Pilot claims no blame in July crash

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Pilot claims no blame in July crash

By Andrew Dys
The Herald

http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/5585325p-5022727c.html

The Ohio man who federal officials say was the pilot in a Rock Hill plane crash
claims he is being wrongly blamed for the July accident, which left two other
men dead.
Matthew Sullivan, 24, of Dublin, Ohio, told federal investigators and The Herald
he did not remember the flight or the crash and said he was not the pilot and
wasn't acting as a flight instructor that day. But he did remember the day
leading up to the flight, he said.

"I was strictly a passenger," Sullivan said in an phone interview from Ohio,
where he is recovering from serious injuries received in the crash.

Sullivan was one of three men on board the single-engine plane, which crashed
July 24 in a subdivision off Rawlinson Road, nearly one mile from the Rock
Hill/York County Airport. The others on board, Rock Hill native Eric Johnson and
Ohio dentist Bill Coulman, died.

Johnson was coming to Rock Hill for a Northwestern High School class reunion,
and Coulman owned the plane.

Federal regulators reported that fuel mismanagement by the pilot was likely
responsible for the crash. The mismanagement "resulted in fuel starvation and
subsequent loss of engine power," a National Transportation Safety Board report
states.

The NTSB identifies the pilot as Sullivan, who was sitting in the right front
seat of the plane and was the only one on board rated to fly under instrument
flight rules. The plane flew on instrument flight rules until changing to visual
flight rules four miles from the airport.

Instrument flight rules flying requires a higher licensing level and radio
contact between the plane and airport alerting the airport of the impending
landing, federal officials have said.

But Sullivan said he was invited by Coulman to be a passenger on the flight.
Sullivan said he had known Coulman for about a year but met Johnson for the
first time that morning at the Ohio State Airport in Columbus.

Sullivan said he did not know he was the only one on board with an instrument
flight rating and was not asked to be a flight instructor. He said he assumed
Johnson had an instrument rating and was in charge.

Coulman presented Johnson, who sat in the left front seat, as an Air Force
veteran and an experienced pilot, he said. "I was picturing a 'Top Gun.'"

The NTSB report describes Johnson and Coulman as "pilot rated passengers."
Another part of the NTSB report describes the two as "passenger" and "student
pilot." FAA records showed Johnson had been a licensed pilot since 1988.

Sullivan blames Coulman and Johnson.

"Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision as to
who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB. "Mr. Johnson actually
flew the plane knowing he did not have the certification or authority to do so.
It would be an injustice to blame me (as an invited guest) for their errors."

Sullivan said he is a flight instructor by training but was not acting as one
that day for either Johnson or Coulman.

"Matthew does not do for-hire flight instruction," his lawyer, Joe Coulter,
said.

Another lawyer for Sullivan, aviation law specialist Mark McDermott of
Washington, D.C., said the government is making Sullivan a "scapegoat" for the
crash. Both lawyers said Sullivan is being targeted by the federal government
because he is the sole survivor of the crash.

Federal officials declined to respond to the claims of Sullivan and his legal
team.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which has enforcement and pilot licensing
authority, confirmed it investigated Sullivan but took no action against him.
Because there was no action taken, there is nothing for Sullivan to appeal,
Southern region spokesperson Kathleen Bergen said.

NTSB spokesperson Lauren Peduzzi reaffirmed both agencies show that Sullivan was
flying the plane at the time of the accident and that the other two were
passengers. The NTSB, which handles crash investigations, has closed its case
and does not publicly respond to claims like Sullivan's, Peduzzi said.

Sullivan can appeal the NTSB ruling and is taking the right steps to do so if he
wants to be able to fly in the future, said Mike Hynes, who runs a Frederick,
Okla., aviation consulting business that does investigations for pilots and
their lawyers after crashes. Hynes is a former FAA examiner with more than
16,000 hours of flight time.

It's not surprising the FAA decided not to cite Sullivan because, with the other
men on board dead, it is hard to prove if he was acting as the flight
instructor, Hynes said.

However, Hynes is not surprised the NTSB ruled Sullivan was the flight
instructor.

"The normal rule of thumb is unless there is very clear evidence he was not the
flight instructor, he would be assumed to be the flight instructor," Hynes said.

The fuel selector switch is on the left part of the plane where Johnson was
sitting, said both Hynes and Erik Rigler of San Antonio, Texas, another aviation
expert who is a consultant in crashes and investigations.

The pilot in command designation does not mean that person was handling all the
controls, Hynes said, although the right hand seat does have access to some
flight controls.

The left front seat is generally called the pilot's seat, Hynes said.

However, Johnson, in the left front seat, couldn't be considered the pilot in
command if he was not instrument flight plan certified, Hynes said. Further,
only an instrument rated pilot is supposed to be able to file an instrument
flight plan, Hynes said.

The question of whether an on-board flight instructor is responsible comes up
often, Rigler said. A flight instructor himself, Rigler has had those concerns
personally when flying with pilots who don't have his high ratings.

A legal battle over liability is likely, both Hynes and Rigler said. The FAA
taking no enforcement against Sullivan makes a very strong case against
liability, Rigler said.

Most similar cases end up in civil courts and can take five years or more to
conclude, Hynes said.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Andrew Gideon]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> "Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision
> as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB.

How could this be in question? If a flight plan was filed, it has a pilot's
name.

- Andrew

[Jim Macklin]

You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a computer
on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on the
flight plan and if that person is legal and who is claimed.
Only after an accident or other investigation is the actual
identity of the people on the airplane established.

If your passengers know your name and they want to use your
name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics to
stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the flight
departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did not
file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full details
of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But if
you care, make it a FACT.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
|
| > "Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and
made the decision
| > as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the
NTSB.
|
| How could this be in question? If a flight plan was
filed, it has a pilot's
| name.
|
| - Andrew
|

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a computer
> on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on the
> flight plan and if that person is legal and who is claimed.
> Only after an accident or other investigation is the actual
> identity of the people on the airplane established.
>
> If your passengers know your name and they want to use your
> name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics to
> stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
> want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the flight
> departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did not
> file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full details
> of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But if
> you care, make it a FACT.

One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
of the training, no?

[Jim Macklin]

The name on the flight plan must be a legal and current IFR
rated pilot. When a CFI is giving training in IMC or on an
IFR flight plan, the custom is for the student to plan the
flight and file the flight plan using the instructor's name
[with permission of the CFI] and the CFI will know this. The
flight plan and clearance will be thoroughly understood by
each pilot and the CFI is PIC of record.

When a pilot is taking the IFR practical test, they are
presumed to be legally qualified and that is the first time
they can legally file IFR under their own name.

But the point is, that if you are a pilot and another person
on the airplane files the flight plan and uses your name you
will be considered to be the PIC, even if you are in the
back seat. Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
evidence to the contrary.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a
computer
| > on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on
the
| > flight plan and if that person is legal and who is
claimed.
| > Only after an accident or other investigation is the
actual
| > identity of the people on the airplane established.
| >
| > If your passengers know your name and they want to use
your
| > name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics
to
| > stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
| > want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the
flight
| > departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did
not
| > file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full
details
| > of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But
if
| > you care, make it a FACT.
|
| One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR
flight plan, do
| they? What about a pilot that is working toward their
instrument rating?
| Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing
is all part
| of the training, no?

[Bob Noel]

In article <NZiRf.117149$QW2.26358@dukeread08>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
> rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
> evidence to the contrary.

yet another of example of stupidity in government.

--
Bob Noel
trim posts? bah, who needs thats?

