't know where he
was.
> >
> > IIRC from his statement, he was so focused on Camp David that he missed
> > the
> > DC ADIZ. That doesn't seem plausible, only a childish excuse.
>
> His statement did not address whether he knew where he was (but didn't
know
> the ADIZ was there), or knew where the ADIZ was (but didn't know he was
> there).
>
> > It's not that I don't know it,
>
> Well, that was my only point--we have no basis for impugning his claim
that
> he obtained a briefing, and he may even be able to prove it (if he cares
> to).

He may, but as I mentioned, it seems contrived and I think he's (his lawyer,
actually) is counting on the unlikelihood of their tearing his computer
apart.

It's a HUNCH; can you comprehend that?

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
>> files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history.
> Depending
>> on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
>> index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight
>> briefing site.
>>
> Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.
>
> Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.

You've got it backwards. If anyone, it'd be the pilot himself who'd want the
hard drive analyzed. That's because *failing* to find traces of the briefing
would not be strong evidence that the briefing didn't occur; but
*succeeding* in finding such traces would be strong evidence that it *did*
occur.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching
history
> >> files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history.
> > Depending
> >> on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
> >> index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a
flight
> >> briefing site.
> >>
> > Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.
> >
> > Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.
>
> You've got it backwards. If anyone, it'd be the pilot himself who'd want
the
> hard drive analyzed. That's because *failing* to find traces of the
briefing
> would not be strong evidence that the briefing didn't occur; but
> *succeeding* in finding such traces would be strong evidence that it *did*
> occur.

No, you've got it backwards...he's figuring they will just accept his
explanation.

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> > It's not that I don't know it,
>>
>> Well, that was my only point--we have no basis for impugning his claim
> that
>> he obtained a briefing, and he may even be able to prove it (if he cares
>> to).
> ...
> It's a HUNCH; can you comprehend that?

Yes, I think I can. I was just objecting to your original flat assertion
that the pilot's briefing story "doesn't hold up". But now you're merely
saying you have a *hunch* it's not true.

--Gary

[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'.

[Peter R.]

Neil wrote:

> I don't even understand why the
> FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.

Probably similar to the "Failure to keep right" (for those of us who
drive on the right) charge that police routinely stick on a driver
involved in an automobile accident where the driver's vehicle crossed
the divided line in the road.

But seriously, perhaps the real charge was something along the lines of
"failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
briefing," which some reporter took to mean failure to check weather.

--
Peter

[Michael 182]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
>>> files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history.
>> Depending
>>> on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
>>> index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a
>>> flight
>>> briefing site.
>>>
>> Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.
>>
>> Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.
>
> You've got it backwards. If anyone, it'd be the pilot himself who'd want
> the hard drive analyzed. That's because *failing* to find traces of the
> briefing would not be strong evidence that the briefing didn't occur; but
> *succeeding* in finding such traces would be strong evidence that it *did*
> occur.
>
> --Gary

That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no evidence is
found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of computer
activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed he
visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

Michael

>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.
>> >
>> > Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.
>>
>> You've got it backwards. If anyone, it'd be the pilot himself
>> who'd want the hard drive analyzed. That's because *failing*
>> to find traces of the briefing would not be strong evidence
>> that the briefing didn't occur; but *succeeding* in finding such
>> traces would be strong evidence that it *did* occur.
>
> No, you've got it backwards...

Then please explain why the pilot's attorney would be "counting on" the feds
not examining the computer, when examining the computer *cannot* give the
feds useful evidence but *might* give the pilot useful evidence.

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> >> > It's not that I don't know it,
> >>
> >> Well, that was my only point--we have no basis for impugning his claim
> > that
> >> he obtained a briefing, and he may even be able to prove it (if he
cares
> >> to).
> > ...
> > It's a HUNCH; can you comprehend that?
>
> Yes, I think I can. I was just objecting to your original flat assertion
> that the pilot's briefing story "doesn't hold up". But now you're merely
> saying you have a *hunch* it's not true.

Why I had refered to not holding up was because he stated that he got a
briefing that didn't mention the second restricted area along his path. Not
too plausible. This in conjunction with his obtaining the briefing from a
source that was not (READILY) verifiable.

Analogy: I mailed the check two weeks ago, but I didn't send it
registered/certified.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>
> > No, you've got it backwards...
>
> Then please explain why the pilot's attorney would be "counting on" the
feds
> not examining the computer, when examining the computer *cannot* give the
> feds useful evidence but *might* give the pilot useful evidence.

Because in this trivial case, he figures they will just accept his claim.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no evidence
is
> found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
computer
> activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
he
> visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
> attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.

True.

Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why I had refered to not holding up was because he stated that he got a
> briefing that didn't mention the second restricted area along his path.

No, his statement made no such claim. Here's the link again:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1 .

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter R. > posted:

> Neil wrote:
>
>> I don't even understand why the
>> FAA threw that issue onto the pile, given the other charges.
>
[...]
>
> But seriously, perhaps the real charge was something along the lines
> of "failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
> briefing," which some reporter took to mean failure to check weather.
>
You're probably right, however, a standard briefing is also not required.
One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a standard
briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that information is
available from a number of sources.

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> Then please explain why the pilot's attorney would be "counting
>> on" the feds not examining the computer, when examining the
>> computer *cannot* give the feds useful evidence but *might* give
>> the pilot useful evidence.
>
> Because in this trivial case, he figures they will just accept his claim.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I understand why the attorney
would *not expect* the feds to examine the computer (and in fact I explained
why they wouldn't have incentive to do so even if the matter were *not*
trivial). What I disputed is that the attorney would have reason to "count
on" that non-examination (that is, to *depend on* that non-examination),
since the examination, if it had any effect at all, would be to the pilot's
*benefit*.

--Gary

[Michael 182]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no evidence
> is
>> found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
> computer
>> activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
> he
>> visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
>> attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.
>
> True.
>
> Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?

If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
"consultant". If the expert finds useful evidence he will be converted to a
"witness". If he does not find useful evidence there will never be any
record of his work. If they are smart there will not even be a written
report.

Michael

[George Patterson]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a standard
> briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that information is
> available from a number of sources.

And part of that information which one receives in a standard briefing for that
part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists over Washington, D.C.. It is
patently obvious that the PIC either did not get that information or chose to
ignore it. So the FAA charges him with failing to get the info and will sort it
out in the hearings.

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'.

[Chris]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> says...

I am not sure why there is the need for all this tortuous debate. The pilot
in command showed abysmal airmanship to the extent that no one can really
question his incompetence and his unfitness to have a pilot certificate.

He got caught and has been punished, sparing us all the opportunity to be in
the air at the same time as him.

I for one am pleased that a dozy pilot has been grounded. At least he cannot
do that again.

[Gary Drescher]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>
> I am not sure why there is the need for all this tortuous debate.

That's certainly a fair question.

I think the answer is that we've been debating the appropriateness (or not)
of some of the specific charges against the pilot (concerning recklessness
or obtaining a briefing, for example). Justice requires looking carefully at
the details of the accusations, rather than just being satisfied that he did
something bad, and so should receive some punishment under whatever pretext
is handy.

--Gary

> He got caught and has been punished, sparing us all the opportunity to be
> in the air at the same time as him.

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:nHIke.1316$5b.83@trndny04...
> And part of that information which one receives in a standard briefing for
> that part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists over Washington,
> D.C.. It is patently obvious that the PIC either did not get that
> information or chose to ignore it.

Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though he
knew where the ADIZ was.

--Gary

[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.

[George Patterson]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though he
> knew where the ADIZ was.

I'd be more likely to consider that a possibility if he were on anything other
than a direct course to his destination at the time.

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]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kgJke.939$2b.301@trndny08...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>> Or else that he was lost, and didn't know he was in the ADIZ, even though
>> he knew where the ADIZ was.
>
> I'd be more likely to consider that a possibility if he were on anything
> other than a direct course to his destination at the time.

If you think his course was intentional, you also have to conclude that he
didn't know about (or didn't care about) busting through the middle of the
Class B.

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, George Patterson > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> One is expected to have *the information* that may be given in a
>> standard briefing (if you ask the right questions), but that
>> information is available from a number of sources.
>
> And part of that information which one receives in a standard
> briefing for that part of the country is the fact that an ADIZ exists
> over Washington, D.C.. It is patently obvious that the PIC either did
> not get that information or chose to ignore it. So the FAA charges
> him with failing to get the info and will sort it out in the hearings.
>
The ADIZs also appear on the sectionals. Current charts *are* required,
and would be a lot more useful than someone on the phone saying "don't go
there" before you depart. No question that this pilot was unable to
navigate adequately, and it makes me wonder what his last BFR was like
(having just gone through that myself a few days ago).

Neil

[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

[Bob Moore]

"Neil Gould" wrote
> The ADIZs also appear on the sectionals. Current charts *are* required,

NO charts are required.....not even for IFR flight.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

[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
...
> [...]
> If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
> bystander, the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.

I have never heard of any court coming to that conclusion.

Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That
is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused
by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a criminal
or civil law against causing a death?

> [...] but there *is* such a regulation with regard to posing an analogous
> danger while flying.

That certainly appears to be the FAA's interpretation of 91.13. I remain
unconvinced that it's a sensible interpretation. The pilot in question
never, as a direct result of his own actions, presented any hazard to life
or property. Any such hazard resulted only from the (overblown, IMHO)
reaction from the government.

Pete

[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

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
>> bystander, the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.
>
> I have never heard of any court coming to that conclusion.
>
> Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That
> is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused
> by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a
> criminal or civil law against causing a death?

I don't have a precedent offhand, but it's a textbook example that I've seen
in many elementary expositions of felony-murder (e.g.,
http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr*imes/a-z/murder_first_degree.h*tml).

--Gary

[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

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "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
>

While there can be little doubt that one F16 (let alone two) would be
overkill to take down a C150, perhaps it's SOP to launch the two alert
aircraft regardless of the actual nature of the threat and once airborne,
they are tasked with seeing the prosecution of the target through to a
specific conclusion?

Last time the Presidential circus was in the Phoenix area, someone busted
the TFR and that brought at least two F16s down to the south end of town and
they circled until the offender landed at a nearby fly-in community. I
wonder if they did the same at Fredricksburg?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[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

[Gary Drescher]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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.

Almost. In order for there to be reckless endangerment, it needs to be the
case that a reasonable person could foresee the danger. It does *not*,
though, need to be the case that the known public policy through which the
danger is manifested is itself reasonable.

A reasonable pilot knows that a plane penetrating all the way into the FRZ,
and not managing to communicate with interceptors, is in danger of being
shot down (and in danger of falling on folks below). Going to the brink of
that event is therefore careless or reckless.