[Jim Macklin]

That is one of the reasons the FAA internal rules do not
allow their inspectors to ever act as PIC during a flight
test. The PIC gets sued. But how else would you do it?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article <NZiRf.117149$QW2.26358@dukeread08>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
| > rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is
clear
| > evidence to the contrary.
|
| yet another of example of stupidity in government.
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| trim posts? bah, who needs thats?
|

[Denny]

There has been at least one case in the past where a CFI was riding in
the back seat and was still held to be liable due to having the highest
rating...
The FAA and NTSB is not above lieing and cheating and using someone for
a scapegoat if it suits their interest... Just look at the Moussai
trial where an FAA attorney has just now tainted witnesses by briefing
them on prior testimony that they were not entitled to know... Typical
of the FAA/NTSB

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:37:28 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<NZiRf.117149$QW2.26358@dukeread08>::

>Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
>rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
>evidence to the contrary.

So on each flight, if one finds himself to hold the highest rating
among the occupants of a flight, he should scrutinize all aspects as
though he were PIC, as well as taking a position at which there are
flight controls, and even taking over those controls if he deems it
prudent?

[Aluckyguess]

He will win. He stated he doesnt give training. Its a shame they assume he
was pilot in command sitting in the right seat. The FAA should have to
reimburse in for the money he spent on his attorney.
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Pilot claims no blame in July crash
>
> By Andrew Dys
> The Herald
>
> http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/5585325p-5022727c.html
>
> The Ohio man who federal officials say was the pilot in a Rock Hill plane
> crash claims he is being wrongly blamed for the July accident, which left
> two other men dead.
> Matthew Sullivan, 24, of Dublin, Ohio, told federal investigators and The
> Herald he did not remember the flight or the crash and said he was not the
> pilot and wasn't acting as a flight instructor that day. But he did
> remember the day leading up to the flight, he said.
>
> "I was strictly a passenger," Sullivan said in an phone interview from
> Ohio, where he is recovering from serious injuries received in the crash.
>
> Sullivan was one of three men on board the single-engine plane, which
> crashed July 24 in a subdivision off Rawlinson Road, nearly one mile from
> the Rock Hill/York County Airport. The others on board, Rock Hill native
> Eric Johnson and Ohio dentist Bill Coulman, died.
>
> Johnson was coming to Rock Hill for a Northwestern High School class
> reunion, and Coulman owned the plane.
>
> Federal regulators reported that fuel mismanagement by the pilot was
> likely responsible for the crash. The mismanagement "resulted in fuel
> starvation and subsequent loss of engine power," a National Transportation
> Safety Board report states.
>
> The NTSB identifies the pilot as Sullivan, who was sitting in the right
> front seat of the plane and was the only one on board rated to fly under
> instrument flight rules. The plane flew on instrument flight rules until
> changing to visual flight rules four miles from the airport.
>
> Instrument flight rules flying requires a higher licensing level and radio
> contact between the plane and airport alerting the airport of the
> impending landing, federal officials have said.
>
> But Sullivan said he was invited by Coulman to be a passenger on the
> flight. Sullivan said he had known Coulman for about a year but met
> Johnson for the first time that morning at the Ohio State Airport in
> Columbus.
>
> Sullivan said he did not know he was the only one on board with an
> instrument flight rating and was not asked to be a flight instructor. He
> said he assumed Johnson had an instrument rating and was in charge.
>
> Coulman presented Johnson, who sat in the left front seat, as an Air Force
> veteran and an experienced pilot, he said. "I was picturing a 'Top Gun.'"
>
> The NTSB report describes Johnson and Coulman as "pilot rated passengers."
> Another part of the NTSB report describes the two as "passenger" and
> "student pilot." FAA records showed Johnson had been a licensed pilot
> since 1988.
>
> Sullivan blames Coulman and Johnson.
>
> "Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision
> as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB. "Mr.
> Johnson actually flew the plane knowing he did not have the certification
> or authority to do so. It would be an injustice to blame me (as an invited
> guest) for their errors."
>
> Sullivan said he is a flight instructor by training but was not acting as
> one that day for either Johnson or Coulman.
>
> "Matthew does not do for-hire flight instruction," his lawyer, Joe
> Coulter, said.
>
> Another lawyer for Sullivan, aviation law specialist Mark McDermott of
> Washington, D.C., said the government is making Sullivan a "scapegoat" for
> the crash. Both lawyers said Sullivan is being targeted by the federal
> government because he is the sole survivor of the crash.
>
> Federal officials declined to respond to the claims of Sullivan and his
> legal team.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration, which has enforcement and pilot
> licensing authority, confirmed it investigated Sullivan but took no action
> against him. Because there was no action taken, there is nothing for
> Sullivan to appeal, Southern region spokesperson Kathleen Bergen said.
>
> NTSB spokesperson Lauren Peduzzi reaffirmed both agencies show that
> Sullivan was flying the plane at the time of the accident and that the
> other two were passengers. The NTSB, which handles crash investigations,
> has closed its case and does not publicly respond to claims like
> Sullivan's, Peduzzi said.
>
> Sullivan can appeal the NTSB ruling and is taking the right steps to do so
> if he wants to be able to fly in the future, said Mike Hynes, who runs a
> Frederick, Okla., aviation consulting business that does investigations
> for pilots and their lawyers after crashes. Hynes is a former FAA examiner
> with more than 16,000 hours of flight time.
>
> It's not surprising the FAA decided not to cite Sullivan because, with the
> other men on board dead, it is hard to prove if he was acting as the
> flight instructor, Hynes said.
>
> However, Hynes is not surprised the NTSB ruled Sullivan was the flight
> instructor.
>
> "The normal rule of thumb is unless there is very clear evidence he was
> not the flight instructor, he would be assumed to be the flight
> instructor," Hynes said.
>
> The fuel selector switch is on the left part of the plane where Johnson
> was sitting, said both Hynes and Erik Rigler of San Antonio, Texas,
> another aviation expert who is a consultant in crashes and investigations.
>
> The pilot in command designation does not mean that person was handling
> all the controls, Hynes said, although the right hand seat does have
> access to some flight controls.
>
> The left front seat is generally called the pilot's seat, Hynes said.
>
> However, Johnson, in the left front seat, couldn't be considered the pilot
> in command if he was not instrument flight plan certified, Hynes said.
> Further, only an instrument rated pilot is supposed to be able to file an
> instrument flight plan, Hynes said.
>
> The question of whether an on-board flight instructor is responsible comes
> up often, Rigler said. A flight instructor himself, Rigler has had those
> concerns personally when flying with pilots who don't have his high
> ratings.
>
> A legal battle over liability is likely, both Hynes and Rigler said. The
> FAA taking no enforcement against Sullivan makes a very strong case
> against liability, Rigler said.
>
> Most similar cases end up in civil courts and can take five years or more
> to conclude, Hynes said.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There has been at least one case in the past where a CFI was riding in
> the back seat and was still held to be liable due to having the highest
> rating...

Do you have a reference to any documentation of this case?

Thanks,
Gary

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
> they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
> Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
> of the training, no?