--Gary

[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

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:zrKke.1146$rr.401@fed1read01...
> While there can be little doubt that one F16 (let alone two) would be
> overkill to take down a C150, perhaps it's SOP to launch the two alert
> aircraft regardless of the actual nature of the threat and once airborne,
> they are tasked with seeing the prosecution of the target through to a
> specific conclusion?

Well, my point wasn't to claim that the mere launching of a pair of F16s was
the problem. It's the idea that the F16s are used in a threatening "we're
going to shoot you down" capacity. F16s can be used for other purposes, not
all of which involve a hazard to the life and/or property of others.

So, I agree with what I think your implication is: that just sending F16s
out isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it's not the use of F16s per se that
I'm talking about. It's how they were used, and how that applies to the
accusation of a violation of 91.13.

Pete

[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.

[Jose]

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

Well, that's not the purpose of 91.13. It's more like "it is a
violation of this regulation to abide by all the FARs and =still= do
something we don't like".

Jose
r.a.owning and r.a.student trimmed
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[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)

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot if no
evidence
> > is
> >> found by the gov't and explain why lack of evidence is not proof of
> > computer
> >> activity. It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that
showed
> > he
> >> visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend
on
> >> attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?
>
> If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
> "consultant".

I was thinking of the feds.

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

At a minimum, it's been clearly threatened by the government. Reasonable
persons may doubt that the threat will be carried out, but they must at
least take the possiblity seriously, I think.

> 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.

No, not at all--91.13 says nothing about *intentional* endagerment. The
pilot is accused of having *carelessly or recklessly* endangered others, by
failing to take the degree of caution called for by flight near the ADIZ,
given the known possibility of being shot down if you wander into the FRZ.

> 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.

It's impossible to anticipate and enumerate all the ways that operating a
vehicle might be careless or reckless. That's why motor-vehicle laws, as
well as aviation regulations, have a miscellaneous "careless and reckless"
provision. Even though there's no FAR specifically prohibiting "flying in a
populated area where the government says they'll shoot you down", it strikes
me as a clear-cut example of being careless or reckless.

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

The use of 91.13 strikes me as justified when there is some specific aspect
of the situation (such as the known risk here of getting shot down) that
clearly constitutes careless and reckless endangerment, and when that
specific aspect is not covered by another FAR (regardless of whether or not
some *other* aspects of the situation violate some other FARs).

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> That's exactly right. I could easily testify for the pilot
>> >> if no evidence is found by the gov't and explain why lack
>> >> of evidence is not proof of computer activity. It would
>> >> be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed
>> >> he visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would
>> >> probably depend on attacking the expert and/or the forensic
>> >> methodology.
>> >
>> > True.
>> >
>> > Do you think they'll invest the time and effort
>> > in a case such as this?
>>
>> If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will
>> probably hire an expert "consultant".
>
> I was thinking of the feds.

Wait, what Michael was just speaking of (when you replied "True") is how
difficult it would be for the feds to contest the defense's evidence if an
expert examination of the computer showed that the pilot *did* obtain the
briefing.

So you're asking now if the feds would bother to try to contest that kind of
evidence? Presumably not, since they would have no realistic prospect of
succeeding, unless the examination had been incompetent.

--Gary

[RST Engineering]

Care to cite your reference for this statement?

Jim



>>Current charts *are* required

[RST Engineering]

I'd appreciate knowing where this quotation came from.

Jim



"> "failure to check all pertinant information including a standard
> briefing,"

[RST Engineering]

Any disreputable forensic analyzer that doesn't know how to dummy up
"evidence" of a surfing visit to any particular site isn't going to stay in
their dirty business long.

Jim


>> I do this for a living (forensic analysis of computers). Caching history
>> files is not needed to create at least a partial surfing history.
> Depending
>> on the OS swapping going on, and depending on the status of his various
>> index.dat files and cookies, I could probably tell if he visited a flight
>> briefing site.
>>
> Maybe the feds will call you to tear apart his computer.
>
> Likely? No, and that's what the attorney is counting on.
>
>
>

[Peter R.]

Jim wrote:

> I'd appreciate knowing where this quotation came from.

It came from my rather hurried attempt to string together the logic a
reporter may have followed to report that this pilot is being cited for
not "checking the weather," amongst other charges.

To follow along: FARs state it is a pilot's responsibility to obtain
all pertinent information in preparation for a flight... one
contribution to this is for the pilot to get a standard briefing... a
standard briefing contains a lot of weather information.... pilot never
obtained a recorded standard briefing (if the FAA is to be believed)...
reporter incorrectly concludes that pilot never checked the weather...

How'd I do? :-)

--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:17:04 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>wouldn't it be interesting if some young enterprising cub reporter went
>out and found those flares?

The flares are designed to burnout before reaching the ground. The
only evidence left on the ground of them having been deployed would
the their plastic end caps.

[RST Engineering]

Not as well as I had hoped. {;-)

Where did you get the notion that a "standard briefing" (whatever that is
and wherever defined in regulation) contains weather information. The
pertinent regulation (91.103) requires INFORMATION; no mention is made of
"briefing". It requires weather information IF the flight is not "in the
vicinity of AN airport". It doesn't say the LAUNCHING or LANDING airport,
just AN airport. And what is "vicinity"? Gliding distance? Range of the
aircraft? Vicinity is one of those "not defined here" terms that make
Hawaiian vacations for lawyers possible.