I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with little
more than some IR training. This may be another such case.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Big John]

If I'm riding in back of a 747, can I be PIC? Seems some on this
thread have taken that poition.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:20:35 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>Pilot claims no blame in July crash
>
>By Andrew Dys
>The Herald
>
>http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/5585325p-5022727c.html
>
>The Ohio man who federal officials say was the pilot in a Rock Hill plane crash
>claims he is being wrongly blamed for the July accident, which left two other
>men dead.
>Matthew Sullivan, 24, of Dublin, Ohio, told federal investigators and The Herald
>he did not remember the flight or the crash and said he was not the pilot and
>wasn't acting as a flight instructor that day. But he did remember the day
>leading up to the flight, he said.
>
>"I was strictly a passenger," Sullivan said in an phone interview from Ohio,
>where he is recovering from serious injuries received in the crash.
>
>Sullivan was one of three men on board the single-engine plane, which crashed
>July 24 in a subdivision off Rawlinson Road, nearly one mile from the Rock
>Hill/York County Airport. The others on board, Rock Hill native Eric Johnson and
>Ohio dentist Bill Coulman, died.
>
>Johnson was coming to Rock Hill for a Northwestern High School class reunion,
>and Coulman owned the plane.
>
>Federal regulators reported that fuel mismanagement by the pilot was likely
>responsible for the crash. The mismanagement "resulted in fuel starvation and
>subsequent loss of engine power," a National Transportation Safety Board report
>states.
>
>The NTSB identifies the pilot as Sullivan, who was sitting in the right front
>seat of the plane and was the only one on board rated to fly under instrument
>flight rules. The plane flew on instrument flight rules until changing to visual
>flight rules four miles from the airport.
>
>Instrument flight rules flying requires a higher licensing level and radio
>contact between the plane and airport alerting the airport of the impending
>landing, federal officials have said.
>
>But Sullivan said he was invited by Coulman to be a passenger on the flight.
>Sullivan said he had known Coulman for about a year but met Johnson for the
>first time that morning at the Ohio State Airport in Columbus.
>
>Sullivan said he did not know he was the only one on board with an instrument
>flight rating and was not asked to be a flight instructor. He said he assumed
>Johnson had an instrument rating and was in charge.
>
>Coulman presented Johnson, who sat in the left front seat, as an Air Force
>veteran and an experienced pilot, he said. "I was picturing a 'Top Gun.'"
>
>The NTSB report describes Johnson and Coulman as "pilot rated passengers."
>Another part of the NTSB report describes the two as "passenger" and "student
>pilot." FAA records showed Johnson had been a licensed pilot since 1988.
>
>Sullivan blames Coulman and Johnson.
>
>"Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision as to
>who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB. "Mr. Johnson actually
>flew the plane knowing he did not have the certification or authority to do so.
>It would be an injustice to blame me (as an invited guest) for their errors."
>
>Sullivan said he is a flight instructor by training but was not acting as one
>that day for either Johnson or Coulman.
>
>"Matthew does not do for-hire flight instruction," his lawyer, Joe Coulter,
>said.
>
>Another lawyer for Sullivan, aviation law specialist Mark McDermott of
>Washington, D.C., said the government is making Sullivan a "scapegoat" for the
>crash. Both lawyers said Sullivan is being targeted by the federal government
>because he is the sole survivor of the crash.
>
>Federal officials declined to respond to the claims of Sullivan and his legal
>team.
>
>The Federal Aviation Administration, which has enforcement and pilot licensing
>authority, confirmed it investigated Sullivan but took no action against him.
>Because there was no action taken, there is nothing for Sullivan to appeal,
>Southern region spokesperson Kathleen Bergen said.
>
>NTSB spokesperson Lauren Peduzzi reaffirmed both agencies show that Sullivan was
>flying the plane at the time of the accident and that the other two were
>passengers. The NTSB, which handles crash investigations, has closed its case
>and does not publicly respond to claims like Sullivan's, Peduzzi said.
>
>Sullivan can appeal the NTSB ruling and is taking the right steps to do so if he
>wants to be able to fly in the future, said Mike Hynes, who runs a Frederick,
>Okla., aviation consulting business that does investigations for pilots and
>their lawyers after crashes. Hynes is a former FAA examiner with more than
>16,000 hours of flight time.
>
>It's not surprising the FAA decided not to cite Sullivan because, with the other
>men on board dead, it is hard to prove if he was acting as the flight
>instructor, Hynes said.
>
>However, Hynes is not surprised the NTSB ruled Sullivan was the flight
>instructor.
>
>"The normal rule of thumb is unless there is very clear evidence he was not the
>flight instructor, he would be assumed to be the flight instructor," Hynes said.
>
>The fuel selector switch is on the left part of the plane where Johnson was
>sitting, said both Hynes and Erik Rigler of San Antonio, Texas, another aviation
>expert who is a consultant in crashes and investigations.
>
>The pilot in command designation does not mean that person was handling all the
>controls, Hynes said, although the right hand seat does have access to some
>flight controls.
>
>The left front seat is generally called the pilot's seat, Hynes said.
>
>However, Johnson, in the left front seat, couldn't be considered the pilot in
>command if he was not instrument flight plan certified, Hynes said. Further,
>only an instrument rated pilot is supposed to be able to file an instrument
>flight plan, Hynes said.
>
>The question of whether an on-board flight instructor is responsible comes up
>often, Rigler said. A flight instructor himself, Rigler has had those concerns
>personally when flying with pilots who don't have his high ratings.
>
>A legal battle over liability is likely, both Hynes and Rigler said. The FAA
>taking no enforcement against Sullivan makes a very strong case against
>liability, Rigler said.
>
>Most similar cases end up in civil courts and can take five years or more to
>conclude, Hynes said.

[Jim Macklin]

In the airlines, part 121, the PIC is designated and remains
PIC even on the potty or asleep.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
| If I'm riding in back of a 747, can I be PIC? Seems some
on this
| thread have taken that poition.
|
| Big John
| `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```
|
| On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:20:35 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
| > wrote:
|
| >Pilot claims no blame in July crash
| >
| >By Andrew Dys
| >The Herald
| >
|
>http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/5585325p-5022727c.html
| >
| >The Ohio man who federal officials say was the pilot in a
Rock Hill plane crash
| >claims he is being wrongly blamed for the July accident,
which left two other
| >men dead.
| >Matthew Sullivan, 24, of Dublin, Ohio, told federal
investigators and The Herald
| >he did not remember the flight or the crash and said he
was not the pilot and
| >wasn't acting as a flight instructor that day. But he did
remember the day
| >leading up to the flight, he said.
| >
| >"I was strictly a passenger," Sullivan said in an phone
interview from Ohio,
| >where he is recovering from serious injuries received in
the crash.
| >
| >Sullivan was one of three men on board the single-engine
plane, which crashed
| >July 24 in a subdivision off Rawlinson Road, nearly one
mile from the Rock
| >Hill/York County Airport. The others on board, Rock Hill
native Eric Johnson and
| >Ohio dentist Bill Coulman, died.
| >
| >Johnson was coming to Rock Hill for a Northwestern High
School class reunion,
| >and Coulman owned the plane.
| >
| >Federal regulators reported that fuel mismanagement by
the pilot was likely
| >responsible for the crash. The mismanagement "resulted in
fuel starvation and
| >subsequent loss of engine power," a National
Transportation Safety Board report
| >states.
| >
| >The NTSB identifies the pilot as Sullivan, who was
sitting in the right front
| >seat of the plane and was the only one on board rated to
fly under instrument
| >flight rules. The plane flew on instrument flight rules
until changing to visual
| >flight rules four miles from the airport.
| >
| >Instrument flight rules flying requires a higher
licensing level and radio
| >contact between the plane and airport alerting the
airport of the impending
| >landing, federal officials have said.
| >
| >But Sullivan said he was invited by Coulman to be a
passenger on the flight.
| >Sullivan said he had known Coulman for about a year but
met Johnson for the
| >first time that morning at the Ohio State Airport in
Columbus.
| >
| >Sullivan said he did not know he was the only one on
board with an instrument
| >flight rating and was not asked to be a flight
instructor. He said he assumed
| >Johnson had an instrument rating and was in charge.
| >
| >Coulman presented Johnson, who sat in the left front
seat, as an Air Force
| >veteran and an experienced pilot, he said. "I was
picturing a 'Top Gun.'"
| >
| >The NTSB report describes Johnson and Coulman as "pilot
rated passengers."
| >Another part of the NTSB report describes the two as
"passenger" and "student
| >pilot." FAA records showed Johnson had been a licensed
pilot since 1988.
| >
| >Sullivan blames Coulman and Johnson.
| >
| >"Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and
made the decision as to
| >who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB.
"Mr. Johnson actually
| >flew the plane knowing he did not have the certification
or authority to do so.
| >It would be an injustice to blame me (as an invited
guest) for their errors."
| >
| >Sullivan said he is a flight instructor by training but
was not acting as one
| >that day for either Johnson or Coulman.
| >
| >"Matthew does not do for-hire flight instruction," his
lawyer, Joe Coulter,
| >said.
| >
| >Another lawyer for Sullivan, aviation law specialist Mark
McDermott of
| >Washington, D.C., said the government is making Sullivan
a "scapegoat" for the
| >crash. Both lawyers said Sullivan is being targeted by
the federal government
| >because he is the sole survivor of the crash.
| >
| >Federal officials declined to respond to the claims of
Sullivan and his legal
| >team.
| >
| >The Federal Aviation Administration, which has
enforcement and pilot licensing
| >authority, confirmed it investigated Sullivan but took no
action against him.
| >Because there was no action taken, there is nothing for
Sullivan to appeal,
| >Southern region spokesperson Kathleen Bergen said.
| >
| >NTSB spokesperson Lauren Peduzzi reaffirmed both agencies
show that Sullivan was
| >flying the plane at the time of the accident and that the
other two were
| >passengers. The NTSB, which handles crash investigations,
has closed its case
| >and does not publicly respond to claims like Sullivan's,
Peduzzi said.
| >
| >Sullivan can appeal the NTSB ruling and is taking the
right steps to do so if he
| >wants to be able to fly in the future, said Mike Hynes,
who runs a Frederick,
| >Okla., aviation consulting business that does
investigations for pilots and
| >their lawyers after crashes. Hynes is a former FAA
examiner with more than
| >16,000 hours of flight time.
| >
| >It's not surprising the FAA decided not to cite Sullivan
because, with the other
| >men on board dead, it is hard to prove if he was acting
as the flight
| >instructor, Hynes said.
| >
| >However, Hynes is not surprised the NTSB ruled Sullivan
was the flight
| >instructor.
| >
| >"The normal rule of thumb is unless there is very clear
evidence he was not the
| >flight instructor, he would be assumed to be the flight
instructor," Hynes said.
| >
| >The fuel selector switch is on the left part of the plane
where Johnson was
| >sitting, said both Hynes and Erik Rigler of San Antonio,
Texas, another aviation
| >expert who is a consultant in crashes and investigations.
| >
| >The pilot in command designation does not mean that
person was handling all the
| >controls, Hynes said, although the right hand seat does
have access to some
| >flight controls.
| >
| >The left front seat is generally called the pilot's seat,
Hynes said.
| >
| >However, Johnson, in the left front seat, couldn't be
considered the pilot in
| >command if he was not instrument flight plan certified,
Hynes said. Further,
| >only an instrument rated pilot is supposed to be able to
file an instrument
| >flight plan, Hynes said.
| >
| >The question of whether an on-board flight instructor is
responsible comes up
| >often, Rigler said. A flight instructor himself, Rigler
has had those concerns
| >personally when flying with pilots who don't have his
high ratings.
| >
| >A legal battle over liability is likely, both Hynes and
Rigler said. The FAA
| >taking no enforcement against Sullivan makes a very
strong case against
| >liability, Rigler said.
| >
| >Most similar cases end up in civil courts and can take
five years or more to
| >conclude, Hynes said.
|

[Aluckyguess]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> If I'm riding in back of a 747, can I be PIC? Seems some on this
> thread have taken that poition.
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```
Only if it crashed and your the only surviving pilot.



> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:20:35 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> > wrote:
>
>>Pilot claims no blame in July crash
>>
>>By Andrew Dys
>>The Herald
>>
>>http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/5585325p-5022727c.html
>>
>>The Ohio man who federal officials say was the pilot in a Rock Hill plane
>>crash
>>claims he is being wrongly blamed for the July accident, which left two
>>other
>>men dead.
>>Matthew Sullivan, 24, of Dublin, Ohio, told federal investigators and The
>>Herald
>>he did not remember the flight or the crash and said he was not the pilot
>>and
>>wasn't acting as a flight instructor that day. But he did remember the day
>>leading up to the flight, he said.
>>
>>"I was strictly a passenger," Sullivan said in an phone interview from
>>Ohio,
>>where he is recovering from serious injuries received in the crash.
>>
>>Sullivan was one of three men on board the single-engine plane, which
>>crashed
>>July 24 in a subdivision off Rawlinson Road, nearly one mile from the Rock
>>Hill/York County Airport. The others on board, Rock Hill native Eric
>>Johnson and
>>Ohio dentist Bill Coulman, died.
>>
>>Johnson was coming to Rock Hill for a Northwestern High School class
>>reunion,
>>and Coulman owned the plane.
>>
>>Federal regulators reported that fuel mismanagement by the pilot was
>>likely
>>responsible for the crash. The mismanagement "resulted in fuel starvation
>>and
>>subsequent loss of engine power," a National Transportation Safety Board
>>report
>>states.
>>
>>The NTSB identifies the pilot as Sullivan, who was sitting in the right
>>front
>>seat of the plane and was the only one on board rated to fly under
>>instrument
>>flight rules. The plane flew on instrument flight rules until changing to
>>visual
>>flight rules four miles from the airport.
>>
>>Instrument flight rules flying requires a higher licensing level and radio
>>contact between the plane and airport alerting the airport of the
>>impending
>>landing, federal officials have said.
>>
>>But Sullivan said he was invited by Coulman to be a passenger on the
>>flight.
>>Sullivan said he had known Coulman for about a year but met Johnson for
>>the
>>first time that morning at the Ohio State Airport in Columbus.
>>
>>Sullivan said he did not know he was the only one on board with an
>>instrument
>>flight rating and was not asked to be a flight instructor. He said he
>>assumed
>>Johnson had an instrument rating and was in charge.
>>
>>Coulman presented Johnson, who sat in the left front seat, as an Air Force
>>veteran and an experienced pilot, he said. "I was picturing a 'Top Gun.'"
>>
>>The NTSB report describes Johnson and Coulman as "pilot rated passengers."
>>Another part of the NTSB report describes the two as "passenger" and
>>"student
>>pilot." FAA records showed Johnson had been a licensed pilot since 1988.
>>
>>Sullivan blames Coulman and Johnson.
>>
>>"Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision
>>as to
>>who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB. "Mr. Johnson
>>actually
>>flew the plane knowing he did not have the certification or authority to
>>do so.
>>It would be an injustice to blame me (as an invited guest) for their
>>errors."
>>
>>Sullivan said he is a flight instructor by training but was not acting as
>>one
>>that day for either Johnson or Coulman.
>>
>>"Matthew does not do for-hire flight instruction," his lawyer, Joe
>>Coulter,
>>said.
>>
>>Another lawyer for Sullivan, aviation law specialist Mark McDermott of
>>Washington, D.C., said the government is making Sullivan a "scapegoat" for
>>the
>>crash. Both lawyers said Sullivan is being targeted by the federal
>>government
>>because he is the sole survivor of the crash.
>>
>>Federal officials declined to respond to the claims of Sullivan and his
>>legal
>>team.
>>
>>The Federal Aviation Administration, which has enforcement and pilot
>>licensing
>>authority, confirmed it investigated Sullivan but took no action against
>>him.
>>Because there was no action taken, there is nothing for Sullivan to
>>appeal,
>>Southern region spokesperson Kathleen Bergen said.
>>
>>NTSB spokesperson Lauren Peduzzi reaffirmed both agencies show that
>>Sullivan was
>>flying the plane at the time of the accident and that the other two were
>>passengers. The NTSB, which handles crash investigations, has closed its
>>case
>>and does not publicly respond to claims like Sullivan's, Peduzzi said.
>>
>>Sullivan can appeal the NTSB ruling and is taking the right steps to do so
>>if he
>>wants to be able to fly in the future, said Mike Hynes, who runs a
>>Frederick,
>>Okla., aviation consulting business that does investigations for pilots
>>and
>>their lawyers after crashes. Hynes is a former FAA examiner with more than
>>16,000 hours of flight time.
>>
>>It's not surprising the FAA decided not to cite Sullivan because, with the
>>other
>>men on board dead, it is hard to prove if he was acting as the flight
>>instructor, Hynes said.
>>
>>However, Hynes is not surprised the NTSB ruled Sullivan was the flight
>>instructor.
>>
>>"The normal rule of thumb is unless there is very clear evidence he was
>>not the
>>flight instructor, he would be assumed to be the flight instructor," Hynes
>>said.
>>
>>The fuel selector switch is on the left part of the plane where Johnson
>>was
>>sitting, said both Hynes and Erik Rigler of San Antonio, Texas, another
>>aviation
>>expert who is a consultant in crashes and investigations.
>>
>>The pilot in command designation does not mean that person was handling
>>all the
>>controls, Hynes said, although the right hand seat does have access to
>>some
>>flight controls.
>>
>>The left front seat is generally called the pilot's seat, Hynes said.
>>
>>However, Johnson, in the left front seat, couldn't be considered the pilot
>>in
>>command if he was not instrument flight plan certified, Hynes said.
>>Further,
>>only an instrument rated pilot is supposed to be able to file an
>>instrument
>>flight plan, Hynes said.
>>
>>The question of whether an on-board flight instructor is responsible comes
>>up
>>often, Rigler said. A flight instructor himself, Rigler has had those
>>concerns
>>personally when flying with pilots who don't have his high ratings.
>>
>>A legal battle over liability is likely, both Hynes and Rigler said. The
>>FAA
>>taking no enforcement against Sullivan makes a very strong case against
>>liability, Rigler said.
>>
>>Most similar cases end up in civil courts and can take five years or more
>>to
>>conclude, Hynes said.
>