Jim


> To follow along: FARs state it is a pilot's responsibility to obtain
> all pertinent information in preparation for a flight... one
> contribution to this is for the pilot to get a standard briefing... a
> standard briefing contains a lot of weather information.... pilot never
> obtained a recorded standard briefing (if the FAA is to be believed)...
> reporter incorrectly concludes that pilot never checked the weather...
>
> How'd I do? :-)

[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.

[Peter R.]

Jim wrote:

> Where did you get the notion that a "standard briefing" (whatever that is
> and wherever defined in regulation) contains weather information.

Ha... why do I get the feeling that is this a piece of cheese attached
to a bar holding back a spring-powered hammer?

> The pertinent regulation (91.103) requires INFORMATION; no mention is made of
> "briefing".

I certainly agree and my intention was not to imply that that the
regulation requires a briefing. Instead I was envisioning how the
process might have been explained to a reporter.

--
Peter

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:48:37 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> If the police lawfully shoot at a robber and accidentally kill a
>> bystander, the robber is certainly legally responsible for that death.
>
>I have never heard of any court coming to that conclusion.
>
>Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That
>is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused
>by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a criminal
>or civil law against causing a death?

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/005055.html ?

[John Galban]

Michael 182 wrote:
> It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed he
> visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
> attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.
>
I think the point is moot. Unless you are connecting to DUATS
through AOPA, I don't think they are an official source of NOTAM
information. As I understand previous rulings by the FAA courts and
NTSB, you're not protected unless you got your NOTAM info from either
DUATS or a FSS briefer (both of which are recorded).

If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I
really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight? One case that
I know of personally was a pilot that relied on a 3rd party airport
guide for his info rather than the official facilities directory.

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

[Gary Drescher]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Michael 182 wrote:
>> It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed he
>> visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
>> attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.
>
> I think the point is moot. Unless you are connecting to DUATS
> through AOPA, I don't think they are an official source of NOTAM
> information.
> As I understand previous rulings by the FAA courts and
> NTSB, you're not protected unless you got your NOTAM info from either
> DUATS or a FSS briefer (both of which are recorded).

Can you cite those rulings, please? I can readily believe that you might
assume the *burden of proof* that you obtained a briefing from another
source. But that's very different from saying that another source doesn't
count even if you *meet* the burden of proof.

> If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I
> really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight?

If your source includes then same information that DUATS or FSS is offering,
then of course you have.

--Gary

[John Galban]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> Can you cite those rulings, please? I can readily believe that you might
> assume the *burden of proof* that you obtained a briefing from another
> source. But that's very different from saying that another source doesn't
> count even if you *meet* the burden of proof.

No I can't. I got that impression from various articles I'd read
over the years, and the fact that a pilot I knew was actually dinged
for having used a 3rd party airport guide, rather than the Facilities
Directory. The violation for not using the AF/D was not the main
violation. They got him for busting a class B and tacked the 91.103
violation on when the investigation revealed he'd used it instead of
the official source. The 3rd party guide did not contain any incorrect
info, nor did it contribute in any way to the class B aispace bust.

Of course, this is now all anecdotal, since I haven't got a case
number and haven't seen this particular guy in about 10 years, so take
it for what it's worth. Some crap I heard on the internet :-))

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

>
> > If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I
> > really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight?
>
> If your source includes then same information that DUATS or FSS is offering,
> then of course you have.
>
> --Gary

[Michael 182]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...

>> > Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as this?
>>
>> If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an expert
>> "consultant".
>
> I was thinking of the feds.
>
I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's findings.
They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
forensic study.

Michael

[Michael 182]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Any disreputable forensic analyzer that doesn't know how to dummy up
> "evidence" of a surfing visit to any particular site isn't going to stay
> in their dirty business long.
>

Luckily, the reputable ones will almost certainly be able to tell if data is
manipulated, simply by following correct forensic procedures. Unless your
assuming that we are all disreputable and that we are all engaged in a
"dirty business"...

Michael

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> > Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as
this?
> >>
> >> If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an
expert
> >> "consultant".
> >
> > I was thinking of the feds.
> >
> I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
> computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's
findings.
> They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
> forensic study.

Sigh....

Schaeffer (?) and the lawyer were expecting their claim of having checked
the information via the internet and using non-recorded use history would
cover his ass from a charge of negligence. They expected this claim to
"fly" (sorry), and expected that the feds would not tear apart Schaeffers PC
(if they even considered THAT possibility).

Like I'd said earlier; it's akin to "the check was mailed two weeks ago, but
I didn't send it registered mail".

[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...

[Michael 182]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> >> > Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as
> this?
>> >>
>> >> If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an
> expert
>> >> "consultant".
>> >
>> > I was thinking of the feds.
>> >
>> I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
>> computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's
> findings.
>> They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
>> forensic study.
>
> Sigh....
>
> Schaeffer (?) and the lawyer were expecting their claim of having checked
> the information via the internet and using non-recorded use history would
> cover his ass from a charge of negligence. They expected this claim to
> "fly" (sorry), and expected that the feds would not tear apart Schaeffers
> PC
> (if they even considered THAT possibility).
>
> Like I'd said earlier; it's akin to "the check was mailed two weeks ago,
> but
> I didn't send it registered mail".