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
>> they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
>> Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
>> of the training, no?
>
> I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with
> little more than some IR training. This may be another such case.

Evidence? Reasoning?

m

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-13, > wrote:
>
> One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
> they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
> Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
> of the training, no?

No they don't. While training and doing IFR flights under IFR flight
plans as a student, I always filed with my own name (even though the
CFII was the PIC). I had to file an IFR flight plan for my checkride,
too. The DE didn't even comment when I filed it under my own name.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jim Macklin]

European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the name
on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
pilot.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
| On 2006-03-13,
> wrote:
| >
| > One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR
flight plan, do
| > they? What about a pilot that is working toward their
instrument rating?
| > Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them,
filing is all part
| > of the training, no?
|
| No they don't. While training and doing IFR flights under
IFR flight
| plans as a student, I always filed with my own name (even
though the
| CFII was the PIC). I had to file an IFR flight plan for my
checkride,
| too. The DE didn't even comment when I filed it under my
own name.
|
| --
| Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
| Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
| Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:
http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
| Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Barrow]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
>>> they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
>>> Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
>>> of the training, no?
>>
>> I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with
>> little more than some IR training. This may be another such case.
>
> Evidence? Reasoning?
>
What part of the word "suspect" don't you comprehend?

Aside from that, my evidence is NTSB reports I've read and that about one
driver in ten on the roads do not have valid drivers licenses; which is more
likely to get caught, driver or pilot?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:3UrRf.117236$QW2.39755@dukeread08...
> In the airlines, part 121, the PIC is designated and remains
> PIC even on the potty or asleep.

Or both simutaneously.

[Jim Macklin]

LOL
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:3UrRf.117236$QW2.39755@dukeread08...
| > In the airlines, part 121, the PIC is designated and
remains
| > PIC even on the potty or asleep.
|
| Or both simutaneously.
|
|
|
|

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:

> One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
> they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
> Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
> of the training, no?

Technically no. However, the pilot in command's name must be listed
on the flight plan. If you actually fly the plan, that name had better
be a pilot who is rated and current for the operation. It's compounded
by DUAT which won't let you insert any name other than the account
holder in the PIC block.

[Ron Natalie]

Denny wrote:
> There has been at least one case in the past where a CFI was riding in
> the back seat and was still held to be liable due to having the highest
> rating...

Actually, the rule is the FAA goes after whoever will suffer the most
from the ruling. In this case, the live, CFI will. Given the choice
between a working ATP and a casual CFI, they'd go after the ATP with
a suspension.

>

[karl gruber]

>>>In the airlines, part 121, the PIC is designated and remains
>>>PIC even on the potty or asleep.

Even if the PIC dies in flight, he remains the PIC. If the SIC has to
take control after the PIC's death he is merely carrying out the duties
of his SIC role.
Karl
ATP ETC

[Jim Macklin]

What if the PIC is a union member and the union calls a
strike while the flight is in the air? If the PIC strikes
and the SIC doesn't or if the whole crew goes out on strike?
Obviously, if the pilot dies, the SIC becomes the PIC and is
responsible for the remainder of the flight. This has
happened on several flights with airlines. It is why wives
take Pinch-Hitter classes...

What I want to know is, if I'm in the passenger compartment
of a modern, terror-proofed airliner and the whole flight
deck crew dies from a death-ray from a UFO and I'm the last
pilot alive on the airplane... do I become pilot in command
and will the airline pay me retirement benefits? What if I
can't get into the cockpit to save the plane and passengers?
They need a ground based door over-ride that can detect
whether the crew is alive, and allow the door to be unlocked
so Walter Mitty can save the day.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

How about those TSA lawyers screwing with the jury?
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.





"karl gruber" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| >>>In the airlines, part 121, the PIC is designated and
remains
| >>>PIC even on the potty or asleep.
|
| Even if the PIC dies in flight, he remains the PIC. If the
SIC has to
| take control after the PIC's death he is merely carrying
out the duties
| of his SIC role.
| Karl
| ATP ETC
|

[WRE]

It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file an IFR flight plan
and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have an instrument
rating.

How hard would it be for the FAA to require a Certificate # and cross
reference it with the name given when filing a flight plan?

JMHO
"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:sVhRf.117141$QW2.87164@dukeread08...
> You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a computer
> on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on the
> flight plan and if that person is legal and who is claimed.
> Only after an accident or other investigation is the actual
> identity of the people on the airplane established.
>
> If your passengers know your name and they want to use your
> name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics to
> stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
> want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the flight
> departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did not
> file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full details
> of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But if
> you care, make it a FACT.
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.
>
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
> | Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> |
> | > "Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and
> made the decision
> | > as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the
> NTSB.
> |
> | How could this be in question? If a flight plan was
> filed, it has a pilot's
> | name.
> |
> | - Andrew
> |
>
>

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow" >
>>> I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with
>>> little more than some IR training. This may be another such case.
>>
>> Evidence? Reasoning?
>>
> What part of the word "suspect" don't you comprehend?

Your question begging definition skills precede you. What do you mean by "a
lot"? Or "some IR training"?
>
> Aside from that, my evidence is NTSB reports I've read and that about one
> driver in ten on the roads do not have valid drivers licenses; which is
> more likely to get caught, driver or pilot.

Driver. But flying approaches in IMC with "little more than some IR
training" would likely result in lots of accidents. And I don't see any
evidence of this. (Departure or enroute IMC with an assured VMC destination
would be less problematic. Pray that a diversion isn't needed.)

moo

[Jose]

> It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file an IFR flight plan
> and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have an instrument
> rating.

Does it equally amaze you that you can get into an airplane and take off
without even having your license checked in the first place?

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

[Peter R.]

Jose > wrote:

>> It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file an IFR flight plan
>> and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have an instrument
>> rating.
>
> Does it equally amaze you that you can get into an airplane and take off
> without even having your license checked in the first place?

Or drive an automobile. Hell, NY State has had magnetic strips on the back
of the driver's license for some time now, perhaps automobile manufacturers
should not allow the vehicle to start unless a valid driver's license is
authenticated with the Department of Motor Vehicles database via an onboard
card reader and a wireless link.


--
Peter

[Peter Clark]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:50:24 -0500, "WRE"
(remove nospam)> wrote:

>It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file an IFR flight plan
>and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have an instrument
>rating.
>
>How hard would it be for the FAA to require a Certificate # and cross
>reference it with the name given when filing a flight plan?

And for the 120 days after issuance but before the computer is updated
to show your rating?

(don't go there, we all know it shouldn't take 120 days for a
certificate to be issued, especially now that they want everything
done in self-validating IACRA and credit card companies can spit out
and ship new cards same-day........)

[Jim Macklin]

That is required now in the DC area to fly to/from the DC3
airports, you need a security clearance from DHS. We need
more "big brother" for "security" so let's require a call to
the local police before anyone leaves their house or place
of business for any movement in a public place or near a
public road or airport.
The required info MUST include names, DOB, SSN, DL #, car
tag, description of clothes, type of vehicle if used[ to
include tag number, color, mileage and how much gas is in
the tank]. All passengers must be identified my name, SSN
and age with a description].

This will make the world safe, kidnapping children will be
more difficult, bank robbers will be easily caught. If they
also cross-reference medical records, car accident victims
can get better treatment since the first responders can have
the medical history and blood types for everybody. DNA
samples will allow positive ID for fatal accidents and also
allow immediate ID for criminals.

And of course, all IPC would become required every six
months, at your expense. They would have to be certified
and reported to the FAA. The FAA is months behind issuing
medical certificates and such, let's increase the work-load,
after all, who can be against SAFETY.

Be Franklin was quoted as saying, "We have given you a
republic, if you can keep it." and "Those who would
sacrifice freedom for security will have neither."


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in
message ...
| It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file
an IFR flight plan
| and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have
an instrument
| rating.
|
| How hard would it be for the FAA to require a Certificate
# and cross
| reference it with the name given when filing a flight
plan?
|
| JMHO
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:sVhRf.117141$QW2.87164@dukeread08...
| > You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a
computer
| > on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on
the
| > flight plan and if that person is legal and who is
claimed.
| > Only after an accident or other investigation is the
actual
| > identity of the people on the airplane established.
| >
| > If your passengers know your name and they want to use
your
| > name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics
to
| > stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
| > want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the
flight
| > departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did
not
| > file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full
details
| > of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But
if
| > you care, make it a FACT.
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| > --
| > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| > some support
| > http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| > See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
| >
| >
| > "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
| >
online.com...
| > | Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
| > |
| > | > "Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan
and
| > made the decision
| > | > as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to
the
| > NTSB.
| > |
| > | How could this be in question? If a flight plan was
| > filed, it has a pilot's
| > | name.
| > |
| > | - Andrew
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
> European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the name
> on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
> pilot.
>

"Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there is no cross-check at
the time the flight plan is filed.

[Matt Barrow]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" >
>>>> I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with
>>>> little more than some IR training. This may be another such case.
>>>
>>> Evidence? Reasoning?
>>>
>> What part of the word "suspect" don't you comprehend?
>
> Your question begging definition skills precede you. What do you mean by
> "a lot"?

Several.

>Or "some IR training"?

Anywhere from a few hours up to "many, but never passed the final tests".

We had a doctor in town who practiced for several years before someone found
out he'd had nothing more than basic medical training.

>> Aside from that, my evidence is NTSB reports I've read and that about one
>> driver in ten on the roads do not have valid drivers licenses; which is
>> more likely to get caught, driver or pilot.
>
> Driver. But flying approaches in IMC with "little more than some IR
> training" would likely result in lots of accidents. And I don't see any
> evidence of this.

Dig deeper.

> (Departure or enroute IMC with an assured VMC destination would be less
> problematic. Pray that a diversion isn't needed.)

Yes...but not the point.

[RK Henry]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
>> European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the name
>> on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
>> pilot.
>>
>
>"Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there is no cross-check at
>the time the flight plan is filed.

Even if there were a cross-check that a pilot holds an instrument
rating, there's no practical way to cross-check whether the pilot is
instrument current.

RK Henry

[Matt Barrow]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
>>> European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the name
>>> on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
>>> pilot.
>>>
>>
>>"Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there is no cross-check
>>at
>>the time the flight plan is filed.
>
> Even if there were a cross-check that a pilot holds an instrument
> rating, there's no practical way to cross-check whether the pilot is
> instrument current.
>
Quite, and that's quite prevalent in accident reports.

[Jim Macklin]

No check is made unless there is an incident or accident.
But to be legal...


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
| > European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the
name
| > on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
| > pilot.
| >
|
| "Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there is
no cross-check at
| the time the flight plan is filed.
|
|
|

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:c0LRf.117432$QW2.63109@dukeread08...
> No check is made unless there is an incident or accident.
> But to be legal...

Yeah...that stops MOST people...

>
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
> | > European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the
> name
> | > on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
> | > pilot.
> | >
> |
> | "Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there is
> no cross-check at
> | the time the flight plan is filed.
> |
> |
> |
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

Unless you are a terrorist or smuggler or airplane thief.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:c0LRf.117432$QW2.63109@dukeread08...
| > No check is made unless there is an incident or
accident.
| > But to be legal...
|
| Yeah...that stops MOST people...
|
| >
| >
| > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
| > | > European and UK rules may be different, in the USA,
the
| > name
| > | > on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR
rated
| > | > pilot.
| > | >
| > |
| > | "Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there
is
| > no cross-check at
| > | the time the flight plan is filed.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Skywise]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
news:IVIRf.117387$QW2.48495@dukeread08:

<Snipola>

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ss1.jpg

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Dave Stadt]

"WRE" (remove nospam)> wrote in message
...
> It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file an IFR flight
> plan and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have an
> instrument rating.
>
> How hard would it be for the FAA to require a Certificate # and cross
> reference it with the name given when filing a flight plan?

You must nave really gotten cranked up when you heard about the airline
pilot that had no pilot certificate of any kind,

[Dave Stadt]

"RK Henry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
>>> European and UK rules may be different, in the USA, the name
>>> on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR rated
>>> pilot.
>>>
>>
>>"Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there is no cross-check
>>at
>>the time the flight plan is filed.
>
> Even if there were a cross-check that a pilot holds an instrument
> rating, there's no practical way to cross-check whether the pilot is
> instrument current.
>
> RK Henry

It is all a moot point as one could simply use the name of any known current
instrument rated pilot.