That's possible, but if that is part of defense's strategy he needs a new
lawyer. I don't believe the attorney thinks for a minute that, in the
absence of proof, the FAA will be the least bit impressed by the claim to
have used the internet to get any form of briefing.

Michael

>
>

[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...

[Brooks Hagenow]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Michael 182 wrote:
>>
>>>It would be much more difficult to refute evidence that showed he
>>>visited a planning site. Refuting that evidence would probably depend on
>>>attacking the expert and/or the forensic methodology.
>>
>> I think the point is moot. Unless you are connecting to DUATS
>>through AOPA, I don't think they are an official source of NOTAM
>>information.
>>As I understand previous rulings by the FAA courts and
>>NTSB, you're not protected unless you got your NOTAM info from either
>>DUATS or a FSS briefer (both of which are recorded).
>
>
> Can you cite those rulings, please? I can readily believe that you might
> assume the *burden of proof* that you obtained a briefing from another
> source. But that's very different from saying that another source doesn't
> count even if you *meet* the burden of proof.
>
>
>> If I get my NOTAM info from a source other than the FAA, have I
>>really gathered all of the info pertinent to the flight?
>
>
> If your source includes then same information that DUATS or FSS is offering,
> then of course you have.
>
> --Gary
>
>

But how do you know the third party source has all the same information
that the DUATS or FSS is offering unless you use them as your source?

[RST Engineering]

Of COURSE not, and that wasn't my point. I wasn't saying that you or any of
your brethren or sistren are disreputable.

Tell you what. I'll turn two of my brightest students (STUDENTS mind ya,
not in the biz yet) onto a hard drive and you tell me what day and time they
were supposed to log into a site. If you can give me hard evidence that the
logging in was forged, I'll buy you a steak dinner at Oshkosh ... and enough
wine to dance on Jay Honeck's wing with Mary Natalie.

It isn't rocket science.

Jim


"> Luckily, the reputable ones will almost certainly be able to tell if data
is
> manipulated, simply by following correct forensic procedures. Unless your
> assuming that we are all disreputable and that we are all engaged in a
> "dirty business"...

[RST Engineering]

Um, that would be MARGIE Natalie. Dancing in two-step with Mary Honeck.

Jim


"> wine to dance on Jay Honeck's wing with Mary Natalie.

[Michael 182]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Of COURSE not, and that wasn't my point. I wasn't saying that you or any
> of your brethren or sistren are disreputable.
>
> Tell you what. I'll turn two of my brightest students (STUDENTS mind ya,
> not in the biz yet) onto a hard drive and you tell me what day and time
> they were supposed to log into a site. If you can give me hard evidence
> that the logging in was forged, I'll buy you a steak dinner at Oshkosh ...
> and enough wine to dance on Jay Honeck's wing with Mary Natalie.
>
> It isn't rocket science.
>
> Jim
>
>

lol - that's a challenge (and a prize) hard to resist, although Jay may have
a problem with it. (Not to mention Mary and Margie, given how I dance)

Michael

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That
>>is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused
>>by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a
>>criminal
>>or civil law against causing a death?
>
> http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/005055.html ?

Thank you, very interesting case. I am especially impressed by the courts
broad interpretation of what's "foreseeable", in that they appear willing to
assert that if there is some foreseeable risk in any way, that ALL possible
injuries, no matter how unlikely (such as a police officer intentionally
firing upon an innocent bystander) are considered "foreseeable".

However, even in the case you cite, the relevant penalty was an increase in
the sentencing for the original crime. The defendant was NOT charged with a
seperate crime (assault with a deadly weapon, for example, would have been
what I was looking for in this case).

So, no...while certainly fascinating, and exhibiting broader interpretations
of a criminal's actions than I probably would have guessed, it doesn't
address the question I stated.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Well, that's not the purpose of 91.13. It's more like "it is a violation
> of this regulation to abide by all the FARs and =still= do something we
> don't like".

That's obviously not the case, since otherwise it would be applied only when
no other FAR was violated.

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Even though there's no FAR specifically prohibiting "flying in a
> populated area where the government says they'll shoot you down", it
> strikes me as a clear-cut example of being careless or reckless.

There's no FAR specifically prohibiting "flying at an altitude where you
might run into a building". However, there are other regulations that
address the general risk of that.

Likewise, there already ARE regulations that address the general risk of
flying into a restricted area where you might be shot down (such as the
rules governing an ADIZ, a restricted area, or a prohibited area). There's
no need to invoke the catch-all in this case.

> The use of 91.13 strikes me as justified when there is some specific
> aspect of the situation (such as the known risk here of getting shot down)
> that clearly constitutes careless and reckless endangerment, and when that
> specific aspect is not covered by another FAR (regardless of whether or
> not some *other* aspects of the situation violate some other FARs).

Well, then that still begs the question: what did the pilot do, other than
what he's already been charged with via other regulations, that meets the
standard in 91.13?

As I've already pointed out above, the risk to life or property has already
been addressed through violations of other regulations. What point is there
in adding 91.13, except to just "pile it on" by throwing in an extra "this
applies to everything" regulation?

Pete

[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. :)

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...] Even though there's no FAR specifically prohibiting "flying in a
>> populated area where the government says they'll shoot you down", it
>> strikes me as a clear-cut example of being careless or reckless.
>
> There's no FAR specifically prohibiting "flying at an altitude where you
> might run into a building". However, there are other regulations that
> address the general risk of that.