[Jim Macklin]

Poor Barney Fife
"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in
| news:IVIRf.117387$QW2.48495@dukeread08:
|
| <Snipola>
|
| http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ss1.jpg
|
| Brian
| --
| http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy,
Skepticism
| Seismic FAQ:
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
| Quake "predictions":
http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
| Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jim Macklin]

Maybe THEY can post a TSA agent or a US Marshall at every
airport to check for ID, drugs, certificates, "Your papers,
please NOW"

After the computer check, logbook check and drug/alcohol
screening you get to fly. It would make aviation "safer"
and the user fees would pay for the SERVICE.

Some Congressman proposed that before every take-off the TSA
would have to approve every flight and that would include
the rancher in Wyoming checking his fences and cattle with a
J3 Cub. Every time he landed, he'd have to get another TSA
approval, luckily that was stopped [nasty AOPA lobbied it
dead] but the evil forces in government will try anything.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
et...
|
| "RK Henry" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 18:14:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
| > > wrote:
| >
| >>
| >>"Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| >>news:0SARf.117287$QW2.428@dukeread08...
| >>> European and UK rules may be different, in the USA,
the name
| >>> on an IFR flight plan as PIC must be a current IFR
rated
| >>> pilot.
| >>>
| >>
| >>"Must be" and "is" are not necessarily the same; there
is no cross-check
| >>at
| >>the time the flight plan is filed.
| >
| > Even if there were a cross-check that a pilot holds an
instrument
| > rating, there's no practical way to cross-check whether
the pilot is
| > instrument current.
| >
| > RK Henry
|
| It is all a moot point as one could simply use the name of
any known current
| instrument rated pilot.
|
|

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:yyQRf.117463$QW2.74623@dukeread08...
>
> Some Congressman proposed that before every take-off the TSA
> would have to approve every flight and that would include
> the rancher in Wyoming checking his fences and cattle with a
> J3 Cub.

Who might that Congresscritter be?

[Jim Macklin]

I don't remember offhand, I'll see if I can get the name.
Somewhere back east. I'll try Google and the AOPA.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:yyQRf.117463$QW2.74623@dukeread08...
| >
| > Some Congressman proposed that before every take-off the
TSA
| > would have to approve every flight and that would
include
| > the rancher in Wyoming checking his fences and cattle
with a
| > J3 Cub.
|
| Who might that Congresscritter be?
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

About AOPAAbout AOPAHow to JoinHow to JoinAOPA
SweepstakesAOPA SweepstakesAOPA Member ProductsAOPA Member
ProductsCareers with AOPACareers with AOPAHeadquarters
TourHeadquarters TourHistory of AOPAHistory of AOPAAOPA's
MissionAOPA's MissionAOPA ExpoAOPA ExpoOther AOPA
OrganizationsOther AOPA OrganizationsAdvocacyAdvocacyOn
Capitol HillOn Capitol HillRegulatory & Certification
PolicyRegulatory & Certification PolicySport Pilot/Light
Sport AircraftSport Pilot/Light Sport AircraftGuide to TSA's
Alien Flight Training RuleGuide to TSA's Alien Flight
Training RuleAir Traffic Services & TechnologyAir Traffic
Services & TechnologyRegional AffairsRegional
AffairsPresident's PagePresident's PageCommunications
ResourcesCommunications ResourcesAirport Support
NetworkAirport Support NetworkAirport WatchAirport WatchAOPA
MagazinesAOPA MagazinesAOPA PilotAOPA PilotAOPA Flight
TrainingAOPA Flight TrainingAOPA Online GalleryAOPA Online
GalleryBuyers' GuidesBuyers' GuidesAdvertiser
IndexAdvertiser IndexAdvertising InformationAdvertising
InformationWeb LinksWeb LinksMember ProductsMember
ProductsAbout Member ProductsAbout Member ProductsOwnership
ServicesOwnership ServicesFinancial ServicesFinancial
ServicesInsurance ServicesInsurance ServicesPilot
ServicesPilot ServicesWhat's NewWhat's NewAir Safety
FoundationAir Safety FoundationCFI RenewalCFI RenewalOnline
CoursesOnline CoursesSafety SeminarsSafety SeminarsSafety
Topic IndexSafety Topic
IndexPublicationsPublicationsAccident
Database/AnalysisAccident Database/AnalysisSafety Hot
SpotSafety Hot SpotNow FeaturingNow FeaturingYour Donation
Helps GAYour Donation Helps GAASF StoreASF StoreAbout
ASFAbout ASFContact ASFContact ASFPresident's
PagePresident's PagePresident's PositionPresident's
PositionPilot Town MeetingsPilot Town MeetingsLearn to
FlyLearn to FlyFree Offer for Student PilotsFree Offer for
Student PilotsWhy I FlyWhy I FlyStarting Your Flight
TrainingStarting Your Flight TrainingFind a Local Flight
SchoolFind a Local Flight SchoolGetting Back Into
FlyingGetting Back Into FlyingAOPA Flight TrainingAOPA
Flight TrainingAOPA Project PilotAOPA Project PilotAOPA
Flight Training InstructorAOPA Flight Training
InstructorAviation Education for YouthAviation Education for
YouthRegister For AccessRegister For AccessMembers
HomeMembers HomeRenew your AOPA MembershipRenew your AOPA
MembershipCustomize Your LoginCustomize Your LoginGet Your
Login HintGet Your Login HintLogin FAQsLogin FAQsLog in
Without a CookieLog in Without a CookieMember ProfileMember
ProfileJoin AOPAJoin AOPAChange your Membership
AddressChange your Membership AddressChange your Email
AddressChange your Email AddressUpdate your Phone
NumberUpdate your Phone NumberWeatherWeatherSatellite
ImagerySatellite ImageryRadar ImageryRadar ImagerySurface
Weather ImagerySurface Weather ImageryUpper Air ImageryUpper
Air ImageryTextual WeatherTextual WeatherAirport
DirectoryAirport DirectoryInstrument Approach
ProceduresInstrument Approach ProceduresMy ProceduresMy
ProceduresSpecial-use AirspaceSpecial-use AirspaceeDirectory
DownloadseDirectory DownloadsCurrent Medical UpdatesCurrent
Medical UpdatesAviation Medical ExaminersAviation Medical
ExaminersFAA MedicationsFAA MedicationsFAR Part 67FAR Part
67Medical FAQsMedical FAQsMedical Status RequestMedical
Status RequestMedical Subject ReportsMedical Subject
ReportsMeet the Medical TeamMeet the Medical TeamPilot's
Guide to Medical CertificationPilot's Guide to Medical
CertificationTurboMedical® Interactive Medical Application
FormTurboMedical® Interactive Medical Application FormAME
Assisted Special IssuanceAME Assisted Special IssuanceWeb
LinksWeb LinksPilot Information CenterPilot Information
CenterAircraft OwnershipAircraft OwnershipPlanning a
FlightPlanning a FlightBecoming a PilotBecoming a
PilotAdvanced Flight TrainingAdvanced Flight
TrainingLibraryLibraryInternational Flying and
AlaskaInternational Flying and AlaskaMedical
CertificationMedical CertificationWhat's NewWhat's NewWhat's
New OnlineWhat's New OnlineNews Release ArchiveNews Release
ArchiveGA StatisticsGA StatisticsAOPA's Aviation Fact
CardAOPA's Aviation Fact CardAOPA General Aviation Trends
ReportAOPA General Aviation Trends ReportAOPA Member
ProductsAOPA Member ProductsCalendar of Aviation
EventsCalendar of Aviation EventsAOPA NewsroomAOPA
NewsroomAviation ClassifiedsAviation ClassifiedsKeyword
SearchKeyword SearchAdd a Classified AdAdd a Classified AdIn
Search of...In Search of... Instructor Postings
Instructor Postings Add an Instructor Posting Add an
Instructor Posting Flight School Postings Flight School
Postings Add a Flight School Posting Add a Flight School
PostingJoin AOPAJoin AOPANew Member Quick AppNew Member
Quick AppRenew your AOPA MembershipRenew your AOPA
MembershipAOPA ExpoAOPA ExpoAOPA Fly-inAOPA Fly-inPilot Town
MeetingsPilot Town MeetingsAviation EventsAviation
EventsAOPA ePilotAOPA ePilotAOPA ePilot Flight Training
EditionAOPA ePilot Flight Training EditionNewsletter
ArchivesNewsletter ArchivesManage Your SubscriptionManage
Your
Subscriptionhttp://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040915security.html

House aviation subcommittee advances aviation security bill
AOPA work blocks anti-GA proposal
The House aviation subcommittee Wednesday advanced an
aviation security bill, but anti-general aviation security
procedures proposed by New York Congressman Anthony D.
Weiner weren't part of it. AOPA had worked quickly with key
members of the subcommittee to make sure Weiner's bill
wasn't included. Weiner introduced legislation last week
that would require airline-style security screening and
continuous contact with the FAA for every GA flight.

At an aviation subcommittee hearing Wednesday to review any
changes to the aviation security bill before sending it to
the next level, Weiner acknowledged he had received
"additional insight" on general aviation security from other
committee members, including Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), a
pilot and AOPA member.

Boswell said he had a "lengthy discussion" with Weiner the
day before the hearing. The Iowa congressman said that
legitimate security concerns could be addressed with the
expertise in the federal government and "with the assistance
of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association."

AOPA has "put a lot of study into this on how we can deal
with these [security issues] without the broader impact that
Congressman Weiner is concerned about," Boswell said at
Wednesday's hearing. "I will be available to assist and I
know AOPA will available to assist."

(Listen to portions of Rep. Anthony Weiner's statements to
the House aviation subcommittee and the exchange with Rep.
Leonard Boswell.)

Weiner responded, "I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa
for giving me some additional insight into this issue. It is
an issue where it is very easy to identify the tree and lose
sight of the forest. We still want general aviation, we
still want commerce, we still want transportation to go on,
and for that reason I didn't offer this [amendment] today."

Before the hearing AOPA had registered its concerns about
the tremendous impact the bill could have on general
aviation directly with Weiner's staff. AOPA's legislative
affairs staff had also lobbied other influential members of
the aviation subcommittee and its parent committee, the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

"What happened in the aviation subcommittee on Wednesday
clearly illustrates AOPA's strong relationships and support
in Congress," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "For our
400,000 members, it is important to have a dedicated staff
on Capitol Hill working on behalf of pilots."

On September 8, the same day Weiner released his bill, an
AOPA legislative affairs staff member had met with Rep. Sam
Graves (R-Mo.), a member of the House aviation subcommittee,
to express opposition to the bill. Graves, a pilot and AOPA
member, confirmed he would oppose the bill.

AOPA also contacted subcommittee member Robin Hayes
(R-N.C.), a pilot and AOPA member, along with Boswell.

AOPA talked to the staff of aviation subcommittee Chairman
John Mica (R-Fla.) and Ranking Member Peter DeFazio
(D-Ore.); with chairman of the full Transportation
Committee, Don Young (R-Alaska); and with James Oberstar
(D-Minn.), the ranking member.

The leadership of both committees made it very clear there
would be no support for Weiner's bill. Without the backing
of the senior members of the aviation subcommittee and the
Transportation Committee, there's little chance a piece of
legislation will get passed. Weiner's bill is still
technically alive; he hasn't officially withdrawn it. But it
will die when Congress adjourns early next month if no
further action is taken.

"Weiner's bill would have to clear a lot of hurdles before
it would even be considered by the House," said Boyer.
"There are significant checks and balances to a piece of
legislation like this - the subcommittee, full committee,
full House - then the same over in the Senate.

"With our long experience in lobbying Congress, we know when
and how to target politicians to express our position,"
Boyer added. "Rarely has AOPA ever been placed in a position
to bring in the full power of our 400,000 members to stop a
bill on either the House or Senate floor because we work at
being effective well prior to that point. In this case, we
did just that and didn't need to call on our members for
assistance."

Weiner's bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Transportation
Security Administration to set up airline-style passenger
screening at every landing facility in the United States
(some 19,500) to screen every passenger boarding every
general aviation aircraft (more than 211,000) for every
flight (more than 43 million per year). That means the TSA
would have to conduct an additional 108 million passenger
screenings at more than 19,000 facilities where TSA today
doesn't currently have any officers. (Data from AOPA's 2004
Fact Card.)

But Weiner's bill wouldn't stop there. It would also require
every pilot of every flight to remain "in contact with the
Federal Aviation Administration regardless of the altitude
of such aircraft." That would increase the workload of air
traffic controllers by at least nine times, requiring the
agency to significantly increase the size of the workforce
and to install new communications and radar equipment to
cover all the areas of the country.

The aviation security bill that the subcommittee sent to the
House Transportation Committee on Wednesday deals primarily
with commercial aviation, where the risk of terrorism
remains greatest.

Update: September 16, 2004




©1995-2006 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:fTVRf.117485$QW2.69668@dukeread08...
|I don't remember offhand, I'll see if I can get the name.
| Somewhere back east. I'll try Google and the AOPA.
|
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| some support
| http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
| See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.
|
|
| "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| ...
||
|| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| in message
|| news:yyQRf.117463$QW2.74623@dukeread08...
|| >
|| > Some Congressman proposed that before every take-off
the
| TSA
|| > would have to approve every flight and that would
| include
|| > the rancher in Wyoming checking his fences and cattle
| with a
|| > J3 Cub.
||
|| Who might that Congresscritter be?
||
||
|
|

[Skylune]

Boyer: "With our long experience in lobbying Congress, we know when
and how to target politicians to express our position,"
Boyer added. "Rarely has AOPA ever been placed in a position
to bring in the full power of our 400,000 members to stop a
bill on either the House or Senate floor because we work at
being effective well prior to that point. In this case, we
did just that and didn't need to call on our members for
assistance."

<<

What a total load of BS, as usual. Having apparently lost on the really,
really big issues, ADIZ (and having gone apolplectic about the transcript
being pulled from the record) and user fees (though light GA may be
exempted from some fees), he takes credit for this ill-thought Weener bill
being pulled. A bill that has no support.

Does anyone know WHAT "rare" occassion he is referring to when AOPA
brought to "stop a bill on the House or Senate floor?" Maybe this has
happened in an episode of West Wing....

Junior Soprano has more marbles left than this guy, judging from the most
recent tirades about the ADIZ and user fees being the "death" of GA.
Ridiculous.

[Arketip]

WRE wrote:
> It really amazes me that in this day and age you can file an IFR flight plan
> and give any name you desire....and who knows if you have an instrument
> rating.
>
> How hard would it be for the FAA to require a Certificate # and cross
> reference it with the name given when filing a flight plan?
>

Well they would need a world wide database for one.

[Marco Leon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> >Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
> >rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
> >evidence to the contrary.
>
> So on each flight, if one finds himself to hold the highest rating
> among the occupants of a flight, he should scrutinize all aspects as
> though he were PIC, as well as taking a position at which there are
> flight controls, and even taking over those controls if he deems it
> prudent?

Also, the highest-rated pilot should be able to log the time as PIC while
sleeping in the back seat.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com