True, there's a regulation requiring flying 1000' above nearby obstacles in
built-up areas, or 500' above persons, structures, and vehicles otherwise.
And you're right that there's a certain degree of risk inherent in any
garden-variety violation of those regulations (e.g., cruising 800' above a
city building instead of 1000'). So I agree that it would be inappropriate
(and, I suspect, unusual) to charge a pilot under 91.13 for being careless
or reckless, in addition to charging the pilot for the garden-variety
altitude-rule violation.

Suppose, though, that a pilot in level flight heads straight toward the top
of a tall building, and veers away only at the last possible second. *That*
action creates a risk far greater than what's involved in typical violations
of the altitude rules. Yet there is no additional violation for that pilot
to be charged with--except for 91.13, which I think would be properly
invoked in that situation.

Similarly, I think it's at least arguable that garden-variety instances of
airspace violations--though they all carry some risk, as you point out--do
not typically carry the exceptional risk involved in flying over a densely
populated area where the government has explicitly threatened to shoot down
even small planes. Arguably, then, there is a degree of carelessness or
recklessness there that exceeds what's already inherent in the
airspace-violation charges, justifying an additional charge under 91.13.

--Gary

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:54:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>>Can you direct me to a legal precedent that supports your statement? That
>>>is, a case where a shot fired at a criminal was deemed to have been caused
>>>by the criminal, and where the criminal was found in violation of a
>>>criminal
>>>or civil law against causing a death?
>>
>> http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/005055.html ?
>

>So, no...while certainly fascinating, and exhibiting broader interpretations
>of a criminal's actions than I probably would have guessed, it doesn't
>address the question I stated.

OK, perhaps
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ny&vol=082&invol=0309
then?

[Jose]

>> Well, that's not the purpose of 91.13. It's more like "it is a violation
>> of this regulation to abide by all the FARs and =still= do something we
>> don't like".
>
> That's obviously not the case, since otherwise it would be applied only when
> no other FAR was violated.
>

Ok, I'll rephrase. "it is a violation of this regulation to do
something which abides by all the FARs but is =still= something we don't
like".

Many things were done on the flight. Some were legal, some were not.
Some were dumb, some were not. Some were legal and dumb, that's where
91.13 gets used.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[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]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Michael 182" > wrote in
message
> >> > ...
> >>
> >> >> > Do you think they'll invest the time and effort in a case such as
> > this?
> >> >>
> >> >> If they (the pilot and his attorney) do they will probably hire an
> > expert
> >> >> "consultant".
> >> >
> >> > I was thinking of the feds.
> >> >
> >> I can't think of any reason the feds would try and investigate the
> >> computers, nor any particular reason to try and refute an expert's
> > findings.
> >> They have plenty of ammunition to make their case without attacking a
> >> forensic study.
> >
> > Sigh....
> >
> > Schaeffer (?) and the lawyer were expecting their claim of having
checked
> > the information via the internet and using non-recorded use history
would
> > cover his ass from a charge of negligence. They expected this claim to
> > "fly" (sorry), and expected that the feds would not tear apart
Schaeffers
> > PC
> > (if they even considered THAT possibility).
> >
> > Like I'd said earlier; it's akin to "the check was mailed two weeks ago,
> > but
> > I didn't send it registered mail".
>
> That's possible, but if that is part of defense's strategy he needs a new
> lawyer. I don't believe the attorney thinks for a minute that, in the
> absence of proof, the FAA will be the least bit impressed by the claim to
> have used the internet to get any form of briefing.

For a criminal charge, probably they won't; to deflect a negligence action
though...

[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...

[Montblack]

("RST Engineering" wrote)
>> wine to dance on Jay Honeck's wing with Mary Natalie.

> Um, that would be MARGIE Natalie. Dancing in two-step with Mary Honeck.


With Mary Natalie and Margy Honeck there's the sticky conundrum - who gets
the Navion and who gets the Pathfinder?

The Jay and Ron problem will simply have to work itself out.


Montblack

[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]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> I was thinking of the feds.

I doubt the Feds care one bit. If the pilot was that unaware of the ADIZ, it
doesn't matter what tools he used, he did not get an adequate briefing. Weather
is only a part of 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]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> If you think his course was intentional, you also have to conclude that he
> didn't know about (or didn't care about) busting through the middle of the
> Class B.

Yep, sure do. I think he snaked through the old VFR corridor years ago and was
planning to do the same thing this time.

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]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> Current charts *are* required,

No, they are not.

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'.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> OK, perhaps
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ny&vol=082&invol=0309
> then?

So close! :)

This case certainly comes much closer to the question, as it involves a new
charge. However, it has at least two problems:

* The decision clearly hinged on the fact that the defendant threatent
the officers with a gun, directly causing the officers to fire back.

* In the explanatory text, the court even specifically says that "felony
murder does not embrace any killing that is coincidental with the felony but
instead is limited to those deaths caused by one of the felons in
furtherance of their crime". At least in New York, according to this court,
the felon would have to take a direct action that results in the death, and
while the text is silent on the question it certainly suggests that merely
fleeing the crime scene (for example) would not be enough.

Another interesting aspect to the case is that it illustrates that the
concept of "felony murder" as applied here is a relatively new concept, at
least in New York. The law was changed only in 1974, to provide for the
charging of a person proximally related to, but not directly causing, a
death. The discussion also suggests that, while certainly common, there is
wide variability in similar statutes in various jurisdictions. It seems not
all legislatures think it makes sense to charge a person with murder when
that person didn't actually commit the murder.

I assume that also means that at least some jurisdictions have a more
liberal law, allowing for broader application of the felony murder charge,
and perhaps even in such cases as a felon fleeing the crime. But it also
suggests that this is not uniformly agreed upon, nor am I convinced that
it's something that should apply here with respect to deciding that the
pilots involved in this airspace violation themselves violated 91.13.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ok, I'll rephrase. "it is a violation of this regulation to do something
> which abides by all the FARs but is =still= something we don't like".

What did they do that abides by all the FARs, but which was still something
the FAA didn't like?

IMHO, the only act that could be even remotely construed as presenting a
hazard to the life and property of others was the same act addressed by
other charges.

What was "legal and dumb"?

Pete

[[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]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Similarly, I think it's at least arguable that garden-variety instances of
> airspace violations--though they all carry some risk, as you point out--do
> not typically carry the exceptional risk involved in flying over a densely
> populated area where the government has explicitly threatened to shoot
> down even small planes. Arguably, then, there is a degree of carelessness
> or recklessness there that exceeds what's already inherent in the
> airspace-violation charges, justifying an additional charge under 91.13.

So, to restate your point, 91.13 isn't really a regulation to be used when
no other regulation applies. It's a regulation to be used when you want to
trump up the charges, so that you can apply a greater penalty than would
otherwise be allowed?

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:cP2le.9$zb.0@trndny04...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>> If you think his course was intentional, you also have to conclude that
>> he didn't know about (or didn't care about) busting through the middle of
>> the Class B.
>
> Yep, sure do. I think he snaked through the old VFR corridor years ago and
> was planning to do the same thing this time.

I see what you mean. Still, he ended up plowing through the middle of the
25-mile-wide Class B surface area, far from any Class E airspace. Or did
there use to be a corridor right there in the middle?

--Gary

[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

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> So, to restate your point, 91.13 isn't really a regulation to be used when
> no other regulation applies. It's a regulation to be used when you want
> to trump up the charges, so that you can apply a greater penalty than
> would otherwise be allowed?

No, I think it's to be used *whether or not* some other regulation applies,
if there was careless or reckless conduct that goes beyond what would
typically be inherent in whatever other violations (if any) of the FARs
occurred.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> No, I think it's to be used *whether or not* some other regulation
> applies, if there was careless or reckless conduct that goes beyond what
> would typically be inherent in whatever other violations (if any) of the
> FARs occurred.

I don't see how that is different from what I wrote (other than your
inclusion of use of the regulation even when no other regulation applies,
which I'll grant).

[Jose]

> What did they do that abides by all the FARs, but which was still something
> the FAA didn't like?

I don't know. I was not standing up for the =use= of the careless or
reckless rule, rather explaining how (IMHO) it is intended to be used.

I would speculate that the FAA didn't like (or rather, were I the FAA, I
wouldn't like) his taking a student pilot on such a spree, and having
him fly the plane. I don't like it in =this= case for a few reasons:

1: It imbues the student with a poor impression of aviation (the good
lessons the student may take away from this are a byproduct - it might
not have turned out this way). This increases the chance that the
student will learn to be careless and get away with it, at least for a
while.

2: It makes it easier for the pilot to become a passenger on his own
flight, and thus effectively abdicate the C role of being PIC.

None of these things are illegal, and on a different flight these things
might not even be an issue. They shouldn't be prohibited per se. But
on this flight it might well be considered careless or reckless, and the
FAA may use the careless or reckless rule to cover those acts.

An aside... "careless or reckless" sounds like "sort of bad, or very
bad". I don't know how one can be reckless but not careless. With the
"or" as a conjunction, "careless or reckless" can be reduced to
"careless" and come out the same. No?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
> I don't know. I was not standing up for the =use= of the careless or
> reckless rule, rather explaining how (IMHO) it is intended to be used.

Well, my comments are only directed at how the rule IS used, not how some
theoretical rule-writer intends it to be used. I don't see what relevance
comments about the theoretical intent have to my own comments, at least not
with respect to refuting them.

> [...] I don't like it in =this= case for a few reasons:
>
> 1: It imbues the student with a poor impression of aviation (the good
> lessons the student may take away from this are a byproduct - it might not
> have turned out this way). This increases the chance that the student
> will learn to be careless and get away with it, at least for a while.

Hazard to life or property? No.

> 2: It makes it easier for the pilot to become a passenger on his own
> flight, and thus effectively abdicate the C role of being PIC.

Hazard to life or property? No.

In other words, from a legal standpoint the mere fact that the FAA might
agree with you regarding whether they like the actions for the above reasons
is insufficient for the purpose of charging the pilot with a violation of
91.13

> None of these things are illegal, and on a different flight these things
> might not even be an issue. They shouldn't be prohibited per se. But on
> this flight it might well be considered careless or reckless, and the FAA
> may use the careless or reckless rule to cover those acts.

They have no legal basis for doing so.

> An aside... "careless or reckless" sounds like "sort of bad, or very bad".
> I don't know how one can be reckless but not careless. With the "or" as a
> conjunction, "careless or reckless" can be reduced to "careless" and come
> out the same. No?

I think from a strict dictionary point of view, no. I agree that we often
use the words as synonyms of different degree, but literally speaking
"careless" implies a certain lack of conscious consideration without
implying intentional disregard of safety, while "reckless" implies a certain
knowing disregard of safety without implying a lack of conscious
consideration. That is, reckless could describe a person who thought
through the consequences, and acted dangerously anyway while careless could
describe a person who failed to think through the consequences, and never
really intended to act dangerously (but did anyway). A person can be both
careless AND reckless, but they can also be just one or the other as well.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> I see what you mean. Still, he ended up plowing through the middle of the
> 25-mile-wide Class B surface area, far from any Class E airspace. Or did
> there use to be a corridor right there in the middle?

There used to be a corridor in the middle.

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]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:8H6le.111$zb.59@trndny01...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>> I see what you mean. Still, he ended up plowing through the middle of the
>> 25-mile-wide Class B surface area, far from any Class E airspace. Or did
>> there use to be a corridor right there in the middle?
>
> There used to be a corridor in the middle.

Thanks, I hadn't known that. Now I better understand what you suspect the
pilot was doing.

--Gary

[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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 04:59:48 +0000 (UTC),
wrote in >::

>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.

Here's a recent article posted by George Patterson which quotes FAA,
spokesman William Shumann who appears to refute the notion of an FAA
requirement for an "official" source under Part 91 operations:


From: George Patterson >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Would a NASA form help?
Message-ID: <qwdhe.458$mv5.380@trndny07>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 02:38:14 GMT

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> Naturally the FAA will want to come down hard on this guy. But
> that has no bearing on whether they can take any action against
> him if he meets the stated ASRS immunity conditions. (I hope for
> his sake that he submits an ASRS report by the deadline.)

Well, they've done it before.

From AvWeb 11/13/03

TFRs, ASRS, And Avoiding Enforcement Action...

The pilot who plodded along in a Mooney M20 above the Potomac
River on Monday morning (11/10/03) flew within eight miles of the
White House, and managed to intrude not only into the Air Defense
Identification Zone, but also its inner ring, the Flight
Restricted Zone, which extends in a radius of 15 nm from the
Washington Monument.

In some cases of piloting errors, filing a reporting form within
the Aviation Safety Reporting System can sometimes offer some
level of "immunity" -- against sanctions, not against prosecution.

FAA, spokesman William Shumann told AVweb, "In those cases where a
penalty was imposed even though an ASRS report was filed, it might
be because the pilot didn't check NOTAMs or otherwise comply with
FAR 91.103, which requires a pilot to 'become familiar with all
available information concerning that flight.'" As for satisfying
those requirements, "If one wants to be legalistic, the Automated
Flight Service Stations are the only 'official' source of
information, and DUAT is the only 'authorized' source outside of
AFSS," but that applies only to Part 121 and 135 -- not Part 91
operators.

Part 91 operators "can use whatever sources of weather and other
information they wish to meet the requirement of getting all the
information necessary for a safe flight," said Shumann. Concerned
Part 91 operators may feel more comfortable using only the
"official" sources listed above -- regardless of the type of
operation.

The Washington ADIZ has been there for six months now, and while
it has not been decreed a permanent fixture, "There is no
indication that it is going to go away anytime soon," says
Shumann. So for pilots not only in the Northeast, but
anywhere, it goes without saying: check NOTAMS and choose your
information sources wisely. And if you ever do find an otherwise
friendly F-16 off your wing, don't forget your intercepting
signals, and intercept procedures.

...In The Aftermath Of Another Incursion

Could Monday's incursion of White House airspace by a Mooney pilot
actually be a blessing in disguise? It may turn out that way if it
highlights what's becoming an increasing frustration for the FAA
-- and GA pilots. Since Feb. 10, when the ADIZ was put in place in
Washington, it has been violated more than 600 times. "Frankly,
we're a bit frustrated that pilots are still violating it, and we
don't know why," the FAA's William Shumann told AVweb yesterday.
"It's on the charts, it's on our Web site."

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

Jean Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the Secret Service, told The New
York Times the pilot had thought he was abiding by the flight
restrictions around Washington, not realizing they had been
changed after the terrorist attacks. The Secret Service was
satisfied that he had not intended any harm, Mitchell told the
Times.

[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

[John Larson]

So they revoke this guy's license, certificate or whatever you want to call
it.

What's to stop him from going to the airport, jumping into his airplane (if
he has one) and flying in the opposite direction of DC?

Has the TSA/FAA/et. al. figured this out yet? In 40 plus years of flying I
have never been checked.

This revocation means exactly, squat.

John

[Michael 182]

"John Larson" <None ...> wrote in message
...
> So they revoke this guy's license, certificate or whatever you want to
> call it.
>
> What's to stop him from going to the airport, jumping into his airplane
> (if he has one) and flying in the opposite direction of DC?
>
> Has the TSA/FAA/et. al. figured this out yet? In 40 plus years of flying I
> have never been checked.
>
> This revocation means exactly, squat.
>
> John

The revocation means he will be flying illegally, without insurance, and
subject to arrest if he is caught. I've been ramped twice in the past five
years. It's always possible. What do you want the FAA to do, put a full time
suveillance person on him?

Michael

[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.

[George Patterson]

John Larson wrote:
> So they revoke this guy's license, certificate or whatever you want to call
> it.
>
> What's to stop him from going to the airport, jumping into his airplane (if
> he has one) and flying in the opposite direction of DC?

If the FAA gets the least indication that he intends to do that, they will get a
court order and impound the aircraft. They used to slap a prop lock on the plane
in those cases, but they got a little stricter after one owner cut the lock off.

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.